 |
The Hon. Conchita Carpio Morales, Ombudsman
The Ombudsman did not find any irregularity in the purchase
of Day Care Computer Packages from Pisces, the exclusive distributor of the
educational packages in question that were goods of proprietary character, produced
by A-Star Learning World Pte Ltd in Singapore and sold exclusively in the
Philippines by Pisces. Read.
The Ombudsman also stated in its decision that the
collective acts of the respondent public officials in the purchase of the
computer packages “do not embody the very acts punished under Section 3 (e) of
Republic Act No. 3019 – which is the causing of undue injury or the giving of
any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference through manifest partiality,
evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.”
“In this particular case, the acts of the respondents in the
procurement of the questioned Day Care Computer packages do not demonstrate bad
faith, bias and giving of unwarranted benefit or preference in favor of Pisces
because the purchase from Pisces… is authorized under Section 48.1.”, the
decision stated.
|
 |
The Ombudsman also
stated that “The complainant failed to present sufficient evidence to show that
the respondents entered into a contract or transaction which is manifestly and
grossly disadvantageous to the government in as much as the allegation of
overpricing in the purchase of fifty-six (56) units of Day Care Computer
Packages was not proven.”
On the charge of
illegal use of public funds commonly known as technical malversation, the
Ombudsman stated that “for technical malversation to exist, it is necessary
that public funds or properties have
been diverted to any public use other than that provided for by law or
ordinance… the second and third elements to constitute the crime of Technical
malversation are absent”. The Ombudsman also stated that “evidence is wanting
to show that the respondents are probably guilty” of the charges of Fraud
against the Public Treasury.
|
 |
Day-Care workers.
Private respondents
composed of persons representing Pisces stressed in their arguments that the erroneous
conclusion of overpricing claimed by the complainant “is more glaring from the
FIO’s theory that what the Province of Marinduque bought were nothing more than
desktop computers with necessary peripherals, rather than learning packages
which consisted of CD ROMs containing copyrighted software educational
materials, instructional workbooks, and free one-day training seminar for day
care workers, with the desktop computer and day care personnel merely added as
freebies.” Read
|
 |
Observers following
the case recall that upon assumption into office of Gov. Carmencita Reyes in July
2010, continued hearings “in aid of legislation” were conducted by the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan throughout the first hundred days of the new administration. Board
Member Eleuterio Raza, Jr. acted as chief interrogator during the hearings, and
referred the case to the Blue-Ribbon Committee which he also chaired. With
authority from the governor to issue memos to department heads of the
provincial government for the conduct of further investigation, apparently breaching
protocol, Raza was chiefly responsible for the preparation of the case eventually
filed by the Field Investigation Office (FIO) of the Office of the Ombudsman, that
acted as nominal complainant.
|
 |
Marinduque Capitol Building
It will be recalled
that Board Member Raza and former Board Member Leticia Monte originally
sponsored the resolutions in 2007, for the consolidation of unused funds into a
single fund to be used “for priority development projects of the Office of the
Governor and the Sangguniang Panlalawigan”. Specified in the same resolution
that year was Php 5-million for Early Childhood Care and Development (ECCD)
programs “for purchase of instructional materials and other teaching aids”
among others. It was implemented from that year, 2007 and continued until 2010.
Read
|
 |
| Part of court ruling |
 |
| Decision: Clear, concise, complete and correct. |
 |
| Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales signed the Approval to Dismiss on June 15, 2012 with copies sent to all Respondents. |
