WebAdmin 1 0 0 3 min to read

State school procurement was cleared by the executive in 2006.

MANILA – The Sandiganbayan has acquitted a Marikina Polytechnic College (MPC) officer who was accused of violations in a 2006 procurement process.

Alejandrina Ancheta was found not guilty by the Sixth Division of the anti-graft court after the prosecution failed to show her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Ancheta’s co-accused and fellow MPC Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) members Efren Azares (chair), Ermielinda Flaminiano, and procurement officer Juanito Macapanas were acquitted by the court in July of last year.

On November 25, Ancheta surrendered and posted bond, while co-accused Sarurnino Quintal remains at large.

The cases against MPC president Manuel Pangilinan were automatically dismissed when he died on September 28, 2015.

“The purchase orders would reveal that the deal was taken into by accused Pangilinan alone, on behalf of the MPC,” noted the April 28 judgement, which was recently released.

Two bidding operations for a car engine for PHP55,968 and printer/copiers worth PHP60,000 were filed against the defendants.

Limuel Cirineo, an automotive instructor at the MPC, requested the engine for the Go Negosyo business program.

Evolution-R, the winning bidder, requested that the unit be withdrawn, stating that it had not been informed that the quoted price would be subject to value-added tax.

After rebidding, the supplier’s lowest bid of PHP55,968, or PHP20,000 less than the next lowest bid, was accepted.

While there was no doubt that Evolution-second R’s price quotation was PHP7,968 higher than its first price proposal, the court stated in its July judgement that the pricing under Pangilinan’s contract with the supplier “cannot be considered (to be) substantially and clearly detrimental to the government.”

The court also noted that the transaction for the provider of copiers in the other disputed contract was eventually canceled.

“Thus, even if there was no grounds for turning to direct contracting,” the court explained, “no unjustified benefits were delivered because it appears that the transaction did not progress.”

Please follow and like us:
error1
fb-share-icon
Tweet 2k
fb-share-icon20
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
error

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)

0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x