Pelaez raps auditors in connection with “computer scam”

Whistleblower Efrain Pelaez Jr. filed two cases before the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas against seven officials and employees of the Commission on Audit in connection with the alleged “computer scam” in Lapu-Lapu City.

 Pelaez, in his six-page complaint, charged the COA officials for violating Republic Act 3019 or the Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act and Republic Act 6713 or the Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.

 The seven are Josephine Daclan (State Auditor IV), Helen Hilayo (State Auditor V), Niceas Mata, Jose Retuya Bruce Bael (all technical audit specialist II), Leonardo Ruiz (chief, inspection section) and Engr. Allan Gajudo (regional cluster director).

 Pelaez stated that all the seven officials and employees allowed the clearly overpriced computers, which is so evident even to “simple minds.”

 He said that the respondents not only failed to note the glaring overpricing, but also condoned the gross defects and deficiencies in the said computer purchase.

 Pelaez added that there is a pattern and overt act of favoring the alleged corrupt local officials of the city and of condoning such practice.

To recall, Pelaez charged Lapu-Lapu City Mayor Arturo Radaza and 16 others for the purchase of 470 computers worth P23,476,500 or at P49,950 each unit.

Pelaez alleged that the unit costs no more than  P20,000 when purchased from other suppliers.

 Pelaez added that based on the COA inspection report, it was duly noted that all of the inspected computers did not meet the specifications stipulated in the approved purchase order.

 Among the specifications include: the processor L2 cache in the P.O. is 512 KB while the delivered computers only had 256 KB; the computers intended for Caubian and Panagn-an were inspected, but not tested as the said place has no electricity; and 29 units were defective and non-functioning, among others.

 “Given these, there should have been an outright disallowance by the respondent auditors, but to date, there was none,” the complaint reads.

 He added that respondent auditors waited 365 days instead of 15 days (per directive of COA) to comment and after a case was already filed before the Ombudsman questioning the alleged computer scam.

 “Respondents did absolutely nothing within that long span of time. If it is not manifest bias and partiality to the grave prejudice of the public, we do not know what it is,” the complaint added.

 The complaint further reads that the alleged re-inspection was done after a case was already filed with the Ombudsman highlighted the gross incompetence and the costly inaction of the respondents, all made to favor Radaza and the others charged with him. — Mitchelle L. Palaubsanon/NLQ