Home / News / Ex-QC councilor Roderick Paulate faces graft conviction over hiring of ghost employees

Ex-QC councilor Roderick Paulate faces graft conviction over hiring of ghost employees

Metro Manila (CNN Philippines, December 2) — The Sandiganbayan has found former Quezon City councilor Roderick Paulate guilty of graft and falsification of public documents over the hiring of ghost employees in 2010.

In a decision signed on November 25, the anti-graft court sentenced the comedian and politician to imprisonment of at least 10.5 years up to 62 years.

The court found Paulate acted with evident bad faith and caused undue injury to the government when he approved the hiring of fictitious persons as job contractors.

“Accused made it appear that the 30 job contractors rendered services as field inspectors, office aides and district coordinators from July to December 2010 when there were no such job order personnel who worked and recieved salaries during said period because they are fictitious,” the Sandiganbayan 7th Division said.

The Ombudsman accused Paulate and his cohort of pocketing over ₱1.1 million through falsifying documents for the hiring of 30 ghost employees.

Paulate’s former driver and liaison officer Vicende Bajamundo faces the same graft conviction but was acquitted in the falsification charges. He was the one who supposedly collected the salaries of the fictitious job contractors.

The court ordered them to refund the government the amount they are accused of pocketing with 6% interest per year until it is fully paid.

Paulate was also directed to pay an additional ₱90,000 in fines.

During the trial, Paulate insisted that the job contractors existed, saying they were his loyal supporters during the campaign period.

The defense even listed some of these supposed employees as witnesses during the pre-trial but none of them were actually presented to testify.

“It bears to reiterate that the prosecution has sufficiently proven that the job contractors recommended and hired by accused Paulate do not exist. Consequently, the job order contracts and the general payrolls containing signatures of the fictitious job contractors are indeed falsified,” the court explained.

ADVERTISEMENT
Tagged: