30 v. Honorable Sandiganbayan

SARMIENTO, J.:

The petitioner, City Engineer of Tagbilaran City, appeals from the joint Decision1 of the respondent Sandiganbayan in six (6) criminal cases thereof, Nos. 195, 196, 197, 198, 199 and 200 (G.R. Nos. 52352-57) all prosecutions for estafa through falsification of public and commercial documents2 (six counts), entitled "People of the Philippines, Plaintiff, versus Valentino G. Castillo, Jose Bagasao, Rolando Mangubat, Delia Preagido, Jose Sayson, Ulrico Bolotaolo, Luis Rasonabe, Isidoro Recamadas, Filipinas Evardo, Praxedes Lopena, James Tiu alias Jimmy Tiu and Engracio Quiroz alias Dodong, Accused";3 "People of the Philippines, Plaintiff, versus Valentino G. Castillo, Jose Bagasao, Rolando Mangubat, Delia Preagido Jose Sayson, Luis Rasonabe, Isidoro Recamadas, Filipinas Evardo, Praxedes Lopena, Nino Pilayre, James Tiu alias Jimmy Tiu and Engracio Quiroz alias Dodong, Accused";4 and "People of the Philippines, Plaintiff, versus Valentino G. Castillo, Jose Bagasao, Rolando Mangubat, Delia Preagido, Jose Sayson, Ulrico Bolotaolo, Luis Rasonabe, Isidoro Recamadas, Filipinas Evardo, Praxedes Lopena, Charita de Villa, Eliseo Cornell, James Tiu alias Jimmy Tiu and Engracio Quiroz alias Dodong, Accused,"5 respectively.

The dispositive portion of the Decision reads as follows: x x x x x x x x x WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows - A) In Criminal Case No. 195 - finding accused Valentino G. Castillo, Jose Bagasao, Rolando Manngubat, Delia Preagido, Ulrico Bolotaolo, Luis Rasonabe, Isidoro Recamadas, Filipinas Evardo, Praxedes Lopena and James Tiu alias Jimmy Tiu guilty beyond reasonable doubt as co-principals in the crime of Estafa thru Falsification of Public Documents, as defined and penalized in Article 318 and 171, in relation to Article 48, all of the Revised Penal Code; and, in default of any modifying circumstance in attendance, sentencing each of them to an indeterminate penalty ranging from Six (6) Years of prision correccional as minimum, to Ten 10 years, Eight (8) Months and One (1) Day of prision mayor, as maximum, with the accessories provided by law; to pay a fine of Three Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P3,500.00); to indemnify, jointly and severally, the Republic of the Philippines in the amount of Thirty Eight Thousand Five Hundred Eighty-One and 75/100 Pesos (P38,581.75); and, to pay their proportionate share of the costs.

B) In Criminal Case No. 196 - finding accused Valentino G. Castillo, Jose Bagasao; Rolando Mangubat, Delia Preagido Luis Rasonabe, Isidoro Recamadas, Filipinas Evardo, Praxedes Lopena, Nino Pilayre and James Tiu alias Jimmy Tiu guilty beyond reasonable doubt as co-principals in the crimes of Estafa thru Falsification of Public Documents, as defined and penalized in Articles 318 and 171, in relation to Article 48, all of the Revised Penal Code; and, in default of any modifying circumstance in attendance, sentencing each of them to an indeterminate penalty ranging from Six (6) Years of prision correccional, as minimum, to Ten (10) Years, Eight (8) Months and One (1) Day of prision mayor, as maximum, with the accessories provided by law; to pay a fine of Three Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P3,500.00); to indemnify, jointly and severally, the Republic of the Philippines in the amount of Forty Seven Thousand Four Hundred Forty Four and 25/100 Pesos (P47,444.25); and, to pay their proportionate share of the costs.

C) In Criminal Case No. 197 - finding accused Valentino G.

Castillo, Jose Bagasao, Rolando Mangubat, Delia Preagido, Luis Rasonabe, Isidoro Recamadas, Filipinas Evardo, Praxedes Lopena, Nino Pilayre and James Tiu alias Jimmy Tiu guilty beyond reasonable doubt as co-principals in the crime of Estafa thru Falsification of Public Documents, as defined and penalized in Articles 318 and 171, in relation to Article 48, all of the Revised Penal Code; and, in default of any modifying circumstance in attendance, sentencing each of them to an indeterminate penalty ranging from Six (6) years of prision correccional, as minimum, to Ten (10) Years, Eight (8) Months and One (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum, with the accessories provided by law; to pay a fine of Three Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P3,500.00); to indemnify, jointly and severally, the Republic of the Philippines in the amount of Thirty Seven Thousand Six Hundred Fifty-Two and 25/100 Pesos (P37,652.25); and, to pay their proportionate share of the costs.

D) In Criminal Case No. 198 - finding accused Valentino G. Castillo, Jose Bagasao, Rolando Mangubat, Delia Preagido Ulrico Bolotaolo, Luis Rasonabe, Isidoro Recamadas, Filipinas Evardo, Praxedes Lopena, Charita de Villa, Eliseo Cornell and James Tiu alias Jimmy Tiu guilty beyond reasonable doubt as co-principals in the crime of Estafa thru Falsification of Public Documents, as defined and penalized under Articles 318 and 171, in relation to Article 48, all of the Revised Penal Code; and, in default of any thing circumstance in attendance, sentencing each of them to an indeterminate penalty ranging from Six (6) Years of prision correccional as minimum, to Ten (10) Years, Eight (8) Months and One (1) Day of prision mayor, as maximum, with the accessories provided by law; to pay a fine of Three Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P3,500.00); to indemnify, jointly and severally, the Republic of the Philippines in the amount of Forty Seven Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Seven and 75/100 Pesos (P47,637.75); and, to pay their proportionate share of the costs.

E) In Criminal Case No. 199 - finding accused Valentino G. Castillo, Jose Bagasao, Rolando Mangubat, Delia Preagido, Ulrico Bolotaolo, Luis Rasonabe, Isidoro Recamadas, Filipinas Evardo, Praxedes Lopena, Charita de Villa, Eliseo Cornell and James Tiu alias Jimmy Tiu guilty beyond reasonable doubt as co-principals in the crime of Estafa thru Falsification of Public Documents, as defined and penalized in Articles 318 and 171, in relation to Article 48, all of the Revised Penal Code; and, in default of any modifying circumstance in attendance, sentencing each of them to an indeterminate penalty ranging from Six (6) Years of prision correccional as minimum, to Ten (10) Years, Eight (8) Months and One (1) Day of prision mayor, as maximum, with the accessories provided by law; to pay a fine of Three Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P3,500.00); to indemnify, jointly and severally, the Republic of the Philippines in the amount of Twenty Three Thousand Seven Hundred One and 75/100 Pesos (P23,701.75); and, to pay their proportionate share of the costs.

F) In Criminal Case No. 200 - finding accused Valentino G. Castillo, Jose Bagasao, Rolando Mangubat, Delia Preagido, Luis Rasonabe, Isidoro Recamadas, Filipinas Evardo, Praxedes Lopena, Nino Pilayre, and James Tiu alias Jimmy Tiu guilty beyond reasonable doubt as co-principals in the crime of Estafa thru Falsification of Public Documents, as defined and penalized in Articles 318 and 171, in relation to Article 48, all of the Revised Penal Code; and, in default of any modifying circumstance in attendance, sentencing each of them to an indeterminate penalty ranging from Six (6) Years of Prision correccional as minimum, to Ten (10) Years, Eight (8) Months and One (1) Day of prision mayor, as maximum, with the accessories provided by law; to pay a fine of Three Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P3,500.00); to indemnify, jointly and severally, the Republic of the Philippines in the amount of Forty Five Thousand Nine Hundred Forty and 25/100 Pesos (P45,940.25); and, to pay their proportionate share of the costs.

For insufficiency of evidence, accused Jose Sayson and Engracio Quiroz alias Dodong are hereby acquitted of the crimes charged in Criminal Cases Nos. 195, 196, 197, 198, 199 and 200, with their proportionate share of the costs de officio. The bailbonds heretofore posted for their provisional liberty are hereby cancelled and their sureties are henceforth relieved from any further responsibility thereunder. The Tanodbayan is hereby directed to conduct the appropriate inquiry into the possible complicity of Arsenio Sarigumba, Allan Apalisok and Miguel V. Bulac and to take such action in the premises as his findings may warrant.

SO ORDERED.6 Except for James Tiu, a private contractor, and Engracio Quiroz, his employee, the accused in all six (6) criminal cases are public officers. They are: Position Office 1) Valentino Castillo City Engineer Tagbilaran City Engineer's Office CEO 2) Jose Bagasao Assistant Regional Director Seventh Regional Highways Office 3) Rolando Mangubat Chief Accountant I Seventh Regional Highways Office 4) Delia Preagido Accountant III Seventh Regional Highways Office 5) Jose Sayson Budget Examiner II Seventh Regional Highways Office 6) Luis Rasonabe Civil Engineer Tagbilaran City Engineer's Office CEO 7) Isidoro Recamadas Clerk II (Property Custodian) Tagbilaran City Engineer's Office CEO 8) Filipinas Evardo Bookkeeper II Tagbilaran City Engineer's Office CEO 9) Praxedes Lopena Auditor II Commission on Audit 10) Ulrico Bolotaolo Senior Civil Engineer Tagbilaran City Engineer's Office CEO 11) Nino Pilayre Checker Tagbilaran City Engineer's Office CEO 12) Charita de Villa Auditing Examiner III Commission on Audit (Tagbilaran CEO) 13) Eliseo Cornell Auditing Examiner II Commission on Audit (Tagbilaran CEO)7 The six (6) criminal charges are Summarized in the petition itself.

We quote: x x x x x x x x x That in or about and during the period from April to June, 1978, the accused public officials in their official capacity and in connection with the functions of their office, and conspiring and conniving among themselves, as well as with their private party co-accused, allegedly falsified or caused to be falsified Letters of Advice of Allotment both dated April 24, 1978, and sub-Advices of Cash Disbursement Ceiling both dated April 28, 1978 and May 2, 1978, which are all public documents, thereby making it appear that an amount of P300,000.00 had been lawfully allocated for Tagbilaran City from the 7th Regional Highway Office and made available for the maintenance of existing and unabandoned roads and bridges; and, specified General Vouchers in the total amount of P299,880.00 for the payment of specified quantities of anapog binder allegedly requisitioned, purchased and delivered, as well as the corresponding Program of Work/Budget Cost for Roads and Bridges, Request for Obligation of Allotment, Abstracts of Sealed Quotations, Purchase Orders, Records, Records of Inspections and other papers in support thereof, also all public documents, thereby making it appear that the aforesaid documents were regularly prepared and approved, that the bidding was properly conducted, that the purchase orders were prepared in favor of the lowest bidder, and that the materials purchased were fully delivered in accordance with specifications and duly inspected, when, in truth and in fact, the aforesaid documents were falsified and the acts and transactions referred to were failure and simulated, inasmuch as only small quantities of the materials were actually delivered; and by means of falsifications as aboved, the accused were able to demand, collect and receive from the Government thru the Tagbilaran City Engineering Office the face value of the vouchers in question, although the amount due should have been only the value of the actual quantities delivered, and that, after said accused had collected and received the amounts aforesaid, they unlawfully misapplied, misappropriated and converted the same to their own personal use and benefit and/or consented or permitted other persons to misapply, misappropriate or convert the same to their own personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of the Government in the amount of P242,964.32, representing the value of the short-delivered materials.8 The accused all pleaded "not guilty"

to these charges.9 I. In the regional level, the requisition of funds for public works purposes, especially in the matter of road and bridge repairs, involves a graduated series of steps. As found by the respondent Sandiganbayan, it begins with the Sub-Allotment Advices (SAAs), as well as the Advices of Cash Disbursement Ceilings (ACDCs) issued by the Ministry of Public Highways in favor of its Highways Regional Offices. These serve as the Regional Offices' authority to obligate and disburse funds.

In turn, these become the sources of funds of the various Engineering Districts apportioned throughout each region.10 The Engineering District then requests for the release of these funds from the Regional Director through a Program of Work. The Regional Finance Officer issues a Letter of Advice of Allotment (LAA) certified as to availability of funds by the Regional Accountant, counter-signed by the Regional Director, and addressed to the District (or City, as the case may be) Engineer. At the same time, he (the Regional Finance Officer) prepares a Sub-Advice of Cash Disbursement Ceiling (SACDC) for the Regional Director.

The LAA and SACDC are subsequently entered in a logbook. The funds requested are then released.11 On the strength of such LAA and SACDC, the District then prepares a Requisition for Supplies or Equipment (RSE) as well as a Request for Obligation of Allotment (ROA) pursuant to the Program of Work. Both are likewise certified as to availability of funds by the Regional Accountant and approved by the Regional Director.12 Thereafter, the Property Custodian or the Purchasing Officer, as the case may be, addresses Requests for Sealed Quotations to various suppliers, usually through newspaper advertisements or notices posted in conspicuous places in the District concerned.

After ten days, the Sealed Quotations are submitted to the Price Verification Committee which determines the lowest bid in the presence of representatives of the District Engineer and the Auditor. An Abstract of Sealed Quotations is then signed by the members of the Committee as well as the said local representatives. Thereafter, and subject to the approval of the District Engineer, the proper award is made in favor of the lowest bidder.

On the basis thereof, the Property Custodian issues a Purchase Order (PO) in favor of the winning bidder, again subject to the approval of the District Engineer and certified as to availability of funds by the Regional Accountant.13 The supplies thus to be delivered are thereafter inspected (through Request for Inspection) by the Property Custodian. The deliveries themselves are recorded in a Tally Sheet after which a Record of Inspection, certified by the Property Custodian,14 is prepared by the representative of the Auditor and the Property Custodian. Payment to the supplier is evidenced by a General Voucher (GV) Among others, the GV contains five parts: (1) a certification of receipt of supplies to be accomplished by the Property Custodian; (2) a certification of correctness, that is, that the expenses are necessary and lawful, and that the prices are not in excess of the current rates in the locality, to be accomplished by the Project Engineer; (3) approval by the District Engineer; (4) a certification to be accomplished by the Auditor, that the GV has been properly approved, its account codes proper, and that it is supported by the proper documents; and (5) a certification that the GV has undergone pre-audit, to be accomplished by the Auditor.15 The GV itself must carry with it the following: the RSE ROA, Program of Work, Detailed Estimates, Request for Sealed Quotations, Abstract of Sealed Quotations, PO, Delivery Receipts, Request for Inspection, Record of Inspection, Test Reports, and Tax Clearance of the supplier.16 The process winds up with the issuance of the check by the Cashier in the name of the supplier.

Like the GV the check is pre-audited and then released.17 The District Accountant thereafter prepares a Report of Obligation Incurred (ROI) and a Report of Checks Issued (RCI) to be submitted to the Regional Office and entered in the journals and the General Ledger thereof. On the basis thereof, the Regional Accountant prepares a trial balance to be recommended by the Finance Officer and approved by the Regional Director. The same is then submitted to the Ministry of Public Highways.18 With this prologue, we come to the six (6) appeals at bar.

II. It appears that from May through June, 1978, the Tagbilaran City Engineering Office (CEO) embarked on certain projects involving the restoration of various roads and bridges in Tagbilaran City.19 Pursuant to five LAAs addressed to the Ministry of Public Highways purportedly issued by the Seventh Regional Highways Office on behalf of the Tagbilaran CEO, more specifically describe as follows: LAA No. Date Amount 107-780-05-78 April 29, 1978 P150,000.00 107-0780-07-78 No date 26,000.00 107-780-012-78 April 24, 1978 48,100.00 107-780-014-78 April 24, 1978 150,000.00 107-780-011-78 No date 100,000.00