THE Sandiganbayan has denied the appeal of former Department of Agriculture — Regional Field Unit IX (DA-RFU 9) regional executive director Oscar Parawan and chief accountant Ma. Perlice Julian seeking the reversal of their graft conviction on December 2, 2022.
In its 12-page decision dated January 23, 2023, the anti-graft court’s Seventh Division held firm that both accused were instrumental in facilitating the transfer of P3.81 million in government funds to the Masaganang Ani Para sa Magsasaka Foundation Inc. (MAMFI), a bogus non-government organization, in 2004.
Parawan and Julian were accused of causing undue injury to the government by ignoring the provisions of RA 9184 or the Government Procurement Reform Act in allowing DA funds from the Farm Inputs/Farm Implements Program (FIFIP) to be funneled into MAMFI without public bidding.
During the pendency of the case, several of their co-defendants died, including former Zamboanga del Sur Rep. Isidro Real, DA-RFU 9 administrative chief Abundo Bernardo Jr., and supervising agriculturist Samuel Simbajon.
In convicting the two defendants, the Sandiganbayan held that it found evidence of “deliberate intent and lack of care” in choosing MAMFI to implement the government-funded project, ignoring rules on public bidding, and showing partiality to the NGO.
In their motion for reconsideration, Parawan and Julian said the court disregarded their constitutional rights to be presumed innocent by declaring that there was no proper accreditation of MAMFI.
They said the prosecution should have been required to prove that the documents submitted by MAMFI were inadequate to secure accreditation and that the same NGO has never undertaken any project of similar magnitude in the past.
This, they claimed, showed that the court relied not on the strength of the prosecution evidence but on the weakness of the defense.
The court however stressed that the central issue is the lack of public bidding and the absence of any valid justification to resort to negotiated procurement.
“Instead of explaining why they did not resort to the alternative modes of procurement, accused delved into the provisions of the 1987 Constitution. We rule that the above directive is not in contrast with the requirement of public bidding. The state can encourage the participation of non-government organizations in nation building while still complying with the law,” the court pointed out.
It also rejected the argument that Commission on Audit Circular No. 96-003 exempted the defendants from complying with RA 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
