BEING new at a government post is not a valid excuse for committing a mistake that results in injury to taxpayers.
With this pronouncement, the Sandiganbayan threw out the appeal of four former municipal officials of Guiuan, Eastern Samar seeking the reversal of the court’s June 22, 2022 decision that found them guilty of graft due to an anomalous procurement in 2017.
In its resolution, the anti-graft court’s Sixth Division affirmed the conviction of municipal budget officer Esperanza Cotin, planning and development officer Nenita Ecleo, administrative officer Felipe Padual, and market supervisor Danilo Colandog.
All four were members of the Guiuan Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) that approved the purchase of a firetruck worth P2.1 million in 2017 from Integrated Energy and Resource Systems, Inc. (IERSI) without public bidding.
Mayor Annaliza Gonzales-Kwan was named co-defendant in the case but was acquitted by the Sandiganbayan for lack of evidence to support her participation in the alleged criminal offense.
Associate Justice Karl B. Miranda penned the resolution, with Associate Justices Sarah Jan T. Fernandez and Kevin Narce B. Vivero concurring.
The four BAC members attributed their mistake to being newly appointed to their posts and lack of familiarity with RA 9184 or the Government Procurement Reform Act and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR).
They likewise blamed then BAC chairperson Arsenio Salamida and BAC Secretariat chairperson Eraño Macapagao for the committee’s “blunders,” claiming they relied heavily on the advice of the two regarding procurement procedures.
In denying the motions for reconsideration, the Sandiganbayan noted that the four convicted officials cannot shift the blame on Salamida who is already deceased, nor on Macapagao who was not even included in the indictment.
“Accused-movant’s non-familiarity with or non-attendance in seminars and trainings on the procurement law cannot justify the procedural infirmities committed in the negotiated procurement. It is understood that those who accept a public office do so with burden, and are considered as accepting its burdens an obligation together with its benefits,” the court declared.
