Ex-Lazi town mayor convicted for graft



SYDNEY, Australia (AFP) — Young men and boys are being targeted for sexual extortion on social media platforms,…

SHANGHAI, China (AFP) — Chinese users of artificial intelligence (AI)-powered companion bots have bid heart-rending…

‘China firmly opposes illegal unilateral sanctions that have no basis in international law.’

PARIS, France (AFP) — Generative AI chatbots capable of writing emails and computer code, translating, organizing a…

WASHINGTON, United States (AFP) — Multiple book publishers sued Google on Tuesday for allegedly stealing copyrighted…
The Sandiganbayan has sentenced former Mayor Orville Fua of Lazi town, Siquijor province and five others to up to 10 years in jail in connection with the anomalous purchase of fertilizers amounting to P4.99 million in 2004.
The conviction follows the 85-page ruling handed down on 7 December by the anti-graft court Third Division, which found Fua, ex-municipal engineer Natalio Jumawan Jr., municipal treasurer/bids and awards committee member Rose Marie Tomogsoc, ex-private secretary Sue Castillon and private respondent Merlyn Lu, guilty of violating Section 3 (e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act or RA 3019.
Apart from the conviction, they were also perpetually disqualified from holding public office.
Their co-accused, ex-municipal coordinator Teodoro Jumadla Jr. and ex-municipal accountant Ana Marie Monte, however, were acquitted due to the prosecution's failure to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Filed by the Ombudsman in 2019, the case pertains to the irregular purchase of 2,096 bottles of MRG liquid fertilizer priced at P1,550 per bottle and 1,258 bags of DEL GRO super foliar fertilizer, costing P1,550 per bag, or for a total of P4,990,752 in May 2004.
The Ombudsman said the local officials gave "unwarranted benefits, privilege and advantage to" Milne and Lu of Mangopina Trading Co. Inc., based in San Pablo City, Laguna province, when they procured the fertilizers despite knowing fully well that the transaction was in violation of the Government Procurement Reform Act.
Court records showed that the transaction transpired notwithstanding the "irregularities" and "anomalies" attending the procurement process to the damage and prejudice of the government.