Graft trial vs. former Poro mayor, 9 others continue
The trial of the graft case before the Sandiganbayan against former Poro, Cebu mayor Edgar Rama and nine others for their alleged involvement in the fertilizer fund scam in 2004 continues.
The anti-graft court denied for lack of merit the motions to dismiss the case filed by Rama and his co-accused in the graft case over the allegedly overpriced purchase of bottled fertilizers amounting to P4.58 million.
“The time it took to conduct the fact-finding investigation is not unreasonable, considering the number of transactions subject of the fact-finding investigation,” reads the Sandiganbayan’s ruling.
The Office of the Ombudsman charged Rama, Rep. Nancy Catamco (Cotabato, second district) and her former husband, Pompey Reyes, with two counts of malversation of public funds.
Former vice mayor Ronald Pajaron Carcellar and former town councilors Ruben Estrera Jr., Gorgina Gonzales, Sergio Zurita, Nilo Gorgonio, Gregorio Dorog and William Surbano were charged with one count of graft.
The case stemmed from complaints filed by the Ombudsman-Visayas, which accused Rama and the former town council members of giving unwarranted benefits to Perzebros Company, a company owned by Catamco and Reyes before their annulment, for the procurement of 3,333 bottles of Vitacrop liquid organic fertilizers worth P5 million or at P1,500 per bottle.
The program was part of the Department of Agriculture’s Farm Inputs and Farm Implements Program (FIFIP) for the town of Poro, Cebu.
The Commission on Audit discovered that the bottled fertilizers were overpriced by at least P1,092 per bottle or a total amount of P4.58 million.
Perzebros, who was the fertilizer contractor, received the payments in two tranches: P3.2 million in May and P1.675 million in December.
But the Ombudsman said the purchase was irregular since it lacked public bidding, pursuant to the Government Procurement Reform Act.
In their motion, the accused sought the dismissal of the case for violation of their right to speedy disposition of cases.
They claimed that there was an unreasonable delay in the conduct of the investigation since it took about eight years to complete the preliminary investigation.
In denying the respondents’ motions, the Sandiganbayan held that the delay in the conduct of the preliminary investigation proper is not unreasonable.
“The time it took to conduct the fact-finding and preliminary investigations, while long, is not unreasonable, given the circumstances surrounding the present cases,” the Sandiganbayan said.