Ombudsman charges nurse for altering receipt

CEBU, Philippines - A government nurse who allegedly only wanted to be reimbursed of her P300 was indicted for falsifying commercial documents for altering the amount on the receipt.

Ombudsman-Visayas graft investigation and prosecution officer Mona Chica Cabanes-Gillamac held Nurse II Reafil Paelma of Cebu Technological University-Danao City Campus to face the charges in court.

Although she did it “in good faith,” Paelma took the wrong step in claiming her reimbursement by “taking a short cut” when she altered the receipt, Gillamac said.

“Her act of altering the amount of the receipt from P1,160 to P1,460, which she in fact admitted constitutes the crime of falsification of commercial documents by making alterations or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning,” said Gillamac.

On September 1, 2014, Paelma went to the University of San Carlos-Water Laboratory in Talamban, Cebu City to bring sample for water analysis following the findings of Danao City Health Department that their water supply had e-coli bacteria.

 Paelma shouldered the expenses subject for reimbursement.

She allegedly spent P1,160 for water analysis and P300 for the purchase of sterile bottle and for her meals and fare in going to USC-Cebu City.

The P300 was not covered in USC’s receipt, thus, Paelma approached their bookkeeper Marlon Labong.

“It was in fact Labong who suggested to her to alter the words and figures of the subject receipt so that all her actual expenses would be covered,” said Gillamac, adding that despite Paelma’s reluctance, the latter followed her co-worker’s advice.

On October 15, 2014, P3,387.20 was issued to Paelma as reimbursement for the school clinic expenses, including that for the water analysis in the amount of P1,460 as indicated in the receipt.

It was, however, found out the receipt was altered since what was reflected in the copy of the original receipt of USC under its custody was only P1,160.

Paelma alleged the alteration was done in good faith.

Gillamac ruled that Paelma is only liable for falsification of a commercial document and not the complex crime of estafa through falsification of a commercial document.

“The factual antecedents of the case, however, lead to a conclusion that respondent did not have the intention to malverse the amount of P300 or to cheat or deceive CTU when she altered the receipt because her intention was to be reimbursed of her P300,” she said.

 Meanwhile, the Office of the Ombudsman has earlier found Paelma administratively liable for simple misconduct and meted a penalty of suspension for one month without pay in relation to the same offense.   (FREEMAN)