Inquirer files
MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court has acquitted 10 former officials of Mountain Province and a private supplier involved in the 2006 purchase of an allegedly overpriced government vehicle for Bontoc General Hospital, effectively overturning their conviction by the Sandiganbayan.
In a decision promulgated recently, the high tribunal’s Second Division said the antigraft court failed to prove the accused acted with partiality and evident bad faith in carrying out the transaction.
Acquitted were former provincial accountant Theodore Marrero, provincial health officer Nenita Lizardo, provincial nurse Helen Macli-ing, bids and awards committee (BAC) chair Paulo Pagteilan and vice chair Lily Rose Kollin, BAC members Florence Gut-omen, Edward Likigan and Soledad Theresa Wanawan, budget officer II Jerome Falingao, executive assistant and BAC secretariat Abdon Imingan, technical and inspection group member Abelard Pachingel and private defendant Ronaldo Kimakim.
READ: SC clears DPWH execs, contractor in pricey lampposts case
The case stemmed from the local government’s purchase of a Mitsubishi L-300 Versa van for P843,700.91.
The National Bureau of Investigation found that a vehicle with the same license plate, chassis, and engine numbers was bought by Kimakim from Motorplaza on March 29, 2006, for P756,000.
It was sold on the same day to the provincial government for P843,700.91 or an additional P87,700.91.
In its decision, the high tribunal said it disagreed with the Sandiganbayan ruling that the accused deliberately indicated the brand name “Mitsubishi” in the procurement documents in violation of Section I 880 of Republic Act No. 9184, which amounts to acting with manifest partiality and evident bad faith.
The initial purchase request, the high court noted, did not even indicate a brand, as it only stated “L-300 Versa Van (Brand New) Body Painting, white color, fully air-conditioned 2.5 diesel.”
“It thus appears that the specification of Mitsubishi as a brand was not knowingly made for corrupt and partial purpose,” it said, adding that without the dishonest purpose to commit fraud, deviations from the requirements of the procurement law did not warrant the conviction of the accused.