Fertilizer scam continues to hound Carcar vice mayor

The trial of the graft case against Carcar City Vice Mayor Mario Patricio “Patrick” Barcenas and two other former city officials over the purchase of allegedly overpriced bottled fertilizers in 2011 continues.

The Sandiganbayan’s Seventh Division denied for lack of merit the motion to quash the charge sheet filed by Barcenas and his co-accused over what was known as the “fertilizer fund scam” involving P239,040 worth of fertilizers.

The case stemmed from the complaint filed by the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas accusing Barcenas and two other former City Hall officials of violation of Sec. 3 (e) of Republic Act 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

The two other respondents are Roque Sarcauga, the former municipal agriculturist, and Velentina Gamutan, the town’s municipal planning and development coordinator and head of the bids and awards committee that time.

The respondents were accused of giving unwarranted benefits to M.M. Castillo General Merchandise, the supplier of 166 bottles of foliar fertilizers.

The purchase did not undergo public bidding and was instead made through direct contracting between the supplier and the City Government.

In his pleading, Barcenas, the former town mayor, said the case ought to be dismissed since the charged offense does not constitute an offense.

Barcenas argued that direct contracting is not illegal per se pursuant to Republic Act 9184, or the Government Procurement Reform Act.

Likewise, Barcenas said the government did not suffer “actual injury” since the purchase of the fertilizers was not a ghost project.

All 166 liters of the foliar fertilizers were delivered to the intended beneficiaries and were accounted for, he said.

But the prosecution said that Barcenas’ argument is a matter of defense that should be resolved in a full-blown trial.

Likewise, the prosecution said that Barcenas’ constitutional right to a speedy disposition was not violated.

In denying Barcenas’ motion, the Sandiganbayan agreed with the prosecution that his defense are all evidentiary in nature.

The anti-graft court also held that the Ombudsman did not commit inordinate delay when it resolved the complaint within six years and five months.

“Prosecution is not persecution. True enough, persons subjected to preliminary investigation go through some form of anxiety, expenses and constraints,” the Sandiganbayan held.

Barcenas’ arraignment is set on Sep. 10, 2018 before the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City in Negros Oriental.