FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 236807, January 12, 2021
CONCHITA M. DELA CRUZ, PETITIONER, V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
G.R. No. 236810
MAXIMO A. BORJE, ET AL., PETITIONERS, V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
PERALTA, C.J.:
Before this Court are consolidated Petitions for Review on Certiorari Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the November 10, 2016 Decision1 and the January 15, 2018 Resolution2 of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal (Crim.) Case Nos. 28100 and 28253, finding petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Estafa through Falsification of Documents defined and penalized under Article 315, in relation to Article 171 and Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) (Crim. Case No. 28100), and Violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (R.A. No. 3019) or the "Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practice Act", as amended (Crim. Case No. 28253).
The amounts paid covered 409 transactions purportedly for the emergency repairs of 39 DPWH service vehicles, 274 of which were made in the name of accused Martinez, while others were made in the name of petitioner Maximo A. Borje (Borje) and other co-accused. The spare parts were purportedly supplied by J-CAP Motorshop (J-CAP) owned by accused Capuz, and DEB Repair Shop and Parts Supply (DEB) owned by petitioner Conchita Dela Cruz (Dela Cruz).
Julio T. Martinez (Martinez) Clerk III / Supply Officer, ADB Project Management Office Burt B. Favorito (Favorito) Director III, Administrative and Manpower Management Services (AMMS) Florendo B. Arias (Arias) Assistant Director, Bureau of Equipment (BOE) Violeta C. Amar (Amar) Accountant II, Claims, Processing and Documentation Station (CPDS) Napoleon S. Anas (Anas) Chief, Procurement Section Rogelio L. Beray (Beray) Chief, Facilities and Maintenance Division Maximo A. Borje (Borje) Chief, Motorpool Section, BOE Rolando C. Castillo (Castillo) Equipment Inspector, BOE Jessica J. Catibayan (Catibayan) Accountant II, Subsidiary and Revenue Section Ma. Luisa T. Cruz (Cruz) Assistant Chief, Procurement Section, AMMS Ricardo M. Juan, Jr. (Juan) Chief, Assets and Supplies, Management and Control Division Agerico C. Palaypay (Palaypay) Chief, Supply and Property Management Division Erdito Q. Quarto (Quarto) Chief, Central Equipment and Spare Parts Division Felipe A. San Jose (San Jose) Store Keeper, Central Equipment and Spare Parts Division Ronaldo G. Simbahan (Simbahan) Senior Book Keeper, Subsidiary and Revenue Section Violeta R. Tadeo (Tadeo) Accountant III, Bookkeeping Section Norma A. Villarmino (Villarmino) Chief, CPDS Jesus D. Capuz (Capuz) Owner of J-CAP Motorshop (supplier) Conchita M. Dela Cruz (Dela Cruz) Owner of DEB Repair Shop and Parts Supply (supplier)
That during the period from March to December, 2001, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the City of Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named high-ranking public officials and employees of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), Port Area, Manila, namely: JULIO T. MARTINEZ, then the Clerk/Supply Officer, BURT FAVORITO y BARBA, Director III, Administrative and Manpower Management Services (SG 27), FLORENDO ARIAS y BUÑAG, Assistant Director, Bureau of [E]quipment (SG 27), VIOLETA AMAR y CASTILLO, NAPOLEON ANAS y SEBASTIAN, ROGELIO BERAY y LAGANGA, MAXIMO BORJE JR. y AQUINO, ROLANDO CASTILLO y COMIA, JESSICA CATIBAYAN y JARDIEL, MA. LUISA CRUZ y TALAO, RICARDO JUAN, JR. y MACLANG, AGERICO PALAYPAY y CORTES, ERDITO QUARTO y QUIAOT, FELIPE A SAN JOSE, RONALDO G. SIMBAHAN, VIOLETA TADEO y RAGASA, NORMA VILLARMINO y AGCAOILI and JOHN DOES, whose true names are not yet known, acting with unfaithfulness and abuse of confidence, committing the offense in relation to their office, and taking advantage of their official positions, and private individuals, namely: JESUS D. CAPUZ and CONCHITA M. DELA CRUZ and JOHN DOES, whose true names are not yet known, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, with intent to defraud the government, did then and there, willfully[,] unlawfully and feloniously forge and falsify or cause to be forged and falsified documents, purportedly for emergency repairs of various DPWH vehicles and/or purchase of spare parts, with a total amount of SIX MILLION THREE HUNDRED SIXTY-EIGHT THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED SIXTY-FOUR PESOS (P6,368,364.00), and thereafter, cause the payment of said fictitious repairs and/or purchase of spare parts in the said total amount from funds held in trust and for administration by the said public officers, and which payments were made by the government on the basis of and relying on said forged and falsified documents, when in truth and in fact, the accused knew fully well that there were no emergency repairs of DPWH vehicles and/or purchases of spare parts, which said amount, accused, thereafter, willfully, unlawfully and criminally take, convert and misappropriate, to the personal use and benefit of person(s) not entitled to receive said funds, to the damage and prejudice of the government and the public interest in the aforesaid sum.On July 20, 2005, petitioners Borje and Dela Cruz, together with their co-accused, were arraigned in Crim. Case No. 282538 in an Information dated June 8, 2005 that reads as follows: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
CONTRARY TO LAW.7
That during the period from March to December, 2001, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the City of Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named high-ranking public officials and employees of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), Port Area, Manila, namely: JULIO T. MARTINEZ, then the Clerk/Supply Officer, BURT FAVORITO y BARBA, Director III, Administrative and Manpower Management Services (SG 27), FLORENDO ARIAS y BUNAG, Assistant Director, Bureau of [E]quipment (SG 27), VIOLETA AMAR y CASTILLO, NAPOLEON ANAS y SEBASTIAN, ROGELIO BERAY y LAGANGA, MAXIMO BORJE, [JR.] y AQUINO, ROLANDO CASTILLO y COMIA, JESSICA CATIBAYAN y JARDIEL, MA. LUISA CRUZ y TALAO, RICARDO JUAN, JR. y MACLANG, AGERICO PALAYPAY y CORTES, ERDITO QUARTO y QUIAOT, FELIPE A. SAN JOSE, RONALDO G. SIMBAHAN, VIOLETA TADEO y RAGASA, NORMA VILLARMINO y AGCAOILI, and JOHN DOES, whose true names are not yet known, committing the offense in relation to their office, and taking advantage of their official positions, and private individuals, namely: JESUS D. CAPUZ and CONCHITA M. DELA CRUZ and JOHN DOES, whose true names are not yet known, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, acting with evident bad faith, manifest partiality or at the very least gross inexcusable negligence, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously forge and falsify or cause to be forged and falsified documents purportedly for emergency repairs of various DPWH vehicles and/or purchase of spare parts, with a total amount of SIX MILLION THREE HUNDRED SIXTY EIGHT THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED SIXTY FOUR PESOS ([P]6,368,364.00), and which payments were made by the government on the basis of and relying on said forged and falsified documents, when in truth and in fact, as the accused fully well knew, that there were no emergency repairs of DPWH vehicles and/or purchases of spare parts, and these are ghost repairs in the total amount of SIX MILLION THREE HUNDRED SIXTY EIGHT THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED SIXTY FOUR PESOS (P6,368,364.00), thereby causing undue injury to the government in the aforesaid sum.During trial, the prosecution presented documentary evidence including the DVs, the pertinent details of which were summarized by the Sandiganbayan.10 Notably, petitioner Borje was identified as Payee even though he was not necessarily the end-user, and DEB, which petitioner Dela Cruz owns, was identified as Supplier in several of the DVs presented in relation to the emergency repairs and reimbursements of the following vehicles:
CONTRARY TO LAW.9
Some of these vehicles were assigned to some of the prosecution's witnesses who were then DPWH officers and employees. The testimony of these witnesses similarly involved a narration of the assignment of a service vehicle, investigation by the Internal Audit Service (IAS) Office concerning repairs made on the said vehicle, and a statement denying, not recognizing and/or not authorizing some or all of the said repairs made as described in the DVs.44]
- Nissan Pathfinder with Plate No. PND-918;23
- Nissan Pick-up with Plate No. PMY-110;24
- Toyota Land Cruiser (Jeep) with Plate No. CEJ-591;25
- Mitsubishi Pajero with Plate No. TKL-106;26
- Nissan Pick-up with Plate No. PMB-631/HI-4148;27
- Mitsubishi L200 with Plate No. SFG-496;28
- Nissan Pick-up with Plate No. PME-676;29
- Toyota Land Cruiser with Plate No. SFT-208;30
- Toyota Land Cruiser with Plate No. SFT-308/HI-4398;31
- Mitsubishi L200 with Plate No. SFG-417;32
- Mitsubishi L200 with Plate No. SFT-272;33
- Mitsubishi L200 with Plate No. SFT-282;34
- Mitsubishi L200 with Plate No. SFT-715;35
- Nissan Pick-up with Plate No. PME-687;36
- Mitsubishi L200 with Plate No. SFT-732;37
- Mitsubishi L200 with Plate No. SFG-407;38
- Toyota Prado with Plate No. SFG-402;39
- Mitsubishi L200 with Plate No. SFD-732;40
- Mitsubishi L200 with Plate No. SFG-369;41
- Toyota Land Cruiser with Plate No. SFD-302;42 and
- Toyota Prado with Plate No. SFT-207.43
MAXIMO A. BORJE testified that in 2001, he was the Chief of Motor Pool at the Bureau of Equipment (BOE), DPWH. He is primarily in charge with the administration of the Motor Pool Office. A request for repair begins when the request is relayed to the secretary of the Motor Pool who then relays said request to the Special Inspectorate Team (SIT). The SIT conducts the pre-inspection repair and thereafter prepares the Job Order. The SIT will then inform him of the parts needed for repair. He recommends the approval of the Job Order. It is the Chief of the Central Equipment and Spare Parts Division, Erdito Quarto, who approves the same.46
x x x x
CONCHITA M. DELA CRUZ testified that she is the Treasurer of DEB Auto Repair Shop and Parts Supply Corporation. DEB was registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 22, 2001 and is in the business of supplying spare parts, repair and maintenance of light vehicles with the DPWH since 2001. She was the owner of DEB before its registration with the SEC. It was a sole proprietorship then. DEB Corporation started doing business with DPWH when invited to submit prices regarding the repair and maintenance of light vehicles, particularly Toyota, Mitsubishi, Isuzu, Ford and Nissan. They submitted a quotation and canvass by giving prices on the parts required by the DPWH. Their liaison officer fills up, signs and submits the canvass forms to the DPWH. Thereafter, they would wait for the evaluation of award as to which vehicles will be assigned to them as the lowest bidder. She does not know who evaluates the canvass forms and determines the lowest bid because DEB's liaison officer is the one who goes to DPWH to attend the evaluation of the prices. A notice is given by the DPWH to the liaison officer when the project is awarded to them. It is their liaison officer who oversees their transactions with DPWH. She has no knowledge that the cash invoice that was being used by their liaison officer in transacting with DPWH was the cash invoice where her name was indicated as proprietress.47
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered, as follows:On November 23, 2016, petitioner Borje filed a Motion for Reconsideration,51 seeking to reverse and set aside the Sandiganbayan's Decision, and praying for a judgment of acquittal. Petitioner Dela Cruz also filed a Motion for Reconsideration (Of The Decision Dated November 10, 2016) dated November 24, 2016.52
1) In Criminal Case No. 28100, the Court finds accused Florendo Arias y Buñag, Maximo Borje y Aquino, Rolando Castillo y Comia, Burt Favorito y Barba, Erdito Quarto y Quiaot, Felipe A. San Jose and Conchita M. dela Cruz guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Estafa through Falsification of Documents, defined and penalized under Article 315, in relation to Article 171 and Article 48, of the Revised Penal Code, as charged in the Information dated March 1, 2005. Pursuant to the Indeterminate Sentence Law, all said accused are hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, with perpetual absolute disqualification for public office.
The aforementioned accused are also hereby declared solidarily liable to pay the Department of Public Works and Highways civil indemnity in the sum of P5,166,539.00
For insufficiency of evidence, the following accused are hereby acquitted: Napoleon Anas y Sebastian, Rogelio Beray y Laganga, Jessica Catibayan y Jardial, Maria Luisa Cruz y Tagasa and Norma Villarmino y Agcaoili.
By reason of their death, the case is dismissed as against accused Julio T. Martinez, Violeta Amar y Castillo, Agerico Palaypay y Cortez and Jesus N. Capuz by reason of their death.-and-
2) In Criminal Case No. 28253, the Court finds accused Florendo Arias y Bu[fi]ag, Maximo Borje y Aquino, Rolando Castillo y Cornia, Burt Favorito y Barba, Erdito Quarto y Quiaot, Felipe A. San Jose and Conchita dela Cruz guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, as charged in the Information dated June 8, 2005. All said accused are hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) month, as minimum, to ten (10) years, as maximum. They shall also suffer perpetual disqualification from public office.
For insufficiency of evidence, the following accused are hereby acquitted: Napoleon Anas y Sebastian, Rogelio B[e]ray y Laganga, Jessica Catibayan y Jardiel, Maria Luisa Cruz y Talao, Ricardo Juan, Jr. y Maclang, Ronaldo G. Simbahan, Violeta Tadeo y Ragasa and Nonna Villarmino y Agcaoili.
By reason of their death, the case is dismissed as against Julio T. Martinez, Violeta Amar y Castillo, Agerico Palaypay y Cortez and Jesus N. Capuz.
SO ORDERED.50 (Emphases and italics in the original)
In support of the above grounds, petitioner Borje cites a Sandiganbayan Decision dated November 17, 2016 entitled "People of the Philippines v. Danilo Planta y Caluya, et. al.",59 (Planta case) in Crim. Case Nos. 28098 and 28251, which were filed simultaneously together with the instant cases and raffled to the Fourth Division involving the same allegations.60 Petitioner Borje quotes portions of the said Decision penned by Associate Justice Jose R. Hernandez: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
- WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, FOURTH DIVISION, HAS COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT FOUND PETITIONER APPELLANT MAXIMO A. BORJE GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF ESTAFA AND VIOLATION OF SECTION 3(E) OF R.A. 3019, CONTRARY TO THE FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
- WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, FOURTH DIVISION, COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT GAVE DUE COURSE TO THE PROSECUTION'S EXHIBITS DESPITE FAILURE TO PRESENT ALL THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN FALSIFIED.58
These violations are aplenty. At one point, the Court asked whether there were penalties for those observed violations; the prosecution's witness stated there was none in the rules. This could well be a reason why strict compliance was not observed. Yet the sheer volume of these occurrences easily incites suspicion that government funds may have been dissipated through these violations. This nagging question, however, cannot translate to evidence needed to prove the actual allegation that these were all ghost transactions.Petitioner Borje argues that the above-quoted "observation by the Hon. Justice Hernandez applies four-square to the present case for without such proof to establish that there were no actual purchases and no deliveries, it would clearly appear that the Honorable Sandiganbayan, Fourth Division's findings were based mainly on conjectures and surmises."62
It appears that the prosecution mainly hinges its case through a showing of these violations. It prescinds from the assumption that since there were violations in the documentation and processing, the transactions were non-existent. While it may be true that these violations attended the processing of the disbursement vouchers, these by themselves do not prove that the transactions were ghost or non-existent. The prosecution failed to present proof to establish that there were no actual purchases and deliveries of spare parts despite the disbursement of the amounts to pay for them.61 (Emphases and underscoring in the original.)
Petitioner Dela Cruz submits that the prosecution failed to overcome the presumption of innocence afforded to her as it did not prove her guilt for the crime of Estafa through Falsification of Documents beyond reasonable doubt.66
- WHETHER OR NOT THE SANDIGANBAYAN COMMITTED A GRAVE AND REVERSIBLE ERROR OF FACT AND LAW IN FINDING ACCUSED DELA CRUZ GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF ESTAFA THRU FALSIFICATION OF COMMERCIAL/OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS DESPITE THE CLEAR LACK OF EVIDENCE TO SHOW HER CULPABILITY
- WHETHER OR NOT THE SANDIGANBAYAN COMMITTED A GRAVE AND REVERSIBLE ERROR OF FACT AND LAW IN FINDING ACCUSED DELA CRUZ GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF VIOLATION OF SECTION 3(E) OF RA 3019 DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT TO SHOW THAT SHE ALLEGEDLY CONSPIRED WITH HER CO-ACCUSED PUBLIC OFFICERS65
First, petitioner and his co-accused utilized false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means to make it appear that the DPWH service vehicles undergo emergency repairs or required purchase of spare parts and reimbursements due to Martinez using the falsified documents. Second, through the falsified documents, petitioner and his co-accused employed fraudulent means in order to defraud the government in paying the claims for the fictitious emergency repairs/purchases of spare parts. Third, the government was prompted to pay the alleged claims for reimbursements through the falsified documents. Fourth, the government suffered undue injury or damages in the amount of P5,165,539.00.71All the elements of Violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 were also established beyond reasonable doubt: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
First, petitioner is a public officer, being then the Assistant Director of the Bureau of Equipment of DPWH, at the time material to the case, discharging administrative and official functions. Second, petitioner and his co-accused acted with evident bad faith by falsifying official documents to defraud the DPWH into paying the claims for fictitious emergency repairs/purchase of spare parts under the name of Martinez. Third, petitioner's act caused undue injury or damage to the government in the total amount of [P]5,166,539.00.72The Office of the Ombudsman submits that petitioner Borje's participation was proven as evidenced by his signature over the words "approved and/or recommending approval." That the falsified documents cover at least 274 transactions over a period of 10 months indicates the existence of conspiracy between petitioner Borje and the other co-accused.73 Contrary to petitioner Borje's postulation, although there is no express agreement to commit the illegal act, their individual acts when taken together as a whole showed that they were acting in concert and cooperating to achieve the very same unlawful objective of defrauding the government.74
After a careful and meticulous scrutiny of the evidence on record, the Court finds that the alleged emergency repairs on the 39 DPWH vehicles during the period March 2001 to December 2001 and subsequent thereto, covering 274 transactions that were the subject of the reimbursements claimed and paid to accused Martinez in the total sum of P5,166,539.00, were indeed, fictitious and non-existent. They were actually false claims that formed part of sinister schemes to steal government funds. This is clearly shown by the following:A careful re-examination of the records also yields the same conclusion that there is no reversible error on the part of the Sandiganbayan in finding the petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charges against them.
First. Of the 39 vehicles in question, only one, the Mitsubishi L-200 with Plate No. SFG-361 / H1-4237, was assigned to accused Martinez. All the rest were assigned to other officials and agencies of the DPWH. There was no request from these officials and agencies for the emergency repairs that the vehicles assigned to them purportedly underwent during the period in question, which became the subject of the reimbursements claimed and paid in the name of accused Martinez.
Second. The justification given for the purchases of spare parts was emergency repairs, but they do not really qualify as such under existing DPWH regulation. They were falsely labeled as emergency repairs/purchases to avoid the requirement of public bidding.
x x x x
The table below,81 prepared on the basis of evidence on record, shows that service or spare parts purchased for the emergency repairs of the DPWH vehicles, the costs of which were reimbursed to accused Martinez, do not qualify as emergency services or purchases. They are clearly not of the kind that can be considered "urgent or absolutely indispensable to prevent immediate danger to, or loss of, life and/or property, or avoid detriment to the public service."
x x x x
Third. A careful scrutiny of Disbursement Vouchers and supporting documents also yields that splitting of repairs and of purchases of spare parts was resorted to in order to circumvent prescribed limitations as well as the requirement of public bidding.
x x x x
In connection with the 274 transactions covering the alleged emergency repairs/purchases of spare parts of the 39 DPWH vehicles, the documents that were submitted to support the reimbursements claimed and paid in the name of accused Martinez, and attached to the Disbursement Vouchers, were the following: Certifications of Sealed Emergency Purchase/Repair; Abstracts of Canvass and corresponding written quotations; Requisitions for Supplies of Equipment (RSEs); Motor Vehicle Pre-repair Inspection Reports; Motor Vehicle Post-repair Inspection Reports and Certificates of Acceptance. These are among those referred to in paragraph D of DPWH Memorandum dated July 31, 1997 quoted above. The other documents submitted were following: Cash Invoices issued by the suppliers, Reports of Waste Material and Equipment Pre-Inspection and Job Orders.
The Court finds, and so holds, that all the aforementioned documents submitted were falsified. Except for the Cash Invoices issued by the suppliers, the documents were prepared, accomplished and/or executed and signed by public officers/employees taking advantage of their official positions in making untruthful statements in the narration of facts. Through these documents, it was made to appear, albeit untrue, that the 39 vehicles subject of reimbursements claimed and paid to accused Martinez in the total sum of P5,166,539.00 underwent emergency repairs that required purchases of spare parts. The Disbursement Vouchers were also falsified to justify the release of checks for payment of the reimbursements claimed. The Cash Invoices issued by the suppliers were also falsified because they pertain to fictitious or non-existent purchases of spare parts. As earlier stated, these falsified documents were all utilized in sinister schemes to steal government funds.
x x x x
Accused Borje, as Chief of the Motorpool Section, affixed his signature recommending approval of the falsified Equipment Pre-Inspection and Job Orders and participating in the approval of the falsified Reports of Waste Material and Abstracts of Open Canvass.
x x x x
Accused dela Cruz was the owner of the DEB Repair Shop and Parts Supply that issued the falsified Sales Invoices for the fictitious supplies of spare parts for the non-existent emergency repairs.
Clearly, with the repeated participation of the aforementioned accused in falsifying the documents relating to 274 separate transactions, the conclusion is inevitable that they conspired with one another in deceiving the DPWH into paying the claims for the fictitious emergency repairs/purchases of spare parts in the name of accused Martinez, thereby causing damage to the government in the total amount of P5,166,539.00.82 (Citations and original emphases omitted; emphases and underscoring supplied.)
The falsification of a public, official, or commercial document may be a means of committing estafa, because before the falsified document is actually utilized to defraud another, the crime of falsification has already been consummated, damage or intent to cause damage not being an element of the crime of falsification of public, official, or commercial document. In other words, the crime of falsification has already existed. Actually utilizing that falsified public, official, or commercial document to defraud another is estafa. But the damage is caused by the commission of estafa, not by the falsification of the document. Therefore, the falsification of the public, official, or commercial document is only a necessary means to commit estafa.85 (Emphasis supplied.)The elements of estafa under Article 315 paragraph 2(a) of the RPC are the following: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
1. That there must be a false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means;In the instant cases, all the elements of estafa are present.
2. That such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud;
3. That the offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means, that is, he was induced to part with his money or property because of the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means; and
4. That as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.86
First. There were false pretenses, fraudulent acts or fraudulent means in that it was made to appear, through the use of the falsified documents, that the DPWH service vehicles in question underwent emergency repairs that required purchases of spare parts, and that reimbursements were due to accused Martinez;Clearly, the falsification of the DVs and supporting documents was a necessary means to commit estafa. Without making it appear that there were emergency repairs and/or purchases of spare parts, the accused would not have been able to obtain P5,166,539.00 in reimbursements from the DPWH.
Second. The false pretenses, fraudulent acts or fraudulent means, in the form of falsification of documents, were employed prior to the commission of the fraud; that is to deceive the government in paying the claims for the fictitious emergency repairs/purchases of spare parts;
Third. The government was induced to pay the claims relying on the false pretenses, fraudulent acts or fraudulent means employed;-and-
Fourth. The government suffered damages in the total amount of P5,166,539.00, the sum total of the false claims paid.87 (Emphasis in the original.)
At any rate, the records of this case show no reversible error to warrant a reversal of the assailed decision. It appears that petitioner did not impugn his signatures appearing in the Disbursement Vouchers, Reports of Waste Materials, Requisitions for Supplies and/or Equipment and Certificates of Emergency Purchase. Furthermore, the repeated issuance and execution of these documents belies petitioner's claim that his participation was not necessary and that his function in signing documents is merely ministerial; on the contrary, these documents were necessary for the claims for payment of emergency repairs of DPWH service vehicles and/or purchases of spare parts which were found to be fictitious. Thus, petitioner's signatures on these documents were a clear manifestation of his assent and participation or complicity to the illegal transactions, and his assertion of lack of participation is without merit.99 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)Petitioner Borje, as Chief of the Motorpool Section, affixed his signature recommending approval of the falsified Equipment Pre-Inspection and Job Orders, and participating in the approval of the falsified Reports of Waste Material and Abstracts of Open Canvass. Without his signature, the scheme of the accused to defraud the government would not have come into fruition.
The State is not tasked to adduce direct proof of the agreement by petitioners with the other accused, for such requirement, in many cases, would border on near impossibility. The State needs to adduce proof only when the accused committed acts that constitute a vital connection to the chain of conspiracy or in furtherance of the objective of the conspiracy. In the case at bench, the signing of the fake tally sheets and/or delivery receipts, reports of inspection, and requests for supplies and materials by petitioners on separate occasions is vital to the success of the Mangubat Group in siphoning off government funds. Without such fabricated documents, the general vouchers covering the supply of materials cannot be properly accomplished and submitted to the disbursing officer for the preparation of checks.Similarly, in the instant cases, the falsification by the accused of the DVs, supporting documents and Cash Invoices had a vital connection to the chain of conspiracy or were in furtherance of the objective of the conspiracy. Without the DVs, supporting documents and Cash Invoices, the government would not have released public funds for the reimbursement of the ghost emergency repairs and/or purchase of spare parts. Without the falsified Equipment Pre-Inspection Reports and Job Orders signed and the falsified Reports of Waste Material and Abstracts of Open Canvass approved by petitioner Borje, and without the falsified Cash Invoices issued by petitioner Dela Cruz through her sole proprietorship DEB, the objective of the conspiracy would not have been attained as these falsified documents were necessary to claim reimbursement for the ghost transactions. Thus, since the actions of the accused, including petitioners Borje and Dela Cruz, manifest their concurrence in the criminal design to facilitate the disbursement of public funds for the ghost emergency repairs and/or purchase of spare parts, the Sandiganbayan correctly found that there is conspiracy.
x x x x
Thus, it is clear that without the tally sheets and delivery receipts, the general voucher cannot be prepared and completed. Without the general voucher, the check for the payment of the supply cannot be made and issued to the supplier. Without the check payment, the defraudation cannot be committed and successfully consummated. Thus, petitioners' acts in signing the false tally sheets and/or delivery receipts are indispensable to the consummation of the crime of estafa thru falsification of public documents. Surely, there were ghost or false deliveries of supplies and materials as convincingly shown by the testimonies of the barangay captains, officials, and residents of the areas where the materials were allegedly used.112 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)
Clearly, with the repeated participation of the aforementioned accused in falsifying the documents relating to 274 separate transactions, the conclusion is inevitable that they conspired with one another in deceiving the DPWH into paying the claims for the fictitious emergency repairs/purchases of spare parts in the name of accused Martinez, thereby causing damage to the government in the total amount of P5,166,539.00.113This same conspiracy was also recognized by this Court in Arias114 when we affirmed the Sandiganbayan's Decision dated 10 November 2016 and Resolution issued on 15 January 2018, which are also subject of the instant petitions. In Arias,115 we quoted the said Sandiganbayan Decision which found herein petitioners Borje and Dela Cruz and the other co-accused in conspiracy with therein petitioner Arias: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
After a careful and meticulous scrutiny of the records, the Court finds, and so holds, that the prosecution evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that the following accused are guilty of the offense charged, namely: Arias, Borja (sic), Castillo, Favorito, Quarto, San Jose and Dela Cruz. These accused conspired with one another, and with accused Martinez whose criminal liability has been extinguished by death.116 (Emphasis supplied.)We find no reason to disturb the findings of the Sandiganbayan that petitioners are in conspiracy with the other co-accused. This Court is not a trier of facts and in the absence of strong and compelling reasons, we accord finality to the factual findings of the Sandiganbayan.117
SECTION 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. - In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:The elements of the above violation are: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
x x x x
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.
x x x x127
(a) the accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official functions; (b) he must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence; and (c) his action caused undue injury to any party, including the government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions.128The elements are present in this case. As held by the Sandiganbayan: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
First. Accused Arias, Borje, Castillo, Favorito, Quarto and San Jose are undoubtedly public officers discharging administrative or official functions.Petitioner Dela Cruz argues that the elements of the above violation have not been proven in her case because she cannot be considered to have committed the crime as she is not a public officer, but a mere private individual. Moreover, she forwards that conspiracy was not proven.131
Second. All the aforementioned accused, in conspiracy with one another and with accused Dela Cruz, acted with evident bad faith in falsifying official documents to deceive the DPWH into paying the claims for the fictitious emergency repairs/purchases of spare parts in the name of deceased accused Martinez.
In Sistoza v. Desierto129 , the Supreme Court explained the meaning of evident bad faith in this wise: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary"x x x evident bad faith x x x connotes not only bad judgment but also palpably and patently fraudulent and dishonest purpose to do moral obliquity or conscious wrongdoing for some perverse motive or ill will."Third. The actions of the accused caused undue injury or damage to the government in the total amount of P5,166,539.00.130 (Emphases in the original.)
Since petitioners have been shown to have participated in the conspiracy, they must be held equally liable with co-accused Binos and Alcantara under section 3(e) of RA 3019. In a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all (People vs. Sendaydiego, 81 SCRA 120). The fact that petitioners are private persons is of no consequence, considering that the rule of collective criminal responsibility includes even private individuals who participate with public officers in the perpetration of offenses ordinarily particularly applicable only to the latter (United States v. Ponte, 20 Phil. 379).133As discussed above, petitioner Dela Cruz is in conspiracy with the other co-accused. Without the participation of petitioner Dela Cruz in the falsification of Cash Invoices through her sole proprietorship DEB, the reimbursements amounting to P5,166,539.00 would not have been facilitated. Thus, since petitioner Dela Cruz is in conspiracy with the other co-accused, it is of no moment that she is not a public officer. She is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019.
SECTION 25. Article 171 of the same Act is hereby amended to read as follows:Section 85 of R.A. No. 10951, which amended Article 315 of the RPC, provides: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
"ART. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastic minister. - The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed One million pesos (P1,000,000) 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: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryx x x
"4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts;x x x134
SECTION 85. Article 315 of the same Act, as amended by Republic Act No. 4885, Presidential Decree No. 1689, and Presidential Decree No. 818, is hereby further amended to read as follows:Since the crime committed is a complex crime under Article 48 of the RPC the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period. In this case, applying R.A. No. 10951 and considering the amount defrauded is P5,166,539.00, the penalty for Estafa which is prision mayor in its minimum period is lighter than the penalty for Falsification of Public Documents which is prision mayor.
"ART. 315. Swindling (estafa). - Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by:
"1st. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is over Two million four hundred thousand pesos (P2,400,000) but does not exceed Four million four hundred thousand pesos (P4,400,000), and if such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional Two million pesos (P2,000,000); but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed and for the purpose of the other provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be.
x x x x
"2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:
"(a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar deceits.
x x x x135 (Emphasis supplied)
Endnotes:
1 Penned by Associate Justice Oscar C. Herrera, Jr., with the concurrence of Associate Justice Jose R. Hernandez and Associate Justice Alex L. Quiroz; rollo (G.R. No. 236810), pp. 49-108.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Oscar C. Herrera, Jr., with the concurrence of Associate Justice Alex L. Quiroz and Associate Justice Bayani H. Jacinto; id. at 8-15.
3 Id. at 51-52; 68.
4Id. at 51-52; 70-71.
5Id. at 71, 84.
6Id. at 53.
7Id. at 51.
8Id. at 53.
9Id. at 52.
10Id. at 71-84.
11Id. at 71-72.
12Id. at 73.
13Id. at 74.
14Id. at 75.
15Id. at 76-77.
16Id. at 79.
17Id. at 80.
18Id.
19Id. at 81.
20Id. at 82.
21Id.
22Id. at 83.
23Id. at 72.
24Id. at 73.
25Id. at 74.
26Id. at 75.
27Id. at 76.
28Id.
29Id. at 77.
30Id. at 78.
31Id.
32Id.
33Id. at 81.
34Id.
35Id. at 82.
36Id.
37Id. at 83.
38Id.
39Id.
40Id.
41Id. at 84.
42Id.
43Id.
44Id. at 58-61.
45Id. at 59-60.
46Id. at 65.
47Id. at 67.
48Id. at 85.
49Id. at 102.
50Id. at 106-107.
51Id. at 44-48.
52Id. at 36.
53Id. at 36-43.
54Id. at 42.
55Id. at 19-35.
56Rollo (G.R. No. 236807), pp. 10-32.
57Rollo (G.R. No. 236810), p. 16.
58Id. at 24.
59Id. at 109-193.
60Id. at 25.
61Id. at 25-26.
62Id. at 29.
63Id. at 29-30.
64Id. at 30.
65Rollo (G.R. No. 236807), p. 15.
66Id. at 22-23.
67Id.
68Id. at 28-29.
69Id. at 31.
70Rollo (G.R. No. 236810), pp. 212-229.
71Id. at 220.
72Id. at 225.
73Id. at 221.
74Id. at 226.
75Id. at 222-223.
76Id. at 227.
77Cedeño v. People, et al., 820 Phil. 575, 600 (2017).
78Typoco, Jr. v. People, 816 Phil. 914, 928 (2017).
79Id. at 929.
80Supra note 77, at 354.
81 Intentionally not reproduced.
82Rollo (G.R. No. 236810), pp. 85-102.
83Id. at 106.
84 618 Phil. 499 (2009).
85Id. at 517-518.
86Florendo B. Arias v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 237106-107, June 10, 2019.
87Rollo (G.R. No. 236810), pp. 99-100.
88Id. at 25-26.
89Escobar, et al. v. People, 820 Phil. 956, 994 (2017).
90Villa v. Sandiganbayan, 284 Phil. 410, 426 (1992).
91Id. at 426-427.
92Sr. Insp. Leo Marzan and PO3 Ramon Lihay-Lihay v. People, G.R. No. 201942, February 12, 2021.
93 557 Phil. 555 (2007).
94Rollo (G.R. No. 236810), pp. 212-229.
95Id. at 215.
96Id. at 216.
97Id. at 70.
98Supra note 86.
99Id.
100Supra note 89.
101Id. at 119.
102Republic v. Arias, 743 Phil. 266, 284 (2014).
103Rollo (G.R. No. 236807), pp. 22-29.
104Rollo (G.R. No. 236810), p. 67.
105Id. at 59-60.
106Excellent Quality Apparel, Inc. v. Win Multi Rich Builders, Inc., 598 Phil. 94, 101 (2009).
107Jariol, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, 266 Phil. 530, 546 (1990).
108Rollo (G.R. No. 236810), p. 67.
109Id. at 71-84.
110Rollo (G.R. No. 236807), pp. 24-28.
111Supra note 93.
112Id. at 602-604.
113Rollo (G.R. No. 236810), p. 102.
114Supra note 86.
115Id.
116Id.
117Fernan, Jr. v. People, supra note 93, at 602.
118Rollo (G.R. No. 236810), p. 30.
119Supra note 86.
120 Section 3, Rule 130, Revised Rules on Evidence (A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC).
121Arias v. People, supra note 86.
122 Section 3, Rule 130, Revised Rules on Evidence (A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC).
123 Section 3, Rule 130, 1989 Rules on Evidence.
124Lee v. People, 483 Phil. 684, 704 (2004).
125Supra note 86.
126Id.
127 Republic Act No. 3019 (1960), Sec. 3(e).
128Sr. Insp. Leo Marzan and P03 Ramon Lihay-Lihay v. People, supra note 92.
129Sistoza v. Desierto, 437 Phil. 117, 132 (2002).
130Rollo (G.R. No. 236810), pp. 105-106.
131Rollo (G.R. No. 236807), p. 31.
132Sps. Balmadrid v. Sandiganbayan, 272-A Phil. 486 (1991).
133Id. at 493-494.
134 Republic Act No. 10951 (2017), Sec. 25.
135 Republic Act No. 10951 (2017), Sec. 85.
136Macaraig v. People, G.R. No. 230302, July 15, 2019.
137Supra.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary