G.R. Nos. 89043-65. July 16, 1990 (Case Brief / Digest)

### Title:
**Veloso vs. Sandiganbayan and the People of the Philippines**

### Facts:
The case centers around a sprawling fraud involving the issuance of fake Letters of Advice of Allotments, Cash Disbursement Ceilings, tampering, and falsifications of General Vouchers and supporting documents, leading to substantial financial losses for the government amounting to P982,207.60. This organized scheme implicated officials and employees of the Ministry of Public Highways Central Office, Regional Office No. VII, and the Siquijor Highway Engineering District, alongside three contractors.

Jose R. Veloso, the petitioner and the District Auditor of Siquijor Highway Engineering District (SHED), along with others, were charged with 46 counts of Estafa through Falsification of Public Documents under the Revised Penal Code. The Sandiganbayan found Veloso guilty as a co-principal in twenty-three (23) cases and sentenced him to varied prison terms and fines, holding him responsible for his role in the auditing and approval process of the fraudulent transactions.

Following their conviction, separate motions for reconsideration were filed but denied by the Sandiganbayan, leading to Veloso’s petition for review by the Supreme Court of the Philippines. The petitioner argued against the findings of conspiracy and his participation in the fraud, highlighting his claim of performing duties in good faith based on the documents presented to him.

### Issues:
1. Whether or not Jose R. Veloso’s participation in the criminal conspiracy was established beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. The legitimacy of Veloso’s claim to acting in good faith and the ministerial nature of his signing of the general vouchers and documents.

### Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court denied Veloso’s petition, affirming the Sandiganbayan’s decision. The Court meticulously addressed the issue of Veloso’s participation in the conspiracy, highlighting his critical role in the auditing and approval of fraudulent transactions. Despite Veloso’s assertions of good faith and reliance on the regularity of documents processed, the Court found substantial evidence of his complicit action or inaction in the fraudulent scheme through the irregular processing, pre-audit, and approval of related documents. The Court held that the magnitude and frequency of the irregular transactions Veloso was involved in were too significant to be dismissed as mere oversight or negligence, thereby establishing his participation in the fraud beyond a reasonable doubt.

### Doctrine:
1. Conspiracy and individual offender’s guilt can be established through circumstantial evidence.
2. Administrative liability is separate and distinct from penal liability.

### Class Notes:
– **Conspiracy in Penal Law**: The Supreme Court reiterates that direct evidence of a conspiracy is not necessary; both the existence of a conspiracy and a conspirator’s participation can be demonstrated through circumstantial evidence.
– **Distinction between Administrative and Penal Liability**: A public official’s suspension or administrative sanction does not exempt him from criminal liability for acts violating penal laws.
– **Role and Responsibility of Auditors**: Auditors play a crucial watchdog role; failure to report or prevent irregular transactions, especially on a repeated basis, implicates them in the fraudulent activities.
– **Circumstantial Evidence**: Circumstantial evidence can be a decisive factor in proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases.

### Historical Background:
This case highlights the intricate and wide-reaching nature of corruption within government procurement and financial management systems. The involvement of various government officials and employees across different levels showcases the systemic issues of fraud that plagued the Philippine government’s public works and highways sector at the time. It underscores the judiciary’s role in addressing corruption, emphasizing the need for vigilance and integrity among public officials, especially auditors, in preventing fraud and protecting public funds.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Apply Filters