A check releasing officer of the Philippine National Police (PNP) was charged before the Quezon City Regional Trial Court for her alleged failure to return the amount of more than P100,000 to a retired PNP member which she lent to three loan borrowers.

Charged with three counts of estafa was Susan Magtira, check releasing officer assigned at the PNP Finance Service Office 14 in Camp Crame.

The case stemmed from the complaints of Everett Paler, a resident of 679 Libis St., Concepcion Uno, Marikina, who claimed that she gave the amount of P180,000 to the respondent after she was assured that she would earn interest once the amount was lent to loan borrowers.

Paler narrated that she first met the respondent sometime in 2003 when she filed a claim for hospital reimbursement at the Finance Service Office 14 after she was hospitalized and recuperated.

During her transactions in said office, the complainant said the respondent convinced her that they could use her retirement pay in a lending business where they could earn at least 15 per cent per month.

The respondent allegedly told the complainant to trust her and personally made a guarantee that she would be answerable and liable for the principal obligation plus interest of their clients, if there would be any problem.

Magtira also allegedly assured the complainant that there was no way she would not be paid because she is the center point of the whole transaction.

Convinced by the assurances of the respondent, the complainant lent her the money which would, in turn, be lent to the PNP or non-uniformed personnel clients..

Records showed that the respondent has at least three clients who borrowed the amount of P30,000; P50,000 and P100,000, respectively, in December, 2006; Feb. 15 and 16, 2007.

Three months, Paler and Magtira met in a restaurant inside Camp Crame where the former reminded the latter about the payments of their clients.

Respondent, however, assured the complainant that the checks of their clients would soon be released and that she would be paid.

But every time she went to visit the respondent to follow-up and remind her about the payments, Magtira would only tell her that she should not be worried since the checks of their clients would be released at the end of the month.

Paler made several verbal follow-ups and reminders, text messages and mobile calls, but the respondent only come up with a lot of excuses.

After the checks were released, respondent still did not return the money and never paid Paler.

During the preliminary investigation at the Office of the Ombudsman, Magtira failed to refute the allegations despite getting an extended time to file her counter-affidavit.

In his seven-page resolution, Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer Conrado Estreller, Jr. found probable cause to indict the respondent since all the elements of estafa were present in the case at bar.

“Evidently, respondent defrauded and abused the confidence of the complainant. She (Magtira) failed to return the money despite of repeated demands from the complainant. She misappropriated and converted the money to the prejudice of the complainant,” Estreller added in his resolution.