Ex-DSWD official found guilty of graft, malversation over PDAF misuse

MANILA, Philippines — The Sandiganbayan Fifth Division found a former Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) official guilty of graft and malversation over the misuse of P5 million in Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) in 2007.

In a decision promulgated on Oct. 1, the court found former DSWD-National Capital Region (NCR) Regional Director Honorita Bayudan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and of malversation of public funds.

Bayudan was sentenced to a maximum of 10 years in prison for graft and a maximum of 18 years for malversation. She was also ordered to pay a total of P10 million in fines and civil liabilities.

Article continues after this advertisement

READ: Solons want no repeat of PDAF scam acquittals in flood control mess

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

The case stemmed from the misuse of PDAF allocated to former Pasay Rep. Consuelo Dy.

According to the court’s decision, Dy had a PDAF allocation of P8 million for the first tranche of fiscal year 2007. The amount was released to the DSWD-NCR for the implementation of its Comprehensive Integrated Delivery of Social Services project.

The court said the DSWD-NCR, represented by Bayudan, and Dy entered into a memorandum of agreement (MOA) with Unlad Pinoy Organization, Inc. (UPOI) to implement the project in Pasay City.

The project aimed to provide various skills training and livelihood assistance to indigent residents from January to March 2007, with a total funding of P5 million.

Article continues after this advertisement

Under the MOA, the P5-million budget was supposed to be released in two tranches: 30% upon approval and signing of the agreement, and 70% upon submission of an accomplishment report or inspection by the DSWD-NCR.

However, the court said the DSWD-NCR, with Bayudan’s approval, released the entire P5 million to UPOI on the same day.

Article continues after this advertisement

READ: Breaking the biggest story in years – the PDAF scam

The field investigation office of the Office of the Ombudsman and the Commission on Audit (COA) then conducted validation and verification of the transactions involving the P5-million fund. They found that its transfer to UPOI violated the MOA and the rules on the transfer of funds to nongovernmental organizations (NGOs).

The Ombudsman and COA also found the “legal and physical existence of UPOI as well as its suppliers,” and the “reported distribution of financial assistance and conduct of trainings” questionable.

Following these findings, the Ombudsman filed graft and malversation charges against Bayudan.

In its ruling, the court said Bayudan “committed glaring irregularities that reflect manifest partiality and evident bad faith on her part, or at the very least, gross inexcusable negligence” in her involvement in the execution of the MOA, transfer of funds, and implementation and monitoring of the CIDSS project.

READ: Pork barrel scam postmortem: Big fish mostly getting away

The court questioned why UPOI was chosen to conduct the project, noting that it was not an accredited NGO under Section 3.3 of COA Circular No. 96-003 and had been registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission only a few days before the MOA was executed.

The court added that the execution of the MOA was “procedurally infirm” because only Bayudan’s name and signature appeared on the agreement. It was not signed by the PDAF focal person and the officer in charge of the DSWD-NCR Standards Unit.

Moreover, the court said the transfer of funds to UPOI was “not in accordance with COA Circular 96-2003 and the MOA.”

The court also found the project’s implementation “questionable,” with several barangay officials testifying that no workshop program or training had been conducted in their areas.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

Several barangay officials also testified that some individuals on the beneficiary list were not residents of their respective barangays. /mcm