|
By Jomar Canlas Reporter
THE Sandiganbayan Fifth Division
convicted ex-Dapitan City Mayor James Adasa for violation of the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for the anomalous purchase by
the city government of UPVC pipes for the Talyaman Water System
Project during his incumbency.
In a 31-page decision of the
Anti-Graft court, penned by Associate Justice Cristina
Cortez-Estrada, Adasa “is hereby sentenced to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of 6 years and 1 month as
minimum to 10 years as maximum, with perpetual disqualification to
hold public office.”
The Sandiganbayan convicted Adasa
beyond reasonable doubt for giving undue advantage to Filipinas
Elson Manufacturing Corp. for the said contract.
In the information filed by the
Office of the Ombudsman, it alleges that on or about August 3, 1994,
Adasa caused the purchase of the said items to Filipinas Elson for
the sum of P4.92 million, which was allegedly overpriced by P1.38
million.
It was pointed out by the court
that Adasa failed to present anyone from Filipinas Elson to
substantiate his innocence. The defense failed to oppose the
testimony of the prosecution witness Donato Corro, then OIC-Treasurer
of Dapitan City that the accused made the decision to terminate the
public bidding. With this the court seeing no ill motive on the part
of Corro decided that the testimony “must be given weight and
credence.”
“This testimony by Mr. Donato
M. Corro, clearly establishes that the failure of the accused to
observe the procedures prescribed by law in the procurement of
government supplies through direct purchase from exclusive
manufacturers is marred with manifest partiality and bad faith in
favor of Filipinas Elson Manufacturing,” the ruling says.
The Sandiganbayan stressed that
“the above-stated circumstances, taken together, will lead to
accused’s conviction for violation of Section 3 E of RA 3019, by
giving unwarranted benefits to Filipinas Elson thru evident bad
faith and manifest partiality.”
The court also sets aside the
defense argument that accused must be acquitted since the
administrative complaint that stemmed from the acts herein
complained of has been dismissed on December 1, 1999 is misplaced.
“The administrative case
against accused was dismissed not for any other reason but for being
moot and academic due to the expiration of the term during which the
act complained of was committed,” it says.
|
