G.R. Nos. 53694-99. November 05, 1987
ISIDORO RECAMADAS, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.
SARMIENTO, J.:
We are confronted with yet another appeal from the Decision of
the Sandiganbayan[1]
in six criminal cases thereof, Nos 195, 196, 197,
198, 199, and 200, involving misappropriations of public funds devoted for
certain public works projects in Tagbilaran City over
two months in 1978. The cases involved,
in addition to two private individuals, thirteen public officials appointed in
varying capacities to the Tagbilaran City Engineer’s
Office, the Commission on Audit thereof, or the Seventh Regional Highways
Office of the defunct Ministry of Public Highways, ranging from the checker to
the City Engineer and the (acting) Regional Director. The City Engineer himself had earlier come to
us[2]
and so has the (acting) Regional Director.[3]
We rejected both their appeals.
The respondent Sandiganbayan sentenced
all thirteen accused to suffer six separate terms of six years of prision correccional
to ten years, eight months, and one day of prision
mayor, for the crime of estafa through
falsification of public documents.[4]
We incorporate as an integral part hereof our factual findings in
the Castillo and Bagasao decisions:
xxx xxx xxx
In the regional level, the requisition of funds for public works
purposes, especially in the matter of road and bridge repairs, involves a
graduated series of steps. As found by
the respondent Sandiganbayan, it begins with the
Sub-Allotment Advices (SAAs), as well as the Advices
of Cash Disbursement Ceilings (ACDCs), issued by the
Ministry of Public Highways in favor of its Highways Regional Offices. These serve as the Regional Offices’
authority to obligate and disburse funds.
In turn, these become the sources of funds of the various Engineering
Districts apportioned throughout each region.
The Engineering District then requests for the release of these
funds from the Regional Director through a Program of Work. The Regional Finance Officer issues a Letter
of Advice of Allotment (LAA), certified as to availability of funds by the
Regional Accountant, countersigned by the Regional Director, and addressed to
the District (or City, as the case may be) Engineer. At the same time, he (the Regional Finance
Officer) prepares a Sub-Advice of Cash Disbursement Ceiling (SACDC) for the
Regional Director.
The LAA and SACDC are subsequently entered in a logbook. The funds requested are then released.
On the strength of such LAA and SACDC, the District then prepares a
Requisition for Supplies or Equipment (RSE) as well as a Request for Obligation
of Allotment (ROA), pursuant to the Program of Work. Both are likewise certified as to availability
of funds by the Regional Accountant and approved by the Regional Director.
Thereafter, the Property Custodian or the Purchasing Officer, as
the case may be, addresses Requests for Sealed Quotations to various suppliers,
usually through newspaper advertisements or notices posted in conspicuous
places in the District concerned. After
ten days, the Sealed Quotations are submitted to the Price Verification
Committee which determines the lowest bid in the presence of representatives of
the District Engineer and the Auditor.
An Abstract of Sealed Quotations is then signed by the members of the
Committee as well as the said local representatives. Thereafter, and subject to the approval of
the District Engineer, the proper award is made in favor of the lowest
bidder. On the basis thereof, the
Property Custodian issues a Purchase
Order (PO) in favor of the winning bidder, again subject to the approval of the
District Engineer and certified as to availability of funds by the Regional
Accountant.
The supplies thus to be delivered are thereafter inspected (through
Request for Inspection) by the Property Custodian. The deliveries themselves are recorded in a
Tally Sheet after which a Record of Inspection, certified by the Property
Custodian, is prepared by the Representative of the Auditor and the Property
Custodian.
Payment to the supplier is eviÂdenced by a General Voucher
(GV). Among others, the GV contains five
parts: (1) a certification of receipt of
supplies to be accomplished by the Property Custodian; (2) a certification of
correctÂness, that is, that the expenses are necessary and lawful, and that the
prices are not in excess of the current rates in the locality, to be
accomplished by the Project Engineer; (3) approval by the District Engineer;
(4) a certification, to be accomplished by the Auditor, that the GV has been properÂly approved, its account codes
proper, and that it is supported by the proper documents; and (5) a
certification that the GV has undergone
pre-audit, to be accomplished by the Auditor.
The GV itself must carry
with it the following: the RSE, ROA,
Program of Work, detailed Estimates, Request for Sealed Quotations, Abstract of
Sealed Quotations, PO, Delivery Receipts, Request for lnspection,
Record of Inspection, Test Reports, and Tax Clearance of the Supplier.
The process winds up with the issuance of the check by the Cashier
in the name of the supplier. Like the
GV, the check is pre-audited and then released.
The District Accountant thereafter prepares a Report of Obligation
Incurred (ROI) and a Report of Checks Issued (RCI) to be submitted to the
Regional Office and entered in the journals and General Ledger thereof. On the basis thereof, the Regional Accountant
prepares a trial balance to be recommended by the Finance Officer and approved by the Regional Director. The same is then submitted to the Ministry of
Public Highways.[5]
xxx xxx xxx
It appears that between
May and June, 1978, the TagbiÂlaran City Engineering
Office embarked on certain projects involving the restoration of various roads
and bridges in Tagbilaran City. As
we found in both Castillo and
Bagasao,
supra, the aforesaid projects turned out to be
“ghost” projects since they did not carry the imprimatur of the then
Public Highways Ministry, the various requisition papers having been falsified
to enable the accused to acquire the necessary funding. Furthermore, the supplies ordered were either
short-delivered or not delivered at all.
As a result, the government suffered losses in the total sum of
P240,958.00.[6]
The Tanodbayan
seasonably brought six (6) suits for estafa
complexed with falsification of public and commercial documents against all thirteeen public officials and two private individuals on
the basis of conspiracy. The Sandiganbayan, after due trial, rendered judgment acquitÂting
but two, Jose Sayson, Budget Examiner II of the Seventh Regional
Highways Office, and Engracio Quiroz, an employee of James Tiu,
a private contractor, and convicting the rest, including the petitioner.
The Sandiganbayan found, specifically,
the petitioner guilty of conspiring to falsify certain documents, as
follows: (1) Letters of Advice of
Allotment (LAAs); (2) Sub-Advice of Cash Disbursement
Ceiling (SACDCs); (3) Programs of Work (PWs); (4) General Vouchers (GVs);
(5) Requests for Obligation of Allotment (ROAs); (6)
AbsÂtracts of Sealed Quotations; (7) Purchase Orders (POs); and (8) Records of
Inspection (ROIs), as a consequence of which the
accused acquired the financing to fund the aforemenÂtioned projects pursuant to
the procedure above-quoted.
As we earlier stated, we upheld the Sandiganbayan
in two earlier cases involving the same transactions. We likewise sustain the respondent court with
respect to this particular appeal.
The petitioner, in the main, assails the Sandiganbayan’s
Decision on the ground that
conspiracy has not been shown with respect to him, and that while he admits
having signed the various documents, in particular the POs, RSEs,
and GVs in question, he did so out of reliance on the approval thereof by his
superiors. He admits not having taken
stock of the (short) deliveries, as his office called upon him to do, but
claims having left the matter to “the proÂject [or] the district
engineers, who are more competent and qualified to ascertain full and complete
delivery of the materials specified in the purchase order, as that belongs to
the category of their jobs.“[7] In
this regard, the respondent Sandiganbayan
specifically found that the petitioner
“knew that the materials were not completely delivered.”[8]
We cannot accept the
petitioner’s posturings of good faith in this
case. It is to be noted that as Property
Custodian, he discharges a very sensitive function in the work of the
Ministry of Public Highways, even in such areas that may be said to be routine. It is no defense
therefore to say that since there were engineers to inspect and superÂvise the
projects as well as the materials requisitioned therefor,
he need not have intervened therein.
Otherwise, he would have allowed unbridled fraud in the office itself,
an eventuality against which he, as Property Custodian, had been precisely
designated to install safeguards.
As such Property
Custodian, the petitioner is the first person to determine whether or not
supplies (not only for specific programs but for perfunctory projects as well)
are properly delivered based on the specifications. The fact that the orders therefor
had previously passed through the higher-ups and had merited their sanction does not deprive him of the right, nay his bounden
duty, to ascertain the correctness of such orders, that is to say, whether or
not they conform to the said specifications.
Indeed, had he performed this duty he would have discovered the
anomaly then going on — and prevented it — had he so desired.
Nevertheless, we are not
prepared to accept the petitioner’s claims that at most, he was
negligent in the performance of his duties, and that he was animated by no
criminal purpose. As the Solicitor
General avers, he was the “vital link”[9] to it all, otherwise the offense would not
have been consummated. For if he were
truly guilty, at most, of negligence, he should not have concurred in the
various papers he admits having signed, and which, as he claims, did not after
all require his signature.[10] This Court finds that such a concurrence was an attempt to legitimize the entire transactions and hence, to cover
up such illegalities.
Accordingly, the
petitioner could not have been unaware of the irregularities that for two
months had preoccupied the Region VII personnel of the Public Highways
Ministry. His efforts alone to pass the
buck, so to speak, to his co-accused (a tendency, incidentally, that holds true
as far as his co-accused are concerned) is proof that he was a part of the plot to defraud the government.
Moreover, it is no excuse
that he had no option but to obey his superiors. Compliance with a superior order is
justifiable only where the order was “lawful”[11] and that the accused acted without criminal
intent.[12] In this case, the alleged order was not
within legal bounds, but at the same time, the petitioner, in complying
therewith, had indeed criminal designs.
His unusual indifference with respect to the delivery of anapog, the materials requisitioned, a matter he left to the engineers
when it was his obligation to inspect that delivery, is a clear indication that
he knew that some irregularity was taking shape and taking place. We entertain no reasonable doubt that he is
guilty as charged.
WHEREFORE, the Decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED
and the Petition is DISMISSED. Costs against the petitioner.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, C.J., Yap, Fernan, Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras,
Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, and Cortes, JJ., concur.
Feliciano, J., on leave.
[1]
Fernandez, Bernardo, J.; Pamaran, Manuel, P.J.,
and Escareal, Romeo, J., Concurring.
[2]
Castillo v. Sandiganbayan,
G.R. Nos. 52352-57, June 30, 1987.
[3]
Bagasao v. Sandiganbayan,
G.R. Nos. 53813-18, 1987.
[4]
Castillo, supra; Bagasao, supra;
Rollo, 122-127.
[5]
Castillo, supra, at 8-11; Bagasao, supra,
at 2-4.
[6]
Rollo, 106-107.
[7]
Id., 24
[8]
Id., 114.
[9]
Id., 163.
[10]
Id., 21.
[11]
Revised Penal Code, Art. II, par. 6;
People v. Barroga, 54 Phil. 277 (1930).
[12]
People v. Beronilla,
96 Phil. 566 (1955).