[av_one_full first min_height=” vertical_alignment=” space=” custom_margin=” margin=’0px’ padding=’0px’ border=” border_color=” radius=’0px’ background_color=” src=” background_position=’top left’ background_repeat=’no-repeat’ animation=”]
[av_heading heading=’Capitol execs face raps over laptop ‘ tag=’h3′ style=’blockquote modern-quote’ size=” subheading_active=’subheading_below’ subheading_size=’15’ padding=’10’ color=” custom_font=”]
BY GLENDA SOLOGASTOA
[/av_heading]
[av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=”]
ILOILO – The Office of the Ombudsman recommended the filing of graft charges against former provincial administrator Manuel Mejorada and four provincial capitol officials relative to a laptop purchase during Gov. Niel Tupas Sr.’s administration.
The Ombudsman found probable cause to charge Mejorada and the following for violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act 3019 (Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices):
* General Services Office head Ramie Salcedo
* Provincial Health Officer Patricia Grace Trabado
* Administrative Officer III Anny Baldemor, and
* Computer Maintenance Technologist II Edgar P. Piansay.
All were members of the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) of the provincial government.
This case stemmed from the Ombudsman’s Field Investigation Office (FIO)-initiated complaint premised on its findings that the respondents gave unwarranted benefits, preference or undue advantage to supplier Seven Seven Trading owned by Cristina Te.
The FIO’s complaint also included Te and Rosarie San Luis, nutrition coordinator / end-user representative of the Provincial Health Office (PHO).
In October 2008, then State Auditor Hayde Pasuelo audited, among others, the procurement of a laptop computer (Acer Aspire) worth P99,000 from Seven Seven Trading.
The supplier, however, delivered Acer Travelmate, not Acer Aspire as specified in the request/order.
A price verification showed Acer Travelmate to cost only P59,000; there was thus an overprice of P39,100.
A further check showed that Seven Seven Trading mainly dealt with computer ink, not laptop computers.
On Dec. 2, 2008, the Commission on Audit (COA) issued a Notice of Disallowance.
It subsequently issued a Notice of Settlement of Disallowance dated Oct. 14, 2011. The supplier returned the payment, and this addressed the civil administrative accountability. However, the criminal aspect of the case remained.
The respondents denied any criminal responsibility.
The Ombudsman believed the BAC members acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.
They considered only a single bidder (Seven Seven Trading) which principally dealt with computer inks, not laptops, according to the Ombudsman.
The bidder also delivered a laptop unit different the purchase request or order, it added.
The Ombudsman said the respondents knew about the difference yet proceeded with the procurement, resulting to an overprice. The subsequent refund validated the irregularity, it added.
The Ombudsman, however, noted a dearth of evidence to show that the supplier conspired with the public respondents. Its return of the payment alone cannot establish conspiracy, it stressed.
Meanwhile, the Ombudsman said the public respondents could not benefit from the supplier’s return of payment because such only came after the fact and the irregularity had already been committed.
“The public respondents clearly failed to comply with the law on public procurement and the manual on government accounting and auditing. In the process, they failed to protect the interest of the government,” according to the Ombudsman./PN
[/av_textblock]
[/av_one_full]
