PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, -
versus - TEOFILO G. PANTALEON, JR. and JAIME F. VALLEJOS, Accused-Appellants. |
G.R. Nos. 158694-96
Present: QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson, carpio
MORALES, TINGA, VELASCO, JR., and BRION, JJ. Promulgated: March 13, 2009 |
x -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
|
|
|
|
|
D
E C I S I O N
|
|
|
|
|
|
BRION, J.: |
|
We
review in this appeal the February 4, 2003 decision of the Sandiganbayan in
Criminal Case Nos. 25861-63[1]
finding the appellants Teofilo G. Pantaleon, Jr. (Pantaleon) and Jaime F. Vallejos (Vallejos), former Municipal Mayor and Municipal Treasurer,
respectively, of the Municipality of Castillejos, Zambales, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three (3)
counts of malversation of public funds through falsification of public documents,
defined and penalized under Article 217, in relation with Articles 48 and 171
of the Revised Penal Code. The Sandiganbayan sentenced the appellants to suffer
the penalties of reclusion perpetua
and perpetual special disqualification for each count, and ordered them to pay
a fine in the amounts of P166,242.72, P154,634.27, and P90,464.21,
respectively, and to pay the costs.
ANTECEDENT FACTS
This
case originated from the joint affidavit-complaints filed by Vice Mayor Wilma
D. Billman (Vice Mayor Billman);
Councilors Reynaldo V. Misa (Reynaldo),
Dionisio F. Abinsay (Dionisio), Resty
D. Viloria (Resty), Ramon J. Tamoria
(Ramon), Aurelio M. Fastidio (Aurelio), Enrique C. Clarin (Enrique), and Raymundo V. Navarro (Raymundo), dated December 18, 1998; and
Rodolfo J. Navalta (Rodolfo) dated December
22, 1998, before the Office of the Special Prosecutor of Zambales, for malversation
of public funds through falsification of public documents, against the
appellants, Ken Swan Tiu, and Engineer Rainier J. Ramos (Engr. Ramos).
The joint affidavit-complaints
alleged that the appellants, Ken Swan Tiu, and Engr. Ramos conspired to illegally
disburse and misappropriate the public funds of the Municipality of
Castillejos, Zambales in the amounts of P166,242.72 (under Disbursement Voucher No.
101-9803-328), P154,634.27 (under
Disbursement Voucher No. 101-9803-349), and P90,464.21 (under Disbursement
Voucher No. 101-9804-415), by falsifying the supporting documents relating to
three (3) fictitious or “ghost” construction projects, namely: (a) the
upgrading of barangay roads in Barangays
Looc, Nagbayan, Magsaysay, and San Pablo; (b) the upgrading of barangay roads in Barangays Looc
proper-Casagatan, Nagbayan proper-Angeles, and San Pablo-Sitio San Isidro; and
(c) the construction of market stalls at the public market of Castillejos.
The
affidavit-complaints further alleged that the disbursement vouchers were not
signed by the municipal accountant and budget officer; that the Sangguniang Bayan did not adopt a
resolution authorizing Pantaleon to enter into a contract with La Paz
Construction and/or Ken Swan Tiu; and that no projects were actually undertaken
by the
The
Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP)
recommended the filing of an Information for Malversation of Public Funds
through Falsification of Public Documents against the appellants and Ken Swan
Tiu, and the dismissal of the complaint against Engr. Ramos.[2]
The
Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for
The Office of the Ombudsman filed on
Criminal Case No. 25861
That on or about 5 January 1998 and 20 February
1998, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the Municipality of
Castillejos, Province of Zambales, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, both public officers, then being
the Municipal Mayor and Municipal Treasurer, respectively, both of the
Municipality of Castillejos, Zambales who by reason of their said respective
office, are accountable for public funds or properties, committing the complex
crime charged herein while in the performance of, in relation to and/or taking
advantage of their official positions and functions as such, and conspiring and
confederating with one another, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously appropriate, take or misappropriate public funds of the Municipality
of Castillejos, Zambales under their charge and custody in the amount of
P166,242,72, Philippine currency, under the check dated 20 February 1998
intended for the simulated disbursement and payment thereof in favor of La Paz
Construction (LPC) relative to the fictitious contract for the upgrading of the
barangay roads in Barangay Looc, Nagbayan, Magsaysay and San Pablo,
Castillejos, Zambales; by means of falsifying the corresponding disbursement
voucher no. 101-9803-328, certificates of inspection and acceptance, contract
between LPC and the Municipality of Castillejos, Zambales, price quotation,
purchase order, and LPC official receipt number 000999 dated 5 January 1998, to
falsely make it appear that LPC entered into, undertook and completed the said
contract and received the aforesaid amount as payment therefor from the
Municipality of Castillejos, Zambales, when in truth and in fact, LPC neither
entered into, undertook and completed the aforesaid contract nor received from
the Municipality of Castillejos, Zambales the said sum of money or any part
thereof, to the damage and prejudice of the Municipality of Castillejos,
Zambales and the public interest in the aforestated amount.
CONTRARY
TO LAW.[5]
Criminal Case No. 25862
That on or about 23 February 1998, or
sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the Municipality of Castillejos,
Province of Zambales, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, both public officers, then being the
Municipal Mayor and Municipal Treasurer, respectively, both of the Municipality
of Castillejos, Zambales who by reason of their said respective office are
accountable for public funds or properties, committing the complex crime
charged herein while in the performance of, in relation to and/or taking
advantage of their official positions and functions as such, and conspiring and
confederating with one another, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously appropriate, take or misappropriate public funds of the
Municipality of Castillejos, Zambales under their charge and custody in the
amount of P154,634.27 Philippine currency, under the check dated 23 February
1998 intended for the simulated disbursement and payment thereof in favor of La
Paz Construction (LPC) relative to the fictitious contract for the upgrading of
the barangay roads in Barangay Looc proper-Casagatan, Nagbayan proper-Angeles
and San Pablo-Sitio Isidro, Castillejos, Zambales; by means of falsifying the
corresponding disbursement voucher no. 101-9803-349, certificates of inspection
and acceptance, contract between LPC and the Municipality of Castillejos,
Zambales, purchase order, and LPC official receipt, to falsely make it appear
that LPC entered into, undertook and completed the said contract and received
the aforesaid amount as payment therefor from the Municipality of Castillejos,
Zambales, when in truth and in fact, LPC neither entered into, undertook and
completed the aforesaid contract nor received from the Municipality of
Castillejos, Zambales the said sum of money or any part thereof, to the damage
and prejudice of the Municipality of Castillejos, Zambales and the public
interest in the aforestated amount.
CONTRARY
TO LAW.[6]
Criminal
Case No. 25863
That on or about 20 March 1998, or sometime
prior or subsequent thereto, in the Municipality of Castillejos, Province of
Zambales, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, both public officers, then being the Municipal Mayor and
Municipal Treasurer, respectively, both of the Municipality of Castillejos,
Zambales who by reason of their said respective office are accountable for
public funds or properties, committing the complex crime charged herein while
in the performance of, in relation to and/or taking advantage of their official
positions and functions as such, and conspiring and confederating with one
another, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously appropriate,
take or misappropriate public funds of the Municipality of Castillejos,
Zambales under their charge and custody in the amount of P90,464.21, Philippine
currency, under the check dated 20 March 1998 intended for the simulated
disbursement and payment thereof in favor of La Paz Construction (LPC) relative
to the fictitious contract for the construction of market stalls at the public
market of Castillejos, Zambales, by means of falsifying the corresponding
disbursement voucher no. 101-9804-415, certificates of inspection and
acceptance, contract between LPC and the Municipality of Castillejos, Zambales,
price quotation, purchase order, and LPC official receipt number 000995 dated
20 March 1998, to falsely make it appear that LPC entered into, undertook and
completed the said contract and received the aforesaid amount as payment
therefor from the Municipality of Castillejos, Zambales, when in truth and in
fact, LPC neither entered into, undertook and completed the aforesaid contract
nor received from the Municipality of Castillejos, Zambales the said sum of
money or any part thereof, to the damage and prejudice of the Municipality of
Castillejos, Zambales and the public interest in the aforestated amount.
CONTRARY
TO LAW.[7]
The appellants pleaded not guilty to
the charges upon arraignment. The prosecution filed a motion to suspend the accused
pendente lite after their arraignment.[8]
The Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division) granted the motion and ordered the
preventive suspension of the appellants for 90 days.[9]
The appellants filed a motion for reconsideration[10] which
the Sandiganbayan denied.[11] The
appellants filed with this Court a petition for review on certiorari, docketed as G.R.
No. 145030, assailing the Sandiganbayan Resolutions of
In the trial on the merits of Criminal Cases
Nos. 25861-63 that followed, the prosecution presented the following witnesses:
Engr. Ramos, Aurelio, Nida Naman (Nida),
Alberto Domingo (Alberto), Engineer
Eduardo Soliven (Engr. Soliven), Simeon
Amor Viloria (Simeon), Ken Swan Tiu,
Resty, Vice Mayor Billman, Enrique, and Reynaldo. The appellants, Quirino
Adolfo (Quirino), Ricardo Abaya (Ricardo), Crisanta Ancheta (Crisanta), and John Baquilat (Baquilat) took the witness stand for the
defense.
Evidence for the Prosecution
Engr. Ramos testified that he was
designated as acting municipal engineer of Castillejos, Zambales by Pantaleon in
January 1998; and that he prepared three (3) programs of work upon the
instructions of
On
cross-examination, he stated that he was asked to prepare the programs of work
in March 1998; that he submitted the programs upon completion to Vallejos who
told him that he (Vallejos) would give them to Pantaleon for approval. He
assumed the programs of work were disapproved because nobody coordinated with
him regarding their implementation.[14]
On
re-direct examination, Engr. Ramos explained that Pantaleon and Vallejos instructed
him to place dates earlier than March 1998 in the three (3) programs of work, although
he prepared them only in March 1998.[15]
Aurelio, a member of the Sangguniang Bayan of Castillejos,
testified that the public market of Castillejos was built after the eruption of
On
cross-examination, Aurelio declared that he, together with other Sanggunian members, examined the disbursement
vouchers and other documents related to the projects covered by the program of works
after they learned that disbursements were made to La Paz Construction; that they
(Sanggunian members) filed a case
before the Provincial Prosecutor of Olongapo City after discovering that the purported
transactions were anomalous. He stated that La Paz Construction never entered
into a contract with the
Nida, the senior
bookkeeper of Castillejos, testified that Pantaleon designated her as municipal
accountant in 1993, and that she occupied the position until July 1998; as a
municipal accountant, she reviewed documents for the preparation of vouchers.
She recalled that she reviewed Voucher Nos. 101-9804-415, 101-9803-328 and
101-9803-349 only after the indicated amounts had been paid.
She explained that a voucher is certified
by the local budget officer and by the municipal accountant, and that without
her signature, a voucher is defective for failure to comply with government
auditing and accounting rules and regulations. She also revealed that the
following irregularities attended the issuance of the vouchers:
(a) Martin Pagaduan (Pagaduan), the present municipal accountant, signed Voucher No.
101-9803-328 (Exh. “A”) above her
(Nida’s) name without her authority. Pagaduan was not yet the municipal
accountant at the time of the issuance of the voucher; he was only designated
as municipal accountant on
(b) Pagaduan also similarly signed some of the
documents attached to Voucher No. 101-9803-328, such as the purchase orders (Exh. “A-4 to A-6”) and the request for
obligation allotment (Exh. “A-9”);
(c)
(d) Disbursement Voucher Nos. 101-9803-349 (Exh. “B”) and 101-9804-415 (Exh. “C”) did not bear her (Nida’s)
signature. Their voucher numbers and accounting entries were written and filled
up by
(e) The contract agreement attached to
Disbursement Voucher No. 101-9803-349 (Exh.
“B”) was not notarized. No abstract of bids and authority to enter into a
negotiated contract were attached to the voucher; and
(f) The certificate of acceptance (Exh. “C-7”), attached to Disbursement Voucher
No. 101-9804-415 (Exh. “C”), was
undated.
She reiterated that the vouchers were
all approved by Pantaleon, although they did not pass through her office for
pre-audit. She likewise explained that the certification of the accountant and
the budget officer were necessary even if the funds were sourced from the
development fund.[18]
Alberto testified
that he had not seen any upgrading of roads in his area since he was elected barangay captain of Looc, Castillejos,
Zambales in 1997. He also admitted that he signed a document before the Sangguniang Bayan attesting that
Pantaleon did not have any project in his barangay.[19]
Engr. Soliven,
the Municipal Engineer of Castillejos, narrated that Pantaleon appointed him
municipal engineer on
Simeon, the
Municipal Planning Coordinator of Castillejos, testified that he prepared
comprehensive plans and programs for the municipality, and that his tasks also
included the formulation, integration and coordination of different municipal
projects. He stated that he prepared the municipal development plans for the
fiscal years 1997 and 1998, and these plans were approved by the Sangguniang Bayan. He clarified that the
municipal engineer can implement projects that are not included in the
municipal development plan.[21]
Ken Swan Tiu (also known as Sonny Tiu, Tiu Ken Swan and
Ken Swan Lee Tiu), owner of the La Paz Construction, admitted that he
executed an affidavit dated January 14, 1999 stating that he did not enter into
any negotiated contract with the Municipality of Castillejos, and that his
company never received any payment from the municipality. He stated that the
signatures in the vouchers were not his, and reiterated that he did not have
any transaction with the
Resty, a
former Sangguniang Kabataan President
and incumbent municipal councilor, declared on the witness stand that he is a resident
of Barangay
Evidence for the Defense
He clarified that after his office
has prepared checks based on the forwarded vouchers, these vouchers are returned
to the accounting office for the creation of an accounting entry and for the
posting of the entry in the general and subsidiary ledgers. The accounting
office then issues an advice that the checks are ready for encashment.
He refuted the statement of Nida that
the disbursement vouchers did not go through the accounting office for
pre-audit. He stated that the signature of the accountant did not appear in the
three (3) vouchers because Nida simply refused to sign it. He also insisted
that the budget officer’s signature likewise did not appear in the vouchers
because she was always out of her office. He explained that he paid the
vouchers despite the absence of the accountant’s signature because the projects
were already completed and the sub-contractor was already demanding payment and
was threatening to sue him if he would not pay.
He further recalled that the vouchers
were suspended after they were submitted to the Commission on Audit (COA);
he was given 90 days to complete the entries in the vouchers and produce the
supporting papers.[24]
On cross-examination, he reiterated
that he signed the vouchers because the municipal accountant and budget officer
refused, without any valid or legal reason, to sign them.[25]
Quirino, the Barangay Captain of Nagbayan, Castillejos,
Zambales, testified that he supervised numerous projects in his barangay during the incumbency of
Pantaleon; that from January to February of 1998, he supervised the back
filling and leveling of the roads in his barangay
together with a certain Eduardo Escobar and Kagawads
Lorenzo and Corpuz. He admitted to signing an affidavit dated July 2, 1999
stating that there were projects done in his barangay; he merely signed the certification on December 10, 1998 (stating
that there were no projects done by the administration of Pantaleon in his area)
because Kagawads Enrique Clarin and
Reynaldo Misa were his compadres.[26]
Ricardo declared
on the witness stand that he was the barangay
captain of Nagbayan from 1971 to 1986 and subsequently served as councilor for
three (3) terms; that from 1996 to 1998, he saw that there were back filling,
grading, compacting and widening of roads in his area; and that it was
Pantaleon and Baquilat – as mayor and contractor, respectively – who caused the
repair of these roads.
On cross-examination, he admitted
that Pantaleon employed him as a casual employee in 1999 and, as such, had no
authority to sign vouchers.[27]
Pantaleon, mayor of Castillejos, Zambales, testified that he had served
as mayor for eight and a half years before he was preventively suspended. He
explained that a voucher originates from the accounting office and then goes to
the budget office; from there, it goes to him for his signature, and, finally, to
the treasurer for signature; he signed the vouchers and allowed the treasurer
to pay the amounts stated because the accountant and the budget officer were
reluctant to sign; the signatures of the accountant and budget officer were not
important. He added that he approved the release of the money because the treasurer
told him that there was an appropriation in the approved annual budget. He also
insisted that the owner of La Paz Construction entered into a contact with the municipality.
He maintained that
he physically inspected the projects, and ordered the treasurer to pay because
the project in Nagbayan road had been completed. He revealed that he received a notice from the
Provincial Auditor stating that the disbursement of funds was irregular due to
the lack of signatures of the accountant and budget officer, and that the
vouchers were subsequently suspended. He
then ordered the treasurer to rectify the deficiencies in the vouchers.[28]
On cross-examination,
he admitted that the Sanggunian did
not adopt a resolution authorizing him to enter into a negotiated contract with
La Paz Construction in the municipality’s behalf. He also stated that the treasurer told him
that the municipal accountant and budget officer asked for a commission before
signing the vouchers, but he did not confront them about the demanded
commission because he did not want to embarrass them. He admitted that he
signed the vouchers despite the absence of the signatures of the accountant and
budget officer.
He also admitted
that he entered into a contract with Baquilat without inquiring if Baquilat was
authorized by the La Paz Construction to enter into a contract with the
municipality. He explained that he gave more importance to the implementation
of a project than to its documentation. Since
the compacting and leveling of the road were finished, he believed the
municipal accountant and budget officer would later sign the vouchers.
He confirmed that Baquilat had dealt with the municipality
many times as the representative of La Paz Construction, and he does not know
why La Paz Construction would now deny its link with Baquilat. He also stated
that Baquilat, Aurelio, and the complainants have been his political supporters,
but they now hold personal grudges against him.[29]
Crisanta, a market vendor in Castillejos, testified
that there were market stalls and drainage constructed in 1998, although she did
not know who constructed them.[30]
Baquilat declared on the witness stand that he
put up a construction business in 1997 after resigning from the Benguit
Corporation; and that he had various contracts with the P400,000.00, more or less, from the
municipality after completing construction projects in 1997 and 1998. These
projects included the upgrading of the roads in Barangays Looc, Casagatan, Nagbayan, and
On cross-examination, he admitted that he received payments through
his secretary from the municipality in behalf of La Paz Construction in 1998 to
1999; and that he received P400,000.00, more or less, for the three (3)
projects he did for the municipality.[32]
The Prosecution’s Rebuttal Evidence
The prosecution presented Vice Mayor Billman, Engr. Clarin,
Reynaldo and Ken Swan Tiu as rebuttal witnesses.
Vice Mayor Billman, the acting Municipal Mayor of
Castillejos, testified that there was no upgrading and improvement of roads in Barangay Nagbayan in 1998 when she was
vice mayor.[33]
Engr. Clarin, an incumbent Municipal Councilor of
Castillejos, denied that he forced Quirino to sign a certification that there
were no projects undertaken by the municipality.[34]
Reynaldo, testified that he was a municipal
councilor in 1998; he admitted that Quirino was his friend and compadre, but denied that he forced
Quirino to sign any certification.[35]
Ken Swan Tiu, again testifying for the prosecution,
denied that he: (a) lent his license as a contractor to Baquilat; (b) entered
into a contract with the
On cross-examination, he stated that he had been a contractor
since 1992, but never transacted with the
After trial, the Sandiganbayan set the case for promulgation
of decision on
Pantaleon and Vallejos filed their separate motions to reopen
trial with urgent motion to defer the promulgation of the Sandiganbayan
decision.[38] The
Sandiganbayan denied these motions.[39] The Sandiganbayan similarly denied the
omnibus motion for reconsideration that followed.[40]
The appellants filed an omnibus motion seeking the
reconsideration of the
THE SANDIGANBAYAN RULING
The Sandiganbayan convicted the appellants
of the crimes charged in Criminal Case Nos. 25861-63. It held that the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses, supported by the documentary evidence, established all the elements
of the complex crime of malversation of public funds through falsification of
public documents under Article 217, in relation with Articles 171 and 48 of the
Revised Penal Code. It found
unacceptable the testimonies of the appellants and characterized these as
self-serving. The dispositive portion of
this decision (dated
WHEREFORE, the accused, TEOFILO G. PANTALEON, JR., and JAIME F. VALLEJOS, are
hereby found GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS THRU
FALSIFICATION, in three counts, as defined and penalized under Article 217 in
relation to Articles 48 and 171 of the Revised Penal Code, and each of said accused
is hereby sentenced in Criminal Case Nos. 25861, 25862, and 25863,
respectively, to suffer three times the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to
suffer the penalty of perpetual special disqualification and to pay a fine in
the amounts of P166,242.72, P154,634.27, and P90,464.21, respectively, and to
pay the costs.
SO
ORDERED.[41] [Emphasis in the original]
Post-Sandiganbayan
Developments
and
the Appeal
The records of the case were forwarded
to this Court after the appellants filed their respective notices of appeal. In
our Resolution of
The records disclose that Pantaleon
was granted a conditional pardon on
Pantaleon filed with this Court on
In
his brief, appellant
1.
in convicting him of the crime charged
despite merely occupying a salary grade (SG) 24 position;
2.
in convicting him of the crime charged
despite the absence of notice to restitute from the Provincial Auditor of
Zambales;
3.
in convicting him of the crime charged
despite merely acting ministerially on the disbursement vouchers in question;
and
4.
in finding that a conspiracy existed
between him and Pantaleon.
THE COURT’S RULING
We DENY the appeal for lack of merit.
Sufficiency of Prosecution Evidence
Malversation is
defined and penalized under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, which reads:
Art. 217. Malversation
of public funds or property – Presumption of malversation. – Any
public officer who, by reason of the duties of his office, is accountable for public funds or property, shall appropriate the same, or shall
take or misappropriate or shall consent, or through abandonment or negligence,
shall permit any other person to take such public funds or property,
wholly or partially, or shall, otherwise, be guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property, shall
suffer:
x x x x
4. The penalty of reclusion temporal
in its medium and maximum periods, if the amount involved is more than 12,000
pesos but is less than 22,000 pesos. If the amount exceeds the latter,
the penalty shall be reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion
perpetua.
In all cases, persons guilty of malversation shall also suffer the penalty of perpetual special
disqualification and a fine equal to the amount of the funds malversed
or equal to the total value of the property embezzled.
The failure of a public officer
to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property with
which he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly authorized officer, shall be prima
facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or
property to personal uses.
The essential elements common to all
acts of malversation under
Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code are the following:
(a) That the offender be a public officer.
(b) That he had the custody
or control of funds or property by reason of the
duties of his office.
(c) That those funds
or property were public funds or property for which he was
accountable.
(d) That he appropriated, took,
misappropriated or consented or, through abandonment or negligence, permitted
another person to take them.
Appellants are public officers
A public officer is defined in the
Revised Penal Code as “any person who, by direct provision of the law, popular
election or appointment by competent authority, shall take part in the
performance of public functions in the Government of the
Philippine Islands, or shall perform in said Government or in any of its
branches public duties as an employee, agent, or subordinate
official, of any rank or class.”[55] Pantaleon and Vallejos were the municipal
mayor and municipal treasurer, respectively, of the
Appellants
had the custody and control of funds
or
property by reason of the duties of their office
As a required standard procedure, the
signatures of the mayor and the treasurer are needed before any disbursement of
public funds can be made. No checks can be prepared and no payment can be
effected without their signatures on a disbursement voucher and the
corresponding check. In other words, any disbursement and release of public
funds require their approval. The appellants, therefore, in their capacities as
mayor and treasurer, had control and responsibility over the funds of the
The
appellants were
accountable
for public funds
The funds for which
malversation the appellants stand charged were sourced from the development
fund of the municipality. They were
funds belonging to the municipality, for use by the municipality, and were
under the collective custody of the municipality’s officials who had to act
together to disburse the funds for their intended municipal use. The funds were therefore public funds for
which the appellants as mayor and municipal treasurer were accountable.
Pantaleon, as municipal mayor, was
also accountable for the public funds by virtue of Section 340 of the Local
Government, which reads:
Section 340. Persons Accountable for Local
Government Funds. — Any officer of the local government unit whose duty permits or requires the possession or
custody of local government funds shall be accountable and responsible for the
safekeeping thereof in conformity with the provisions of this title. Other local officials, though not accountable
by the nature of their duties, may likewise be similarly held accountable and
responsible for local government funds through their participation in the use
or application thereof.
In
addition, municipal
mayors, pursuant to the Local
Government Code, are chief executives of their respective
municipalities. Under Section 102 of the Government Auditing
Code of the
for all government funds pertaining to the municipality:
Section 102. Primary
and secondary responsibility. – (1) The
head of any agency of the government is immediately and primarily
responsible for all government funds and property pertaining to his agency.
The appellants appropriated, took, misappropriated
or consented or, through abandonment or negligence,
permitted another person to take the public funds
We
note at the outset that no less than the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan of Zambales, in its decision of
This finding was corroborated by
several witnesses during the trial. Engr. Ramos, in his testimony of
PROSECUTOR JACQUELYN ONGPAUCO-CORTEL
Q: Now,
in your stay as acting municipal engineer in Castillejos, Zambales, what
documents did you prepare?
ENGR. RAMOS
A: I
prepared three (3) programs of works, namely: the two (2) were up-grading of barangay roads and the third one was the
construction of the market stall.
Q: Now,
Mr. Witness, you mentioned of three (3) programs of works, now, showing to you
program of work dated January 5, 1998, is this the one you were referring to?
A: Yes,
ma’am.
x x x
Q: Can
you please state before this Honorable Court what is the purpose of this
program of work?
A: I
was instructed to make that program of work but I never implemented those projects anymore.
x x x
Q: Now,
showing to you another program of work, Mr. Witness, dated
A: Yes,
ma’am.
x x x
Q: Can
you state before this Honorable Court if this project was implemented?
A: Likewise,
ma’am, I never did implement such
project.
x x x
Q: Now,
showing to you another program of work, Mr. Witness, dated
A: Yes,
ma’am.
x x x
Q: And
can you state before this Honorable Court if
the project was implemented in 1998 Mr. witness?
A: No, ma’am.
x x x
Q: Going
back to the sites of the projects Mr. Witness, did you actually see the sites
of the intended projects?
A: Yes,
ma’am.
Q: What
did you see?
A: They
were already existing at that time.
Q: What
do you mean by that Mr. Witness?
A: The
municipal engineer did implement those projects before.
Q: When
were these projects actually implemented Mr. Witness? Before?
A: Yes,
ma’am.
Q: When?
A: As
I’ve said, they were already existing
before I made those programs of work.
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE NARCISO S. NARIO (Chairman)
Q: What
were these projects that according to you were already existing? What are these
projects?
ENGR. RAMOS
A: The
upgrading of the barangay roads,
Your Honor.
Q: Upgrading
of the barangay roads? What barangays are these?
A: Barangay
Looc proper, Barangay Magsaysay and Barangay San Pablo.
Q: What
else?
A: And
the construction of the market stalls
located in the public market.
Q: These
projects were already existing?
A: Yes,
Your Honor.
PROSECUTOR CORTEL
Q: Meaning
to say, Mr. Witness, that before they
applied, before the preparation of the programs of works and disbursement of
the amount as indicated thereon, the projects you have mentioned are already
existing?
ENGR. RAMOS
A: Yes,
ma’am.
Q: And
that there is no need for the
preparation of this program of work and disbursement of another money for that
project?
A: Yes,
ma’am.
x x x
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE NARIO
Q: Now,
it’s on the basis of this program of work that the disbursements, issue
voucher, the check and other relevant documents were paid because of this
program of work that you prepared?
A: Yes,
Your Honor.[56] [Emphasis ours]
Aurelio, a Sangguniang Bayan member, likewise testified that no construction work was undertaken on
various barangay roads and in the
public market of Castillejos in 1998:
PROSECUTOR CORTEL
Q: But
do you know if there is a construction
of the market stall, public market done in 1998, Mr. Witness?
AURELIO FASTIDIO
A: None, ma’am.
Q: In
1999?
A: None,
ma’am.
Q: Going
to Voucher No. 101-9803-328 Mr. Witness for the upgrading, excavation, back
filling of barangay roads, Mr. Witness, do
you know if there is upgrading, excavation and back filling of certain barangay
roads in your area?
A: None, ma’am.
Q: How
many barangay roads do you have in that area, Mr. Witness?
A: We
have many barangay roads, ma’am.
Q: And do you know if in 1998 there is the
upgrading, excavation and back filling of many barangay roads?
A: None, ma’am.
Q: Not
even one, Mr. Witness.
A: Yes,
ma’am.[57] [Emphasis ours]
Alberto, the Barangay Captain of Looc, also declared on the witness stand during
his
Despite the non-existence of the
projects covered by the three (3) disbursement vouchers, and despite the fact
that these vouchers never went through the accounting office and the office of
the local budget officer for pre-audit and certification, the appellants still signed
them. We quote Pantaleon’s admission in his
ATTY. RODOLFO REYNOSO
Q: Okay.
An issue of pre-audit was brought when the accountant testified earlier that
allegedly you did not require them or you just signed the voucher without requiring
the budget officer or the accountant to affix their signatures, what can you
say about that?
TEOFILO PANTALEON, JR.
A: I
asked. When the treasurer came into my office, he asked me about the
non-signatures of the accountant and the budget officer, sir. So I called up
their attention and they were adamant, they were hesitant to sign. I called up
again the treasurer why it is [sic]
because they were asking for a commission as per the treasurer said to me, Your
Honor.
x x x
Q: In
other words, Mr. Witness, after
informing the accountant and the budget officer that they have not signed the
voucher, you already signed it even without their signature, did I get you
right?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And
you allowed the treasurer to pay?
A: Yes,
sir.
x x x
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE NARIO
Q: So despite the absence of the signatures of
the accountant and the budget officer, you went through signing these vouchers?
(sic)
TEOFILO PANTALEON, JR.
A: Yes,
Your Honor.
x x x[58] [Emphasis ours]
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE RODOLFO G. PALATTAO
Q: In
other words, since you considered the refusal of the accountant to sign the
vouchers as accompanied by bad faith, you decided to ignore the requirement of
her signature and you allowed payment?
JAIME VALLEJOS
A: Yes,
your Honor, because the sub-contractor threatened me for not paying the
vouchers, besides, that will cause injury to him.
x x x
Q: Mr.
Witness, do you recall where were the funds coming from in paying the projects?
A: Yes,
sir, there were two sources of fund, under the Engineering Office maintenance
and other operating expenses, roads and bridges maintenance, and 20%
development funds.
x x x
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE NICODEMO T. FERRER:
Q: A
while ago, you said that this alleged sub-contractor encashed the checks issued
to him, can you show the encashment made by the contractor?
A: It
was in the bank, ma’am.
Q: Where
is it now?
A: It
was in the Land Bank, ma’am.
x x x
Q: You
said that in the signing of the vouchers, you are the last signatory?
A: Yes,
ma’am.
Q: Meaning
to say, all the signatories precedent to you must sign first before you sign?
A: Yes,
ma’am.
Q: Now,
in these particular cases, the
accountant and the budget officer did not affix their signatures?
A: Yes,
ma’am.
Q: And despite that fact, you signed the
disbursement vouchers?
A: Yes, ma’am.
x x x[59] [Emphasis ours]
Significantly, the appellants did not deny that they allowed the
release of the public funds, but maintained that the money went to Baquilat as representative
and/or subcontractor of La Paz Construction. This was confirmed by Baquilat
himself when he admitted, in his P400,00.00, more or less, from
the
PROSECUTOR CORTEL
Q: Mr.
Witness, in connection with these cases, do you remember having received
payments from the
KEN SWAN TIU
A: No,
I did not receive any single centavo
from the government of Castillejos.
x x x
Q: Now,
Mr. Witness, I would like to show to you vouchers which would indicate that the
claimant or the payee is La Paz Construction of San Marcelino, Zambales. Now,
Mr. Witness in Exhibit “A”, Disbursement Voucher No. 101803-328, do you
remember having received the amount of
One Hundred Sisty Six Thousand Two Hundred Forty-Two Pesos and Seventy-Two
Centavos (P166,242.72)?
(WITNESS GOING OVER THE VOUCHER SHOWN TO HIM
BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
A: No,
ma’am. I did not receive any.
Q: In
Disbursement Voucher No. 1019803-349 wherein the payee is La Paz Construction
also of San Marcelino, Zambales, do you remember having received the amount of
One Hundred Fifty-Four Thousand Six Hundred Thirty-Four Pesos and Twenty-Seven
Centavos (P154,634.27)?
A: No,
ma’am.
x x x
Q: Now,
Exhibit “A” Mr. Witness I would like to point to you a portion wherein the
recipient appears to be La Paz Construction, San Marcelino, Zambales in the
amount of Two Hundred Forty-Two Pesos [sic].
Do you know whose signature that is appearing on top of the typewritten name of
La Paz Construction?
A: No,
ma’am. I don’t recognize this signature and I don’t have any agent to collect
this amount.
x x x
Q: Now,
what about in Exhibit “B” wherein the recipient appears to be La Paz
Construction, whose signature appears on top of the typewritten name of La Paz
Construction?
A: Yes,
ma’am. The same, I don’t recognize the signature and I don’t have any transaction with the
Q: Now,
in connection with Exhibit “C”, there also appears a signature who was a
recipient of the amount of Ninety Thousand Four Hundred Sixty- Five and Twenty-One
Centavos (P90,465.21), whose signature is that?
A: Yes,
ma’am. The same, the signature I don’t recognize and I don’t have any agent or collecting agent or any transaction with the
officials of the
x x x
ATTY. REYNOSO
Q: So
in other words, in all transactions from the very beginning that you have
transacted with the municipality, you are the only one who transacted with the
municipality?
A: I don’t have any transaction with the
Q: Even
before this alleged incident took place?
A: I
said I don’t have any, sir.
x x x
Q: You
said that you have not made any contract
with the municipality, did I get you right?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: You
are a witness charging the accused here of an alleged contract entered into
between the accused and your company and you deny did I get you right?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: So
insofar as you are concerned, there was
no contract between you and the municipality?
A: Precisely.[60]
[Emphasis ours]
Ken Swan Tiu likewise testified that
Baquilat was not in any way connected with the La Paz Construction. We quote
his
PROSECUTOR CORTEL
Q: Mr.
Witness, in his (Baquilat’s) testimony in open court, he declared that you let
him borrow, you lent him your license as a Contractor, is that true, Mr.
Witness?
KEN SWAN TIU
A: No,
ma’am. We don’t have any agreement with that, and I am not lending my own
company, my license to them because they have their own company.
Q: Okay.
Mr. Witness, he also declared in open court that you sub-contracted him in
connection with the projects undertaken by then Mayor Pantaleon in the
A: No, Ma’am, I don’t have any construction
with the government of the
x x x
ATTY. MARK M. AVERILLA
Q: Is your testimony, Mr. Witness, therefore
that you have not entered into a sub-construction agreement with Mr. John Baquilat
pertaining to that project in Castillejos, Zambales?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Is it therefore your testimony that Mr.
Witness that Mr. John Baquilat, who testified earlier declaring in open court
that you authorized him to use
A: Of course we don’t have any agreement on
that, and I don’t have any contract…
(interruption)
Q: Yes,
Sir, so you are saying that he was lying? Is that your testimony?
A: I
don’t know, Sir, because I just encountered that there is a sub-contractor who
came out. Actually, in myself, I don’t have any construction here with the
government of Castillejos. How come there exists a sub-Contractor? [sic].
x x x[61] [Emphasis ours]
These testimonies lead to no other
conclusion than that the appellants had deliberately consented to or permitted
the taking of public funds by Baquilat despite the fact that (1) La Paz
Construction never entered into a contract with the Municipality of
Castillejos; (2) Baquilat was not an agent, representative or subcontractor of
La Paz Construction; (3) the projects covered by the disbursement vouchers in
question never existed; and (4) the disbursement vouchers lacked the requisite
signatures of the municipal accountant and the
local budget officer. In short,
they resorted to machinations and simulation of projects to draw funds out of
the municipal coffers.
The circumstances established during
trial and outlined below likewise show the anomalous circumstances that
attended the disbursement of the public funds.
Pantaleon himself admitted that he
was not authorized by the Sanggunian
to enter into a contract with La Paz Construction; however, he and
a.
All of
the three disbursement vouchers were not signed by her;
b.
As to
the Disbursement Voucher No. 1019802-328, the box in which she did not sign as
municipal accountant, now bears the signature of Martin Pagaduan without her
authority, after the voucher was disallowed and returned by the Commission on
Audit; Pagaduan was not yet the Municipal Accountant as he was appointed only
on January 1, 1999;
c.
Required
documents – authority to enter into negotiated contract, plans and
specifications, abstract of bids, notarized contracts – were not attached to
the voucher;
d.
Voucher
number and accounting entries were written by accused Treasurer Vallejos, not
the then municipal accountant (Nida Naman);
e.
Also
signed by Martin Pagaduan without her authority as municipal treasurer are the
three purported Certificate of Canvass attached to the Disbursement Voucher No.
101-9803-328;
f.
Official Receipt No. 000989 that appears to
have been signed by John Baquilat to acknowledge receipt of the amount covered
by check no. 108952 indicated in Disbursement Voucher No. 101-9803-349 is not
filled up.[62]
Through the appellant’s explicit
admissions, the witnesses’ testimonies, and the documentary evidence submitted,
the prosecution duly established the fourth element of the crime of
malversation. It is settled that a public officer is liable for malversation
even if he does not use public property or funds under his custody for his
personal benefit, if he allows another
to take the funds, or through
abandonment or negligence, allow such taking.[63] The
felony may be committed, not only through the misappropriation or the conversion
of public funds or property to one’s personal use, but also by knowingly allowing others to make use of
or misappropriate the funds. The felony may thus be committed by dolo or
by culpa. The crime is consummated and the appropriate penalty is
imposed regardless of whether the mode of commission is with intent or due to
negligence.[64]
Falsification was a necessary means
to commit the crime of malversation
Article 171,
paragraphs (2) and (5) of the Revised Penal Code, provides:
ART. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastic
minister. – The penalty of prision
mayor and a fine not to exceed 5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer, employee, or notary who, taking advantage of his
official position, shall falsify a document by committing any of the following
acts:
2.
Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or
proceeding when they did not in fact so participate;
x x x
5. Altering true dates;
x x x
Falsification under paragraph 2 is committed when (a) the
offender causes it to appear in a document that a person or persons
participated in an act or a proceeding; and (b) that such person or persons did
not in fact so participate in the act or proceeding. In the present case, both testimonial and documentary
evidence showed that
The appellants were likewise guilty
of falsification under paragraph 5 of Article 171. Engr. Ramos testified that
Pantaleon and Vallejos instructed him to place the dates
The presence of conspiracy
Conspiracy exists when two or more
persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide
to commit it. Conspiracy
does not need to be proven by direct evidence and may be inferred from the
conduct – before, during, and after the commission of the crime – indicative of
a joint purpose, concerted action and concurrence of sentiments. In conspiracy, the act of
one is the act of all. Conspiracy
is present when one concurs with the criminal design of another, as shown by an
overt act leading to the crime committed.
It may be deduced from the mode and manner of the commission of the
crime.[65]
The burden of proving the allegation
of conspiracy rests on the prosecution, but settled
jurisprudence holds that conspiracy may be proven other than by direct
evidence.[66] In People
v. Pagalasan,[67]
the Court expounded on why direct proof
of prior agreement is not necessary:
After all, secrecy and concealment are
essential features of a successful conspiracy. Conspiracies are clandestine in
nature. It may be inferred from the
conduct of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime,
showing that they had acted with a common purpose and design. Conspiracy may be implied
if it is proved that two or more persons aimed their acts towards the
accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so that their
combined acts, though apparently independent of each other, were in fact,
connected and cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal association and a
concurrence of sentiment. To hold an
accused guilty as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy, he
must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the
complicity. There must be intentional
participation in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common
design and purpose.[68]
The
prosecution’s evidence glaringly shows how the appellants acted in concert to
facilitate the illegal release of public funds. First, the appellants ordered the preparation of the programs of
work, with specific instructions to antedate the submitted programs. Second,
they affixed their signatures on the antedated programs of work. Third, the appellants signed the
disbursement vouchers covering the simulated projects despite knowledge of the
absence of the signatures of the local budget officer and the local accountant.
Supporting
documents attached to Disbursement Voucher Nos. 101-9803-328
a.
Purchase
Request (Exh. “A-3”);
b.
Three
Certificates of Canvass (Exh. “A-4 to
A-6”);
c.
Purchase
Order showing La Paz Construction as the winning bidder/contractor (Exh. “A-7”);
d.
Certificate
of Acceptance with regard to the services rendered by La Paz Construction (Exh. “A-8”); and
e.
Request
for Obligation Allotment with La Paz Construction as payee (Exh. “A-9”).
Supporting
documents attached to Disbursement Voucher Nos. 101-9803-349
a.
Purchase
Request (Exh. “B-6”);
b.
Purchase
Order showing La Paz Construction as the contractor (Exh. “B-7”);
c.
Request
for Obligation Allotment with La Paz Construction as payee (Exh. “B-9”); and
d.
Certificate
of Acceptance with regard to the services rendered by La Paz Construction (Exh. “B-8”).
Supporting
documents attached to Disbursement Voucher Nos. 101-9804-415
a.
Request
for Obligation Allotment with La Paz Construction as payee (Exh. “C-8”);
b.
Three
Certificates of Canvass (Exh. “C-4 to
C-5”);
c.
Purchase Order showing La Paz Construction as
the contractor (Exh. “C-6”);
d.
Purchase
Request (Exh. “C-2”); and
e.
Certificate
of Acceptance with regard to the services rendered by La Paz Construction (Exh. “C-7”).
The appellants’ combined acts therefore
indubitably point to their joint purpose and design. Their concerted actions
clearly showed that conspiracy existed in their illegal release of public
funds.
The appellant’s defenses
Our ruling in Esquivel v. Ombudsman[70]
on this point is particularly instructive:
In Rodrigo, Jr. vs.
Sandiganbayan, Binay vs.
Sandiganbayan, and Layus vs. Sandiganbayan, we already held
that municipal mayors fall under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan. Nor can Barangay Captain Mark Anthony Esquivel claim that
since he is not a municipal mayor, he is outside the Sandiganbayan’s
jurisdiction. R.A. 7975, as amended by R.A. No. 8249 provides that it is only in cases where “none of the
accused are occupying positions corresponding to salary grade
‘27’ or higher” that “exclusive original jurisdiction shall be vested in the
proper regional trial court, metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court,
and municipal circuit court, as the case may be, pursuant to their respective
jurisdictions as provided in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended.” Note that
under the 1991 Local Government Code, Mayor Esquivel has a salary grade of 27.
Since Barangay Captain Esquivel is the co-accused in Criminal Case No.
24777 of Mayor Esquivel, whose position falls under salary grade 27, the
Sandiganbayan committed no grave abuse of discretion in assuming jurisdiction
over said criminal case, as well as over Criminal Case No. 24778, involving
both of them.[71] [Underscoring and italics in the original]
Sec. 344. Certification
and Approval of Vouchers. – No money
shall be disbursed unless the local budget officer certifies
to the existence of appropriation that has been legally made for the purpose,
the local accountant has obligated said appropriation, and
the local treasurer certifies to the availability of funds
for the purpose. Vouchers and
payrolls shall be certified to and approved by the head of the department or
office who has administrative control of the fund concerned, as to validity,
propriety, and legality of the claim involved. Except in cases of
disbursements involving regularly recurring administrative expenses such as
payrolls for regular or permanent employees, expenses for light, water,
telephone and telegraph services, remittances to government creditor agencies
such as GSIS, SSS, LDP, DBP, National Printing Office, Procurement Service of
the DBM and others, approval of the disbursement voucher by the local chief
executive himself shall be required whenever local funds are disbursed.
x x x x
Thus,
as a safeguard against unwarranted disbursements, certifications are required
from: (a) the local budget officer as to the existence and
validity of the appropriation; (b) the local accountant as to
the legal obligation incurred by the appropriation; (c) the local treasurer as
to the availability of funds; and (d) the local department head as to the
validity, propriety and legality of the claim against the appropriation.[72]
Therefore,
According to Pantaleon, he instructed
At any rate, demand under Article 217
of the Revised Penal Code merely raises a prima facie presumption that
missing funds have been put to personal use. The demand itself, however, is not
an element of the crime of malversation. Even without a demand, malversation
can still be committed when, as in the present case, sufficient facts exist
proving the crime.[73]
The Proper Penalty
Article 217, paragraph 4 of the
Revised Penal Code imposes the penalty of reclusion temporal in its
maximum period to reclusion perpetua when the amount malversed is
greater than P22,000.00. This Article also imposes the penalty of
perpetual special disqualification and a fine equal to the amount of the funds
malversed or equal to the total value of the property embezzled. Falsification by a public officer or employee
under Article 171, on the other hand, is punished by prision mayor and a fine not to exceed P5,000.00.
Since appellant committed a complex
crime, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed in its maximum
period, pursuant to Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. This provision states:
ART. 48. Penalty for complex crimes.
– When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or
when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for
the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be
applied in its maximum period.
The
Sandiganbayan, therefore, correctly imposed on the appellants the penalties of reclusion
perpetua and perpetual special
disqualification for each count of malversation of public funds through
falsification of public documents, and the payment
of fines of P166,242.72, P154,634.27, and P90,464.21,
respectively, representing the amounts malversed. The Indeterminate Sentence
Law finds no application since reclusion perpetua is an indivisible penalty
to which the Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply.
WHEREFORE, in
light of the foregoing, we AFFIRM the
February 4, 2003 Decision of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case Nos. 25861-63,
insofar as it found appellant Jaime F. Vallejos guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of three (3) counts of the complex crime of malversation of public funds
through falsification of public documents, as defined and penalized under
Article 217 in relation with Articles 48 and 171 of the Revised Penal Code.
We make no pronouncement with respect
to appellant Teofilo Pantaleon, Jr. whose withdrawal of appeal has been
previously granted by this Court.
Costs against appellant
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate
Justice
WE
CONCUR:
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice Chairperson |
|
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate
Justice |
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING
Acting Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Sandiganbayan Associate Justice Rodolfo G. Palattao, and concurred in by Associate Justice Gregory S. Ong and Associate Justice Ma. Cristina G. Cortez-Estrada; CA rollo, pp. 29-58.
[2] Joint Resolution of
[3] Review Action dated
[4] Memorandum of
[5] CA rollo, pp. 7-8.
[6]
[7]
[8] Records, Vol. I, pp. 104-106.
[9] Resolution dated
[10]
[11] Resolution of
[12] Resolution of
[13] TSN,
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18] TSN,
[19] TSN,
[20]
[21]
[22] TSN,
[23]
[24] TSN,
[25]
[26] TSN,
[27] TSN,
[28]
[29]
[30] TSN,
[31] TSN,
[32]
[33] TSN,
[34]
[35]
[36] TSN,
[37]
[38] Dated
[39] Resolution dated
[40] Resolution of
[41] CA rollo, p. 56.
[42] Records, Vol. II, pp. 319-323.
[43]
[44] Resolution of
[45] Rollo, pp. 1-2.
[46] G.R. Nos. 147678-87,
[47] CA rollo, p. 359.
[48]
[49]
[50] Letter by CA Associate Justice Arcangelita M. Romilla-Lontok; CA rollo, pp. 349-350.
[51] CA rollo, p. 353.
[52]
[53]
[54]
[55] REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 203.
[56] TSN,
[57]
[58] TSN,
[59] TSN,
[60] TSN,
[61] TSN,
[62] CA rollo, pp. 45-46.
[63] Pondevida
v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 160929-31,
[64] Sarigumba
v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 154239-41,
[65] People
v. Pajaro, G.R. Nos. 167860-65,
[66] Fernan,
Jr., v. People, G.R. No. 145927,
[67] G.R. Nos. 131926 & 138991,
[68]
[69] Entitled “An Act Further Defining the Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, Amending for the Purpose Presidential Decree No. 1606, As Amended, Providing Funds therefor, and for Other Purposes.”
[70]
G.R. No. 137237,
[71]
[72] Lucman
v.
[73] Nizurtado v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 107383,