By Jennifer P. Rendon
Twenty individuals from Antique province are facing criminal charges for alleged anomalies in the government’s emergency subsidy program amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Criminal Investigation and Detection Group 6 (CIDG-6) filed two criminal complaints against elected officials and employees of of Barangay Bita, Culasi and Barangay Zaldivar, Pandan town over alleged irregularites in the distribution of the Social Amelioration Program (SAP).
Cases for violation of Republic Act 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corruption Practices Act) and RA 11469 (Bayanihan to Heal as One Act) were filed against Barangay Captain Danilo Salmorin of Bita village and the seven barangay kagawad (village council members) Joeky Magayones, Bert Remotin, Ronald Oropil, Richard Cretencio, Reynaldo Magluyan, Gilbert Casiano, and Charlie Mangga.
Also charged were Matea Lorenzo and Ailyn Emar, who hold the post of barangay secretary and treasurer, respectively.
The CIDG-6 also filed the same charges against Zaldivar village head Estela Hindap and village council members Arnold Tordil, Vilma Bogoy, Jerlie Suclan, Vic Valeña, Luisa Gellado, Jireen Caspillo, and Aries Montero.
Other respondents were village secretary Benita Ascaño and treasurer Lyka Melchor.
The CIDG-6 lodged the charges before the Antique Provincial Prosecutor’s Office in San Jose town.
The cases were based on a complaint from a civilian informant regarding alleged anomalies during SAP distribution in July 2020.
CIDG-6 investigation showed that “the respondents connived and confederated with each other and committed the illegal acts by exercising their powers as elected barangay officials and appointed barangay employees in the selection of SAP applicants.”
Thus, the husband, wife, or son of the respondents were included in the list of beneficiaries which is in contradiction with the guidelines issued by the DSWD, the CIDG-6 probe said.
Meanwhile, 11 complainants accused officials of Barangay Zaldivar of anomalies in the SAP distribution done on April 28, 2020.
The complainants alleged that the respondents colluded with each other “by splitting and sharing the government cash aid between the qualified beneficiaries and those who were not qualified.”
As this developed, the CIDG-6 said a separate administrative case for violation of RA 6713 (Code of Ethical Standard of Public Official) will be referred at the Office of the Ombudsman upon the resumption of its services.
