The Supreme Court (SC) upheld the graft conviction of former Pagsanjan, Laguna Mayor Jeorge “ER” Ejercito for illegally awarding a contract to an unlicensed insurance company.
On Wednesday, March 26, the SC’s First Division found Ejercito and Marilyn M. Bruel, the owner of First Rapids Care Ventures (FRCV), guilty of violating the Republic Act No. (RA) 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Subsequently, the two were sentenced to up to eight years in prison and are perpetually disqualified from holding any public office.
According to the SC’s decision, the case stemmed from a complaint filed by the United Boatmen Association of Pagsanjan (UBAP), which accused Ejercito and other local government officials of awarding a contract to FRCV without public bidding. Despite lacking a license from the Insurance Commission, the company was permitted to provide accident insurance for tourists and boatmen at the Pagsanjan Gorge Tourist Zone.
Following the complaint, SC said the Office of Ombudsman had already filed charges against Ejecito and other involved officials before the Sandiganbayan.
On the other hand, Former Vice Mayor Crisostomo Villar was acquitted, while Ejecito, Bruel and several council members were convicted.
Ejercito and Bruel defended their actions, citing that the FRCV was the only qualified provider, and that the contract was for special services, not insurance.
The SC ruled that Ejercito unlawfully used "negotiated procurement" to favor FRCV, bypassing legal bidding processes and giving the company an unfair advantage.
“By purposely sparing FRCV from the rigors of the processes under the procurement law and consciously turning a blind eye to irregularities, [Ejercito] gave it unwarranted benefit, advantage, or preference,” the SC declared.
Meanwhile, the SC acquitted the Sangguniang Bayan members due to insufficient evidence for the violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019.
“The SB members did not thereby show manifest partiality and give unwarranted benefit to any particular entity because the ordinance itself states “any competent and qualified entity” and such entity was yet to be determined,” the SC wrote.
