Wednesday, July 16, 2008 LTO 7 lost P19.8M to missing cashier
THE Land Transportation Office (LTO) 7 actually lost a total of P19.8 million to its cashier who went missing after she failed to account for the agency’s funds.
The amount is P14.8 million more than what an audit team initially discovered when it reviewed the LTO 7’s transactions for January to June 2007.
However, LTO 7 Assistant Director Edgar Catarongan, chairman of the Regional Administrative Action Board (RAAB), said they cannot take cognizance of Marissa Veriña’s case because it is now under investigation by the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas.
Catarongan said it is unbelievable that Veriña pulled off the embezzlement alone because based on the information he gathered, she did not live in luxury when she was still connected with LTO 7.
Veriña disappeared in September 2007 after her colleagues complained of not receiving their salaries for months already. Utility bills were also left unpaid when she vanished.
Efforts to locate proved futile; her residence in Barangay Tungkil, Minglanilla, Cebu has been abandoned shortly after her cash shortage was discovered.
Catarongan said that after she went absent without official leave, Veriña was dismissed from the service.
He also said that because Veriña’s case is still being investigated by the graft office and there is still no case filed against her before any court, no warrant of arrest could be issued against her.
“She can come out in the open without fear of being arrested. She can shed light how this P19.8 million was disbursed and who are the LTO officials or private individuals involved,” Catarongan said.
‘Name them’
Catarongan also said that once Veriña will squeal on the identities of the LTO personnel who benefited from the P19.8 million, he, as RAAB chairman, can initiate an investigation.
Under the law, the RAAB is tasked to investigate erring LTO officials and file cases against them if the evidence warrants.
Meanwhile, former Cebu City treasurer turned City Assessor Eustaquio Cesa yesterday washed his hands of the 1998 P11-million payroll scam.
Cesa was among four City Hall employees charged with violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for allegedly conspiring with former payroll master Cleofe Delute in acquiring unpaid cash advances amounting to more than P11 million.
“There was no notice of disallowance from the city auditor or the Commission on Audit (COA),” Cesa said on the witness stand.
He was on direct examination by lawyer Mario Ortiz, lawyer for Benilda Bacasmas, then cash division chief.
Cesa and Bacasmas were charged along with former city administrator Alan Gaviola and former city accountant Edna Jaca.
Demand letter
Unliquidated cash advances would have warranted a demand letter and an eventual disallowance in the next request for cash advance.
But it took three years before Delute’s cash advances caught the attention of COA, which noted a shortage of P11,180,033.92 in 1998. The unliquidated cash advances dated back in 1998.
In 2004, Regional Trial Court (RTC) Judge Meinrado Paredes sentenced Delute to 18 to 40 years in jail for embezzlement of public funds and banned her from public service.
“If there was notice, I would not have allowed additional case advances,” Cesa explained about the three-year signing of Delute’s cash advances.
“In your honest opinion, who is responsible for the unliquidated cash advances?” Ortiz continued his direct examination of Cesa.
Prosecutor John Turalba of the Office of the Special Prosecutor objected, saying the question called for an opinion.
Not an expert
“He is not qualified as an expert witness. He is presented to testify on facts so he cannot render legal opinion,” argued Turalba.
Justice Ma. Cristina Cortez-Estrada, chairperson of the presiding justices of the anti-graft court, sustained the objection, saying, “We already know the answer of the witness that he is not liable.”
Sitting with Estrada were Justices Rolando Jurado and Napoleon Inoturan.
Cesa continued to explain that in signing the cash advance, there was a legal document presented for the payment of salaries. If not, the city auditor would not have allowed it.
He also said that it has been a practice for a long time that if no disallowance is issued, then COA allows the signing of cash advance.
“So if it was practiced for a long time, it could not have been a violation?” asked Turalba.
Justice Estrada cut him off saying it is a matter for the court to decide.
As Turalba continued his cross-examination, Ortiz muttered that it was “boring.”
Estrada admonished the defense lawyer from uttering unnecessary comments and Turalba closed his cross-examination.
