|
BLAS BALDEBRIN and PERPETUO LACEA,
Petitioners, -versus- SANDIGANBAYAN (Third Division) and
PEOPLE OF THE Respondents. |
G.R. Nos. 144950-71 Present: pUNO, C.J., Chairperson, Sandoval-Gutierrez, AZCUNA, and GARCIA,
JJ. Promulgated: |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
Assailed in the instant Petition for
Review on Certiorari are the Joint Decision dated December 15, 1998 and
Resolution dated August 24, 2000 of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case Nos.
3346 to 3400 and Nos. 1445 to 1499 convicting, among others, Blas Baldebrin and Perpetuo Lacea for violations of
Section 3(e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act, as amended.
On
The Informations in the second batch
of fifty-five (55) cases (including those against petitioners) were identically
worded, except for the dates of the commission of the crime, the names of the
public officials and private individuals charged, the amounts involved and
other data. Baldebrin
was charged with thirteen (13) counts, while Lacea
was charged with fourteen (14) counts.
For brevity, we reproduce the Information in Criminal Case No. 1449 as
sample, thus:
That on or about November
10, 1977 up to and including November 25, 1977, in the Cities of Cebu, Dumaguete and the Province of Negros Oriental and
within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Sandiganbayan, the accused NORBERTO
BERNAD, District Engineer, Negros Oriental Highway Engineering District
(NOHED), Dumaguete City; MANUEL DE VEYRA, Director,
MPH, Region VII, Cebu City; ADVENTOR FERNANDEZ, Highway Regional Director, MPH
Region VII, Cebu City; RUFINA GREFALDE, District Accountant, NOHED, Dumaguete City; NAPOLEON CLAVANO, Supervising Civil
Engineer I, NOHED, Dumaguete City; ROLANDO MANGUBAT,
Regional Accountant, MPH Region VII, Cebu City; DELIA PREAGIDO, Assistant Regional
Accountant; ANGELINA ESCAÑO, Finance Officer, MPH, Region VII, Cebu City; LINDY
TVS ENRIQUEZ, Property Officer/Custodian, NOHED, Dumaguete
City; EFREN COYOCA, District Auditor, NOHED, Dumaguete
City; HERACLEO FAELNAR, then Acting Assistant Regional Director, MPH Region
VII, Cebu City; BLAS BALDEBRIN,
Administrative Officer I, NOHED, Dumaguete City;
JAIME OBSEQUIO, Assistant District Engineer III, NOHED, Dumaguete
City; JESUS PEDROZA, JR., Laborer, NOHED, Dumaguete
City; ANTIPAS PONTENILLA, Auditing Examiner, District Auditor’s Office, NOHED, Dumaguete City; PERPETUO
LACEA, Civil Engineer, NOHED, Dumaguete City; and
others whose identities are not yet known in conspiracy with each other, all
taking advantage of their official positions, with the indispensable
cooperation and/or direct participation of CLODUALDO C. GOMILLA, Proprietor of
C.G. Gomilla Sand and Gravel, Private Contractor,
with evident bad faith, manifest partiality and/or gross inexcusable negligence
did there and then willfully, knowingly and unlawfully caused undue injury to
the Republic of the Philippines in the amount of THIRTY SEVEN THOUSAND EIGHT
HUNDRED PESOS (P37,800.00), Philippine Currency, by falsifying Negros
Oriental Highway Engineering District General Voucher No. 1413 dated November
25, 1977 and Treasury Check No. 4215382 dated November 25, 1977 in the amount
of P37,800.00 and its supporting documents, such as the Request for
Obligation of Allotment (ROA), Request for Supplies and Equipment (RSE),
Purchase Order (PO), Report of Inspection (ROI), Daily Tally Sheets (DTS) and
Delivery Receipts (DR), simulating them to appear regular as payment for 1050
cubic meters of Item 200 and charging this General Voucher 1413 to Letter of
Advice of Allotment No. 107-703-039-77, when in truth and in fact as all the
accused knew there were no actual deliveries and receipts of the said Item 200,
the foregoing documents were simulated, falsified and incorrect and that the
LAA No. 107-703-039-77 is without budgetary basis and not covered by any Sub-Advice
of Allotment from the Ministry of Public Highways, Manila, and further by
manipulating the books of accounts of the MPH, Region VII, all for the purpose
of covering their criminal act, and finally, upon receipt of the said amount of
THIRTY SEVEN THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED PESOS (P37,800.00), Philippine
Currency, the accused misappropriated, converted and misapplied the same for
their personal gain and profit.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Evidence for the prosecution, oral
and documentary, shows that upon investigation conducted by the Commission on
Audit (COA) Regional Office No. VII in 1978, it was found that the personnel in
the fifteen (15) Highway Engineering Districts of the MPH (now Department of
Public Works and Highways) in that Region were involved in the irregular
disbursements of “ghost” deliveries of materials used in various highway
projects. The illegal disbursements were
made possible through the falsification of public and commercial documents.
Due to the
seriousness of the irregularities then being committed by the personnel in
those fifteen (15) Highway Engineering Districts, then President Ferdinand E.
Marcos created a Special Cabinet Committee in the MPH Region VII “Ghost Project
Anomalies” which, in turn, organized a Special Task Force (hereinafter referred
to as the team) to conduct a wider and more extensive investigation in the said
Highway Engineering Districts, including the NOHED. The team was composed of representatives from
the Finance Ministry (now the Department of Finance) Intelligence Bureau,
National Bureau of Investigation, the Bureau of Treasury, and the COA.
During the investigation conducted by
the team in the NOHED, it found twenty six (26) vouchers funded on the bases of fake supporting
documents,[1] twelve (12)
of which were charged against Accounts Payable (8-81-400) or Prior Years’
Obligation; and fourteen (14) were charged against Current Obligations (101-83). The
team reported that the payments of obligations for the transactions entered
into during the period from March to September, 1978 were attended by
irregularities. These were transactions
which should have been charged against the Current Account. The team also noted that there was splitting
of requisitions, in violation of COA Circular No. 76-41 dated P50,000.00 so that it would no longer be approved by the Regional
Director.[4] Some of the Requisition Issue Vouchers were
not numbered for purposes of identification in order that they could be used again
to support other claims. The team also
found that some of the reports of inspection attached to the vouchers were undated.
After
collating its findings, the team reported these total disbursements based on fake
allotments: P745,957.00 for 1977 and P1,321,664.44 for 1978.[5]
Delia Preagido,[6]
one of those involved in the perpetuation of fraud and who later became a state
witness,[7]
narrated the events that led to the investigation,[8]
thus:
Sometime
in February 1977, she, together with accused Rolando Mangubat
(Chief Accountant), Jose Sayson (Budget Examiner),
and Edgardo Cruz (Clerk II), all of the MPH Region VII, met at the Town and
Country Restaurant in P50,000.00
to do away with the approval of the Regional Director, the charging of
disbursements to unliquidated obligations due the
previous year to provide the supposed source of funds, and the manipulation of
the books of account by negation or adjustment, i.e., the cancellation
of checks through journal vouchers to conceal disbursements in excess of the
CDC, so that such disbursements are not reflected in the trial balances
submitted by the Regional Office to the MPH Central Office in Manila.
Mangubat enticed Preagido, Cruz and Sayson to join him. All three agreed to help him carry out his plan. They typed the fake LAAs during Saturdays. Cruz and Sayson also took charge of negotiating or selling the fake LAAs to contractors at 26% of the gross amount. On her part, Preagido manipulated the General Ledger, Journal Vouchers and General Journal through negative entries to conceal the illegal disbursements.
The four formed the
nucleus of the conspiracy. Other
government employees tempted by the prospect of earning big money, allowed
their names to be used and signed spurious documents.
The defense presented nineteen (19)
witnesses, including petitioners Baldebrin and Lacea, to prove that road construction materials were
actually delivered; that the road projects were properly undertaken and fully
accomplished; that accused public officers only performed their duties without
any knowledge of the irregularities that had been going on; and that they did
not receive any money derived from the anomalies.
Specifically,
Baldebrin testified that all the bidding reports signed
by him involved in fourteen (14) cases were conducted in accordance with the
rules. As a member of the Bidding and Award Committee
(BAC), he saw to it that the bidders had prequalified;
that fifteen (15) minutes before the opening of bids, prospective bidders were
called to attend and observe; and that the award was given to the lowest bidder. He stressed that he was not duty-bound to see
to it that the items purchased were actually delivered; that he had no reason
to suspect that there were irregularities because the materials being purchased
were within the normal volume ordered by the district.[9]
For his part, petitioner Lacea
testified that as field supervisor of the NOHED, it was his duty to check and
inspect the materials delivered in his area and to sign reports of inspection,
delivery receipts, and tally sheets of all materials purchased and delivered.[10]
Concerning the fourteen (14) documents he signed for which he was indicted, the
materials specified therein were actually delivered. He inspected them and found that the volume
delivered corresponded to that stated in the inspection reports he signed.[11]
He denied having taken part in the
conspiracy.
On
In convicting petitioner Baldebrin,
the Sandiganbayan held:
The Abstracts of Bids
signed by him, aside from being so many (14 in all), were opened in groups and
each group had the same date. From the contents of the Abstracts of Bids, it
could readily be noticed that they involved the same material (Item 200), the
same suppliers or contractors, and in quantities valued at less than P50,000.00
each. The splitting of transactions or accounts was clearly evident and Baldebrin
could not have failed to notice it because he signed the Abstracts of Bids in
groups. “Why are there so many separate bids for the same material, from the
same suppliers/contractors, for the same project on the same day?” Surely this
question must have cropped up in his mind, assuming he really had no inkling of
what was going on, for he knew fully well that splitting of accounts was
prohibited.
To be more specific, the
Abstracts of Bids (Exhibits “N-5-f”, “N-6-f”, “N-8-f”, “N-9-f”, and “N-1-f”) clearly
show that the bids were opened on the same date (November 17, 1977), were for
the same material (Item 200); were participated in by the same suppliers; and
were for quantities valued at less than P50,000.00 each. Similarly, the Abstracts of Bids marked as
Exhibits “N-16-f”, “N-20-f”, “N-22-f” were opened on the same date (P50,000.00
each. This holds true with the rest of the Abstracts of Bids signed by him. Assuming
that Baldebrin was in good faith and unaware of the anomalies going on, as he
claimed to be, as Administrative Officer and member of the BAC, he could not
have failed to notice that there was a splitting of accounts. He nonetheless
allowed the same to be committed, thereby causing undue injury to the
government through his gross negligence.[12]
In convicting petitioner Lacea, the
Sandiganbayan found that:
The overwhelming documentary evidence presented by the prosecution, however, clearly established the fact that no deliveries were made insofar as materials covered by the fake documents are concerned. Mere denial or general allusion to deliveries based on genuine transactions is not enough to overturn it. Accused failed to prove the deliveries mentioned by him were the ones covered by the fake documents or that the documents were not fake after all. What then was the point in faking LAAs, SACDCs and General Vouchers and their supporting documents?[13]
On
Hence, the instant petition for
review on certiorari.
The
issue raised by petitioners is whether the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting
them of the crime charged despite the failure of the prosecution to present
evidence to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Petitioner Baldebrin
contends that he did not participate in the splitting of accounts or bids and that
he signed the Abstracts of Bids in good faith.
His contention lacks merit. As administrative
officer and member of the BAC, he knew fully well that splitting of accounts
was done obviously to do away with the approval by the Regional Director. Each abstract he signed was in an amount less
than P50,000.00 and prepared on the same day, specifying the same construction
materials, the same suppliers, and the same road projects. The splitting of accounts is too glaring to
be ignored. He could not have failed to
notice the splitting because the abstracts were opened, read and signed in
groups. Taken singly, each abstract may
appear to be regular, but when considered in groups, the abstracts clearly show
splitting of accounts prohibited by COA Circular No. 76-41.
Petitioner Lacea
maintains that during the delivery of materials, he was actually present. However, he admitted there were times that when
he arrived at the site, delivery had already been made. Nevertheless, as soon as he reached the
jobsite, he immediately conducted an inspection in the presence of the property
custodian and representatives from the COA.
Thereupon, he signed the delivery receipts.
The Sandiganbayan, in finding that no
deliveries of materials were made, ratiocinated as follows:
The plea of guilty made
by a supplier[14] of
materials in Criminal Case No. 1448 is an admission that he did not deliver the
materials. It should also be borne in
mind that the fraud was committed on a regionwide scale (DPWH Region VII) and
the same modus operandi was adopted
in each of the engineering districts. We take judicial notice of the fact that
Juliana de los Angeles (a material supplier) and Florencio Masecampo (an
administrative officer) by their plea of guilty in the other highways cases
already decided by this Court, admitted that no materials were delivered. Barangay officials also testified in those
cases that no materials were delivered.
This same finding of non-delivery of materials can safely be made in
these cases because the same accused Mangubat, Sayson, Cruz and Preagido) are
involved, the same modus operandi was
used, and the Oriental Highway Engineering District is part of DPWH Region VII.
In appeals
to this Court from the Sandiganbayan, only
questions of law may be raised, not issues of fact.[15] The factual findings of the Sandiganbayan are
binding upon this Court. Admittedly, this general rule is subject to some
exceptions, among them are: (1) when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely
on speculation, surmise or conjecture; (2) the inference made is manifestly
mistaken; (3) there is a grave abuse of discretion on the part of the lower
court or agency; (4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) said
findings of facts are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on
which they are based; and (6) the findings of fact by the Sandiganbayan are premised
on the absence of evidence on record.[16] However, petitioners failed to establish any of
these exceptional circumstances.
Petitioners’ roles in the
irregularities are indispensable link to the attainment of their and their co-accused’s common objective to defraud the government. As held by this Court in Alvizo v. Sandiganbayan,[17] “while
it is true that the fake Letters of Advice of Allotment (LAAs)
and the Cash Disbursement Ceilings originated from the Regional Office, the
falsity of such allotments would be useless if the district officials and
employees did not consent to its implementation by making it appear that there
were valid requisitions, deliveries, inspections, processing, pre-auditing, and
approval of the general vouchers and the checks paid to the contractor/supplier. The individual acts of the petitioners x x
x pointed to a single criminal intent, one performing one part of the
transaction, and the others, another part of the same transaction, so as to
complete it with a view to attaining the object which they were pursuing, i.e., to defraud the government.”
In Mangubat v. Sandiganbayan,[18] the
Court said, “no doubt the defraudation of the government would not have been
possible were it not for the cooperation respectively extended by all the
accused, including herein petitioner.
The scheme involved both officials and employees from the Regional
Office. Some made the falsifications,
others worked to cover-up the same to consummate the crime charged. Petitioner’s role was indubitably an
essential ingredient especially so because it was he who issued the false LAAs,
which as previously mentioned, initiated the commission of the crime. When the defendants by their acts aimed at
the same object, one performing one part, and the other performing another part
so as to complete it, with a view to the attainment of the same object, and
their acts though apparently independent, were in fact concerted and
cooperative, indicating closeness of personal association, concerted action and
concurrence of sentiments, the court will be justified in concluding that said
defendants were engaged in a conspiracy.”
Indeed, both petitioners’
participation in the irregularities in question is clear. We thus find no reversible error committed
by the Sandiganbayan.
WHEREFORE, we deny
the petition and AFFIRM the assailed
Joint Decision of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case Nos. 3346 to 3400 and in
Criminal Case Nos. 1445 to 1499 insofar as the conviction of petitioners BLAS
BALDEBRIN and PERPETUO LACEA is concerned.
Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice Chairperson |
|
|
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice |
|
CANCIO C. GARCIA Associate Justice |
|
Chief Justice
[1] These documents were: general vouchers, treasury checks, requests for obligation of allotment (ROA), requests for supplies and equipment (RSE), purchase orders (PO), reports of inspection (ROI), daily tally sheets (DTS), delivery receipts (DR), and letters of advice of allotment (LAA).
[2] Pertinent
portions of COA Circular No. 76-41 read:
SUBJECT: Prohibition against splitting of requisitions, purchase orders,
vouchers and others.
x x x
Actually, some control measures have
already been instituted by the Government in the form of laws, rules and
regulations, particularly on public biddings, inspection of deliveries of
equipment, supplies and materials, including the policy of prescribing
appropriate action on certain government contracts.
It has been observed, however, that these control measures are
frequently being circumvented by procurement officials to the prejudice of the
government. A common practice resorted
to by these officials is to split requisitions, purchase orders, vouchers, and
the like.
What is “Splitting”?
Splitting, in its literal sense, means dividing or breaking up into
separate parts or portions, or an act resulting in a fissure, rupture,
breach. Within the sphere of government
procurement, splitting is associated with requisitions, purchase orders,
deliveries and payments.
Forms of splitting:
1. Splitting
of Requisitions consists in the non-consolidation of requisitions for one or
more items needed at or about the same time by the requisitioner;
2. Splitting
of Purchase Orders consists in the issuance of two or more purchase orders
based on two or more requisitions for the same or about the same time by
different requisitions; and,
3. The
Splitting of Payments consists in making two or more payments for one or more
items involving one purchase order.
The above-enumerated forms of splitting
are usually resorted to in the following cases:
1. Splitting
of requisitions and purchase orders to avoid inspection of deliveries;
2. Splitting
of requisitions and purchase orders to avoid action, review or approval by
higher authorities; and,
3. Splitting
of requisitions to avoid public bidding.
[3] Rollo,
pp. 105-106.
[4] Vouchers not exceeding P50,000.00
are approved only by the Auditor of the Engineering District concerned.
[5] Rollo,
p. 97.
[6] Formerly employed as Accountant III of
the MPH based in
[7] In
Criminal Case Nos.
1647 to 1789, entitled “People of the
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13] Sandiganbayan Decision, id., p. 179.
[14] Manuel Mascardo.
[15] Escara
v. People, G.R. No. 164921,
[16] Alvizo
v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos.
98494-98692,
[17] Supra,
a related case also involving anomalies in the Highway Engineering District,
Region VII.
[18] Nos. L-52872-52997,