Surigao mayor faces jail time for P13-M equipment purchase

MANILA, Philippines — Re-elected Dapa, Surigao del Norte mayor Peter Ruaya was sentenced to maximum of eight years of imprisonment as the Sandiganbayan Third Division found him guilty of graft over anomalous purchase of heavy equipment in 2008 amounting to P13.031 million.

Also found guilty with Ruaya were former municipal budget officer and Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) chairperson Zosima Cuizon and BAC member Alicia Durero.

“In sum, we find accused...to have acted together with manifest partiality and gross inexcusable negligence in the conduct of an irregular bidding process and by pre-determining the supplier for the heavy equipment prior to the bidding process, thereby giving unwarranted benefit, advantage and preference to the supplier, 6-R Mercantile,” the decision promulgated on August 29, read.

The 33-page decision was penned by Associate Justice Bernelito Fernandez with the concurrence of division chairman and Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang and Associate Justice Sarah Jane Fernandez.

Ruaya, Cuizon and and Durero were each sentenced to a minimum of six years and one month to a maximum of eight years of imprisonment with perpetual disqualification from holding public office.

Meanwhile, the Third Division ruled to acquit the six other respondents in the case, former municipal councilors Henry Tiu, Kenneth Joel Tiu, Francisco Gonzales, Dionisio Ruaya, Renz Jerald Ruaya and Simfroso Ranza Jr. “for failure to the prosecution to prove their guilty beyond reasonable doubt.”

The case stemmed from the municipal government's purchase in February 2008 of several heavy equipment including four units of dump trucks, a payloader, a bulldozer and a grader from 6-R Mercantile.

The Office of the Ombudsman, which filed the case in 2011, said the purchase of heavy equipment was not included in the approved Annual Procurement Plan of Dapa for 2008.

The ombudsman also said the heavy equipment were already shipped and delivered by 6-R Mercantile to the municipal government even before the BAC commenced with the procurement proceedings.

Furthermore, the ombudsman said the respondents, without any valid justification, resorted to a negotiated procurement instead of a public bidding required under Republic Act 9184 or the Government Procurement Reform Act.

In its ruling, the court said the defense failed to present any evidence, that would dispute the allegation that there was no allotted budget for the procurement of the heavy equipment.

The court said the respondents could not even present the Annual Procurement Plan of Dapa for 2008 “which could have been the best evidence to prove the existence of an appropriation for the intended procurement of the heavy equipment.”

The court noted, that even accused Cuizon, during her testimony, “admitted that there were no available funds when they commenced the bidding process”.

The court also said the delivery of the equipment prior to the start of the procurement process is an indication that there was no competitive bidding held for transaction.

“We find that the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the subject heavy equipment delivered by 6-R Mercantile to the Municipality of Dapa prior to the bidding process showed that the latter already pre-determined/selected the supplier...without the benefit of a competitive bidding,” the court said.

“In fact, it was only the supplier 6-R Mercantile, who was invited by the Municipality of Dapa to present its heavy equipment, as there was neither proof of any invitation to other suppliers nor was the invitation published in a newspaper,” it added.