The Sandiganbayan has affirmed its decision that convicted five Caloocan City barangay officials of falsification of public document.
It denied the appeal for reconsideration filed by Barangay Chairman Wilfredo M. Camus, Barangay Councilmen Benito A. Ching, Claro Melarpis Ponce, and Zacarias M. Ferrer, and Barangay Secretary Ramon E. Acuna of Barangay 48, Zone 4, District II.
They had been sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of six months and one day as minimum to eight years as maximum with the accessory penalty of P2,000.
The affirmed decision of the Sandiganbayan was the dismissal of the barangay officials’ appeal which challenged their conviction by the Caloocan City regional trial court (RTC).
The criminal charges against them stemmed from the falsification of Resolution No. 001, Series of 2013, which stated that the Sangguniang Barangay held a session on Dec. 1, 2013 and all of its members unanimously approved the appointment of Acuna as barangay secretary. However, no session actually took place.
In their motion to reconsider the decision, the barangay officials told the anti-graft court that they "became victims of dirty politics."
They said they were reportedly "made to believe that the signing of the resolution would be valid due to the fact that the was needed in order for not to be charged with dereliction of their duties."
They also said they were convinced that the issue had been consulted with the Department of Interior and Local Government, which then advised them that it was "within the discretion of the barangay captain."
They appealed for leniency as they pointed out that they are all senior citizens and their removal from officer after less than one year of service was more than enough punishment for their negligence.
But the Sandiganbayan said: "While the Court commiserates with the accused-appellants who are 'senior citizens in the twilight of their lives' and have been removed from their respective positions after less than a year in service, it cannot reverse its findings on this score alone. Nowhere in our laws and jurisprudence can one find authority for acquitting a person on the sole basis of age.”
The resolution which denied the motion for reconsideration was written by fourth division Chairperson Alex L. Quiroz with the concurrence of Associate Justices Lorifel L. Pahimna and Bayani H. Jacinto.