Ex-Sampaloc village chief convicted over graft

FROM hard hat to handcuffs

FROM hard hat to handcuffs

The families tangled up in that missing cockfight enthusiasts case are now saying they’re the ones getting shaken down,…

MISAMIS ORIENTAL — The Commission on Elections (Comelec) has officially released the schedule for the 2026 Barangay and…

National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Director Melvin Matibag said he will no longer attend a regional summit in…

The Sandiganbayan Sixth Division granted the motion of the Office of the Ombudsman to withdraw the case it filed…

A 37-year-old man wanted for murder was arrested during the service of a warrant in Sitio Andarayan, Barangay Rizal,…
A former chairman of a village in Sampaloc, Manila has been sentenced to up to 16 years in prison for the unauthorized encashment of more than P200,000 in village funds in 2010.
The Sandiganbayan, the nation’s anti-graft court, upheld and modified the jail term for Felix Mones, former chair of Barangay 410 in Sampaloc. Mones was initially sentenced to a maximum of 12 years after the Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 40 found him guilty of two counts of graft.
Court records show Mones authorized the withdrawal of two checks, totaling P89,200 and P124,600, from the village’s account on 12 November and 17 November 2010, respectively.
The Ombudsman stated Mones issued both checks in his name without the corresponding disbursement vouchers and other required supporting documents.
“Moreover, the disbursements were not in payment of any known barangay obligations or legitimate government transactions,” the Sandiganbayan decision, dated 25 September read.
Mones appealed the RTC ruling, claiming he did not authorize any disbursements during his brief tenure from 30 August to 30 November 2010, and suggested his signature on the checks was forged.
He argued the signatures did not match those on his driver’s license.
The Sandiganbayan rejected the appeal, stating the absence of key evidence could not corroborate the alleged forgery.
“His sole reliance on a comparison with his driver’s license issued in 2018, or eight years after the subject checks were signed in 2010, cannot easily convince this court in the absence of any supporting evidence to clearly show that the variance in the signature was the result of forgery by another person, and not merely a variation of his own handwriting over time,” the court ruled.