ILOILO City – Former Iloilo provincial administrator Manuel Mejorada and former General Services Office head Ramie Salcedo were found guilty of graft by the Sandiganbayan for an “overpriced” laptop purchased during the administration of then governor Niel Tupas Sr.
In a decision dated Oct. 2, 2020, the anti-graft court sentenced the duo to a maximum of eight years in prison.
They were also perpetually disqualified from holding public office.
“In sum, the prosecution was able to proffer sufficient evidence establishing the guilt of accused Mejorada and Salcedo, beyond reasonable doubt in committing the offense under Section 3 of Republic Act No. 3019,” read part of the resolution penned by Associate Judge Zaldy Trespeses and concurred by Associate Justices Ma. Theresa Dolores Gomez-Estoesta (Chairman) and Georgina Hidalgo.
Meanwhile, the court acquitted Dr. Patricia Grace S. Trabado (Provincial Health Officer), Edgar Paghari-on Piansay Sr. (Computer Maintenance Technologist II) and Danny Deocampo Baldemor (Administrative Officer III).
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
Mejorada, Salcedo and the four other provincial capitol officials were accused of violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act over the laptop purchase in 2008. They were then members of the Bids and Awards Committee of the Iloilo provincial government.
The Ombudsman’s Field Investigation Office (FIO)-initiated complaint alleged that the respondents gave unwarranted benefits, preference or undue advantage to supplier Seven Seven Trading owned by Cristina Te.
The FIO also included Te and Rosarie San Luis, nutrition coordinator / end-user representative of the Provincial Health Office.
According to then State Auditor Hayde Pasuelo, the request/order was for an Acer Aspire laptop worth P99,000 but what was delivered was an Acer Travelmate that cost only P59,000.
There was an overprice of P39,100, according to the FIO.
A further check showed that Seven Seven Trading mainly dealt with computer ink, not laptop computers, FIO added.
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, according to the FIO.
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
