Ex-mayor in ComVal gets 20 years for graft

A former municipal mayor in Compostela Valley was sentenced to 12 to 20 years imprisonment after he was found guilty of two counts of graft by the Sandiganbayan anti-graft court. The case against Salvador Jauod Sr., former mayor of Montevista town, stemmed from the P9,999,973.40 worth of medicines the local government purchased without any public bidding on October 27, 2003 and March 15, 2004. Jauod was accused of giving undue preference to DMI Medical Supply when he authorized the purchase. The purchase was also overpriced by P6.36 million, the Sandiganbayan Fourth Division said, citing the findings of the Commission on Audit. “The evidence on record showed that the accused acted with gross inexcusable negligence for failure to adhere the applicable law and rules. He ignored the required procedures, conditions and checks, specifically those requiring for competitive proposals and public bidding," the court said in its 40-page decision penned by Associate Justice Jose R. Hernandez. On top of the jail term, Jauod was also ordered to reimburse the local government P6,365,763.44 corresponding to the overprice based on the COA computation. Jauod, in his defense, claimed the municipality availed of direct contracting as a mode of procurement for its Botika sa Barangay project, thus making a public bidding unnecessary But the court overruled his defense, noting that Republic Act 9184, or the New Procurement Act of 2003, provides that direct contracting may only be resorted to when the supplier is a dealer with no sub-dealer offering the same products at lower prices and more advantageous terms. The court likewise noted that approval of the contract granted to DMI Medical Supply was “railroaded" as the accused dealt directly with the general manager of the supplier and failed to solicit other offers. “(T)he acts or omissions of the accused in directly awarding the purchase of medicines to DMI Medical Supply amounted to no less than manifest partiality and gross inexcusable negligence. (H)e omitted to act in a situation where there is duty to act, not inadvertently, but willfully and intentionally with a conscious indifference to the consequences," the court said. - KBK, GMA News