Ombudsman clears Dumangas officials in PHP50M equipment case

By Gerome Dalipe IV

The Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas has dismissed graft, falsification, and administrative complaints against Dumangas, Iloilo Vice Mayor Ronaldo Golez and seven others over the alleged overpriced purchase of heavy equipment and a generator set worth PHP50 million in 2019.

In an 18-page resolution dated Sept. 27, 2024, Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer Luanne Ivy M. Cabatingan ruled there was no probable cause to pursue charges for alleged violations of Republic Act 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), falsification under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code, or any administrative offense.

The case stemmed from a complaint filed by the National Bureau of Investigation–Western Visayas, which flagged alleged irregularities in the municipal government’s purchase of heavy equipment and a generator using part of a PHP150 million loan from the Development Bank of the Philippines.

Of the total loan, PHP50 million was allocated for the questioned procurement.

Then municipal mayor Golez, represented by Ilonggo lawyer Noel Palomado, was charged along with Municipal Engineer and Bids and Awards Committee Chair Jose Vahn Diasnes Cordova, Planning and Development Coordinator Saul Dolendo Deasis, Health Officer Nelson Delector Belandres, Social Welfare Officer Roqueta Alipat Dianson, Municipal Agriculturist Eugenio Demonteverde Decastillo Jr., Disaster Risk Reduction Officer Arande Demaisip Detablan, and Ralph Clinton Tio, president of AVANTRAC Heavy Machinery Inc., the winning supplier.

The NBI claimed the procurement was overpriced by at least 13 percent and questioned the conduct of the market study in Cebu instead of Iloilo, alleging manipulation to justify higher costs.

It also alleged that procurement documents were falsified and that the contract was awarded despite AVANTRAC’s non-compliance with bidding requirements.

However, the Ombudsman ruled the accusations were unsupported and failed to prove manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence — essential elements to establish graft or corruption.

“There is no dishonest purpose, moral obliquity, or fraudulent intent that could be found in the actions taken by public respondents,” the resolution stated.

It also emphasized that the procurement followed competitive bidding procedures under Republic Act 9184, or the Government Procurement Reform Act.

The Ombudsman further noted that the Commission on Audit issued no adverse findings, Notices of Suspension, or Disallowance related to the transaction.

No administrative or criminal action was initiated by COA.

In their joint counter-affidavit, the respondents said the procurement price was based on a market survey and aligned with COA benchmarks and pricing in other LGUs.

AVANTRAC submitted documents showing that the equipment met the required specifications and had passed inspection by both COA and DBP before final acceptance.

The Ombudsman cited established jurisprudence stating that “undue injury” requires actual loss or damage, not mere speculation.

“With complainant failing to establish the element of manifest partiality, evident bad faith and/or gross inexcusable negligence, as well as the element of giving unwarranted benefit, preference or advantage or causing undue injury to any party, no probable cause can be found to indict respondents,” the resolution concluded.