CRESENCIA L. TAN, PETITIONER, THE SANDIGANBAYAN AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

Petitioner Cresencia L. Tan assails the joint decision of the Sandiganbayan
dated May 30, 1989 (pp. 16-117, Rollo), finding her guilty of 22 counts of
Estafa Through Falsification of Public Documents and sentencing her to suffer
22 separate jail terms, ranging from 4 years, 2 months, and 1 day of prision
correccional in the minimum, to 10 years of prision mayor, maximum.

Forty-six cases were filed by the then Tanodbayan charging
certain officials and employees
of the then Ministry of Public Highways of Region VII and of the Siquijor
Highway Engineering District (SHED) Office and certain private
contractors/suppliers, with having committed the prime of Estafa Through
Falsification of Public Documents.

The Informations in all
the cases are identically worded, except as
to persons, dates, amounts, and supplies/materials involved, thus :

That during the period from [period specified], or thereabout, in
the City of Cebu and in the Province of Siquijor (both in Region VII), Republic
of the Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, with deliberate
intent and with intent to defraud the Republic of the Philippines, conspiring
and confederating together with their co-accused [name], a contractor, and
mutually helping one another, and taking advantage of their public positions,
did, then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit the following
acts of falsification and/or fraudulent acts executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the fraud, to wit: (a) [names of Regional Highway Officials and
their respective positions], prepared, caused to be prepared, signed, countersigned and released Letter of Advice
of Allotment (LAA), No. [xxx], dated [xxx] in the amount of [xxx] of the District Engineer of Siquijor
Engineering District, allegedly for maintenance of National Roads and Bridges
when, as a matter of fact and as accused well knew, the same was not covered by
a Sub-Allotment Advice (SAA) from the Ministry of Public Highways, Manila, thus
making untruthful statements in the narration of facts; (b), accused [names of
some SHED officials and employees] in connivance with the above-named accused
[name of contractor/supplier], prepared and approved Requisition & Issue
Voucher [date of voucher] for [quantity in cu. m.] Aggregate Base Course (Item
200) charged to said fake LAA; (c) above?names accused Trinidad T.
Manloloyo, Chairman, Aurelio M. de la Peña, Herminio T. Buac, Zosimo S. Dinsay,
Cresencia L. Tan members of the Awards Committee signed and approved Bid No.
[xxx], which was opened on [xxx] and approved by above-named accused Isaac T.
Mananquil, Highway District Engineer; (d) accused Wilfredo Monte, Zosimo S.
Dinsay, Cresencia L. Tan, Trinidad T. Manloloyo, and Adventor Fernandez
correspondingly signed and approved Requisition for Supplies or Equipment dated
[xxx] for the said Item 200; (e) accused [name] correspondingly signed and
approved Purchase Order No. [xxx] dated [xxx] in favor of [name of
contractor/supplier]; (f) accused [names of Shed employees] signed and
certified to the correctness of the
Statement of Deliveries of Road Materials (Item 200) for [name of
contractor/supplier], pursuant to said Purchase Order No. [xxx]; (g) accused
Eugenia S. Machan, Wilfredo Monte, Cresencia L. Tan, Jose R. Velaso and Isaac
T. Mananquil, correspondingly signed, preaudited and approved General Voucher
No. [xxx] in favor of accused [name of contractor/supplier] in the amount of
[words and figures] Pesos allegedly in payment of said Item 200; (h) accused
[names of SHED officials], issued, signed, and counter-signed, respectively,
TCAA [check no. and date] in favor of [name of contractor/supplier] in payment
of said General Voucher No. [xxx]; (i)
and finally [name of contractor/supplier] received and encashed the aforesaid
TCAA Check, thus, the above-names accused were able to appropriate, as they did
appropriate and convert to their own personal use and benefit, to the damage
and prejudice of the Government of the Philippines in the total amount of
(words and figures) Pesos.

ALL ACTS CONTRARY to Article 315, par. 2, in relation to Article
171 of the Revised Penal Code.

Duly arraigned under each of the different Informations, all of
the accused pleaded “Not Guilty”.

Thereafter, by agreement of the parties, a joint trial was held. The Sandiganbayan, later rendered a
single decision for all the cases. Herein petitioner Tan, then employed as District Accountant of SHED, was
found guilty as charged in 22 cases
(Criminal Case No. 2073-2095, except 2077).

Initially, it may be a useful backgrounder if We examine the
procedure involved in the funding of different regions of the Ministry of
Public Highways and in the disbursement of said funds which petitioner
accurately synthesized thus:

At the beginning of each quarter, the Ministry of the Budget issues
to the Ministry of Public Highways the advice of allotment (AA), which is the
authority to obligate, and the Cash Disbursement Ceiling (CDC) which is the
authority to disburse. In turn, the
Ministry of Public Highways, issues sub-advices of allotments (SAA) to the
various regional offices, and the corresponding advices of cash disbursement
ceilings (ACDC). The regional offices
then issue Letter of Advice of Allotment (LAA) to the various districts to
enable the district offices to incur obligations, and the corresponding
sub-advices of Cash Disbursement Ceilings (ACDC). The LAAs are prepared in the Budget Section of the Accounting and
Finance Division of the Regional Office, forwarded to the Accounting Section
for obligation and certification of availability of funds by the Chief Accountant,
after which it is forwarded to the
Finance Officer for signature and the Regional Director or his duly authorized
representative for counter-signature. Thereafter, it is brought back to the Budget Section for proper release.

With the receipt of the LAAs and the CDCs, the district is now
equipped with authority to incur obligation and authority to disburse. However, as a matter of procedure, a
Requisition for Supplies or Equipment (RSE) is prepared by the property
custodian wherein the district accountant certifies as to the availability of
funds. The Project Engineer also
prepares a Request for Obligation of Allotment (ROA) which is likewise
certified by the District Accountant as to the availability of funds. The RSE, together with the program of work,
is transmitted to the Regional Director for approval, after which it is
returned to the district. Thereafter,
canvass bid forms are sent to the different contractors or suppliers for
quotation of prices for the materials or supplies called for in the approved
RSE. After all bid forms are submitted,
they are opened on specified dates and the determination of the lowest bidder
is made. This is indicated in the Abstract
of Sealed Quotations. A Purchase Order
is then made in favor of the winning bidder or contractor. Deliveries are made by the contractor and,
thereafter, a General Voucher, supported by delivery receipts and inspection
reports and other supporting documents, is processed for the payment of the
delivered materials or supplies. Finally,
the corresponding check is prepared and released to the contractor, who
encashes the same.

At the end of each month, the District Accountant of the various
engineering districts prepare several reports including the Report of
Obligations Incurred (ROI) and the Report of Checks Issued by Deputized
Disbursing Officers (RCIDDO) which are submitted to the region. The reports form the basis for the
preparation of the monthly trial balance. This trial balance is prepared in the Regional Office and submitted to
the Central Office of the Ministry of Public Highways on or before the 5th of
the succeeding month, for final consolidation by the Central Office in a single trial balance for the entire
Ministry, which is then submitted to the Commission on Audit. The ROIs which is then submitted by the
various districts to the regional office at the end of each month are
summarized and consolidated by the Chief Accountant of the Region in a Journal
Voucher, which is then approved by the Finance Officer of the region. The
monthly trial balance is likewise prepared and signed by the Chief Accountant
of the region, recommended for approval by the Finance Officer thereof, and
finally approved by the Regional Director before it is submitted to the central
office. (pp. 245-247, Rollo.)

The facts of the case are as follows:

As a result of an extensive investigation undertaken by different
agencies of the government involving the alleged Central Visayas highway
anomalies which surfaced in mid 1978, an audit team was organized on June 21,
1978, by Sofronio Flores, Jr., Regional Director, COA, Region VII, with station
at Cebu City. The team was to look into
the alleged issuance of fake Letters of Advice of Allotments (LAAs) to the different
highway engineering districts of the region.

The team, composed of Victoria Tejada (sometimes referred to in
the record as Quejada) and Ruth Paredes, both Auditors IV of Region VII, made a
detailed study of the system and accounting procedures in the issuance of
Advices of Allotments. They also
prepared a worksheet containing a summary of sub-advices of allotments (SAAs)
under Fund 101 in 1977 based on the records of the Regional Office.

Region VII covers 15 highway engineering districts, one of which
is the Siquijor Highway Engineering District or SHED, headed by the District
Engineer. The SHED LAAs were matched with the SAAs (Exhs. D to D-1). Some LAAs (Exhibits J, J-1 to J-37) were found to be regular inasmuch as they were recorded in the
Regional Office’s Logbook (Exhibits H-20 to H-24) while other LAAs
(Exhibits K, K-1 to K-29) turned out to be fake or irregular since they were
(1) not covered by SAAs; (2) could not be found in the logbook; (3) do not
contain the accounting release stamp at the upper portion; (4) issued without
authority, and (5) contain prior years’ obligation numbers. Most of the regular LAAs were signed by
accused Angelina Escaño or Heracleo Faelnar. (Regional Finance Officer and Asst. Regional Director, respectively)
while the fake LAAs were signed by Rolando Mangubat or Adventor Fernandez
(Regional Accountant and Regional Highway Engineer, respectively). The Advices of Cash Disbursement Ceilings
(ACDCs) received by the Regional Office from 1975 to 1977 appear in a certification
(Exhibit L) wherein said ACDCs are listed (Exhibits M to M-1 and N to N-54),
aside from being also listed in the logbook (Exhibits H-25 to H-31). They also prepared a list of the regular
Sub-advices of Cash Disbursement Ceilings (SACDCs) which could be traced to the
Cash Disbursement Ceiling (CDC) subsidiary ledger maintained by the Regional
Office (Exhibits O to O-18; P to P-17). Aside from the latter, there were also SACDCs in the possession of the SHED in the year 1977 which could not be
traced in the subsidiary ledgers of CDCs maintained by the Regional Office and
over which they also made a listing
(Exhibits Q, Q-1 to Q-22). The regular
SACDCs bear accounting department release stamps and were signed either by
Rolando Mangubat, Delia Preagido, or Angelina Escaño while the fake SACDCs were signed only by Mangubat
and did not bear any release stamps.

After making the listings and compilations, and following
analysis of the same the auditors determined the disbursements that were made
out of the fake allotments by going over the general vouchers (GVs) of SHED for
the year 1977 (Exhibits R, R-1 to R-23) which were retrieved by the COA team on
October 2, 1978 which then prepared a working paper matching the vouchers
against the fake LAAs (Exhibits S, S-1 to S-3 and T). The basis for matching the vouchers with the fake allotments are
the Reports of Checks Issued by Deputized Disbursing Officer (RCIDDO) of SHED
for 1977 (Exhibits U, U-1 to U-40). The
total payments made from the 24 vouchers which are the fake allotments was P982,207.60. The total amount of the regular
LAAs assigned for Siquijor for the year
1977 was P1,647,890.23 while the
fake LAAs amounted to P1,586,080.00. The fake SACDCs amount to P2,147,533.73 and
the regular CDCs totalled P1,660,084.53 (Exhibits O and Q). The total disbursements made by SHED in 1977
amounted to P2,560,332.99 based
on the RCIDDO. (See pp. 35-38, Decision,
pp. 50-53, Rollo pp. 10-11 Petitioner’s Memorandum, pp. 247-248, pp. Rollo.)

In the instant appeal,
petitioner claims that the
Sandiganbayan erred when it
held:

Accused Tan’s liability arises from her certifications on
all the RSEs and GVs as to the availability
of funds therefor, knowing fully well as District Accountant that these
were illegally funded and were irregularly charged to “Fund 81-400”, and that the district’s regular
maintenance needs were adequately funded by, and prosecuted under, such regular
allotments. She also signed seven (7) Abstract of Bids. (p. 83, Decision, p. 99, Rollo.)

We have given due course to the petition despite objections of
the Solicitor General that because the petition raises only factual issues, appeal by certiorari is
unavailing. We believe petitioner’s
case falls within the exceptions consistently upheld by Us in regard to
findings of fact of lower courts. In
the case of Macadangdang vs. Sandiganbayan (170 SCRA
308 [1989]), We stated that while the general rule is that factual findings of the Sandiganbayan are conclusive, this
is, however, subject to established exceptions, among them :

1) The conclusion is a finding grounded
entirely on speculation, surmise and conjectures; 2) the inference made is manifestly mistaken; 3) there is
grave abuse of discretion; 4) the judgment is based on misapprehension of
facts; and the findings of fact of the Sandiganbayan are premised on the
absence of evidence and are contradicted by evidence on record. (Cesar vs. Sandiganbayan, 134 SCRA 105, 121-122)
(at p. 325.)

As uniformly alleged by the prosecution, the manner of operation of the “conniving” accused,
was to falsify any of the
following documents:

1.    Letter
of Advice of Allotment (LAA)

2.    Requisition
and Issue Voucher (RIV)

3.    Abstract
of Bids

4.    Report
of Inspection

5.    Purchase
Order

6.    General
Voucher (GV)

7.    Statement
of Deliveries

8.    Requisition
for Supplies or Equipment (RSE)

(p.
2, Petition, p. 8, Rollo; p. 15, Comment, p. 142, Rollo.)

Petitioner denies any direct participation in the execution of the foregoing
documents. She claims that her
participation was limited to the certification, in her capacity as District Accountant, on the availability of
funds, and her signature on seven Abstracts of Bids, in her capacity as member
of the Committee on Awards.

The Sandiganbayan, however, included her in the conspiracy allegedly
because she issued the certification on the availability of funds,
“knowing fully well as District Accountant II” that:

a. the RSEs and GVs were
illegally funded;

b.    the
funds were irregularly charged to Fund 81-400;

c.    the
district’s regular maintenance needs were adequately funded by, and prosecuted
under, such regular allotments.

On the charge that the RSEs and GVs were illegally funded, the Sandiganbayan relied principally on the “fake” or irregular LAAs,
issued by the Regional Office (Region VII) of the Ministry of Public Highways.

Both the LAA, or Letter
of Advice of Allotment, which is the authority to incur obligation,
as well as the SACDC, or Sub-Advice of Case Disbursement, which is the authority
to pay for the obligation incurred under the LAAs emanate from the
Regional Office. All the LAAs, cited in
the information against petitioner were duly covered by SACDCs.

Was there anything on the face of LAAs that should have warned
petitioner of any possible irregularity?

She insists that there are no specific guidelines on the features
of an LAA. The District Office was, at
the time, guided only by the signature of the duly authorized official and the
corresponding obligation number.

Thus, while LAAs are generally signed by Angelina Escaño,
Regional Finance Officer, petitioner found nothing irregular in LAAs bearing
the signature of her co-accused, Rolando Mangubat (Chief Accountant, Region
VII), because there were instances where LAAs issued by the Regional Office,
which were supposed to be signed
by Escaño bore instead the signature of Mangubat. She thus found no need for verifying Mangubat’s authority.

In an earlier case, Escaño vs. Sandiganbayan (160 SCRA 429 [1988]), which concerned the
same Angelina Escaño spoken of earlier and which involved the same or similar
transactions herein treated, this Court took judicial notice of Memorandum
Circular No. 111, issued by the Ministry of Public Highways which authorized
Mangubat “to act as the Finance Officer, for and in the absence of the
Finance Officer”. The authority
given to Mangubat was subsequently revoked on May 17, 1978. The evidence of the prosecution in said case
shows that 46 spurious LAAs bore
the date May 16, 1976, which means that the LAAs were antedated in order to make it appear that Mangubat
signed them before his authority was
revoked (at p. 436).

Prosecution witness Victoria Tejada (or Quejada), one of the
auditors who investigated the mess, likewise testified on cross-examination in
COA Adm. Cases No. 81-513, 81-514, cited in the COA decision dated December 27, 1983, as follows:

Q –  And
that be the case, the District Auditor
will not be in the position to
know whether the LAA is fake or
not.

A
– Taking the LAA on this face, I would say it is
difficult to determine whether it is fake or not, because as a matter of fact,
our conclusion was not based solely on
the physical appearance of the LAA.

xxx                                                xxx                                                      xxx                                               xxx

(tsn, Quejada-cross,
December 5, 1981, p. 134)

Q
– From the face of the LAA, you have no way of knowing that
the LAA is valid. There is no copy of the SAA sent together with the LAA.

A – Yes, sir.

xxx                                               xxx                                                     
xxx                                              
         xxx

(Idem.
Quejada-cross, p. 138).

(p. 190, Rollo.)

On the charge that the LAAs
in question were charged to
Fund 81-400 (and 81-409) which pertains to
the prior year’s obligations or accounts payable (unliquidated
obligations as of December 31st of the previous
year), petitioner explains:

Obligations incurred against current allotment are credited to
account 82 (Obligation Incurred) and liquidation of these obligations are
charged against account 83 (Obligation Liquidated). At the end of the fiscal or calendar year the difference between
accounts 82 and 83 is credited to account 81-400 (Unliquidated Obligation). A statement
of unliquidated obligation is prepared.

Prior to 21 July 1978, obligations for requisitions of fuel, oil,
supplies and materials chargeable to
the maintenance fund were based on estimates only and usually the estimated
costs were more than the actual payments. These excess obligations become savings and if payments were to be made
after the close of the fiscal year these excess obligations cannot be returned
to the projects because these amounts are already credited to account
81-400. These savings are to be
utilized for other purpose provided that it be in connection with the same
project. Account 81-400 can be debited
by payment of the obligations or by reversion to the Central Office. It cannot be adjusted because the beginning
balance will be distorted. At most
balances of Accounts Payable are reverted after two years. (COA Circular
No. 76-45 dated 24 November 1976)

Charging Account 81-400 or 81-409 for current expenditures is valid
as far back as 1965 when the Bureau of Public Highways (BPH) HAD A
DECENTRALIZED ACCOUNTING SYSTEM. (BPH)
Memorandum Circular No. 3 dated 15 January 1965, copy of which is hereto
attached as Annex A) This is specifically closing the difference between
Accounts 82 and 83 to Account 81-400 (Unliquidated Obligation).

x          x          x

x          x          x

x          x          x

. . .LAAs bearing account code 81- 400 or 81-409 are believed to be
excess obligations or savings of the regional office from its various
obligations as indicated by the regional office obligation numbers on the LAA. A indicated by the Account Code 81-400, the amounts were obligated
during the previous year and that it is not known by
the district accountant where these savings came from because
it is the regional office that handles
the allotments of all the districts. While the obligation was made in the
district when the particular LAA is received, it is clearly indicated by the
regional office in the LAA that it is a prior year’s obligation. The district only ought
to follow the account symbol for purposes
of reconciliation with the records of the district and that of
the region. (pp 260-262, Rollo,
Emphasis supplied.)

With respect to maintenance funds, petitioner states that these
are continuing appropriations, and the
practice was to obligate the unexpended balances at the end of the year in the
books, even without specific creditors. These balances are considered
savings to be used the following year but solely for the purpose
of maintenance projects. (This practice had been observed since June 30, 1965, but discarded on July
21, 1978 when the Regional Office directed, in a radio message, that
obligations from the requisitions of supplies, materials, equipment, and
services shall, henceforth, be covered by duly approved purchase orders).

Petitioner further
explains:

Only the district engineer and the maintenance engineer knew the
amount needed for the regular maintenance fund because it is the maintenance
engineer mho prepares the maintenance estimate for the whole year. The district accountant (who happens to be
the petitioner) is not provided a copy of the maintenance estimate. The district engineer and the maintenance
engineer determine the needs for regular maintenance.

Releases of quarterly allotments for regular maintenance funds
based on the maintenance estimates are not covered by Programs of Work. Release of maintenance fund other than what
is contained in the maintenance estimate (quarterly allotments) were received
first by the district office after which programs of work were prepared.

The district accountant has nothing to do with the program of
work. The accountant’s signature on the
GVs is for the purpose of certifying to the availability of funds, and that the
GVs are properly approved, supported by documents appearing legal and proper
and with the appropriate account codes.

All the alleged fake LAAs received by SHED bore Regional Office Obligation Number. They are not, therefore, to be included in
the Statement of Accounts Payable of SHED otherwise the total of the Statement
of Accounts Payable will exceed that of the total of the balances of each ROA –
obligations incurred of SHED. Petitioner believes it to be erroneous to include amounts already
obligated by the Regional Office and obligate them again in the books of SHED. It will constitute double obligation and
wrong accounting procedures. (pp.
24-25, Petitioner’s Memorandum; pp. 261-262, Rollo)

Petitioner’s defense was capsulized by the Sandiganbayan in this
matter:

. . . When she received the questioned
LAAs, she classified them as unliquidated obligations for the year 1976, and
since it bears the obligation numbers of the Regional Office, she did not
include them in the unliquidated
obligations of the district. The moment
they received the LAAs with their respective ROA obligation numbers, they spend
the amounts and later submit a report of checks issued. Since these are excess obligations, they can
use them for other purposes and it is the District Engineer who will determine
for what project the obligation will be spent. Despite the regular quarterly allotments released to SHED, she was not
surprised when they received another P1 million plus, and she presumed that was
an additional allotment for the district. They did not consume the amount because there was an excess of
P512,000.00 (pp. 47-48, Decision; pp. 63-64, Rollo.)

On the claim of totally absent or irregular bidding procedures,
petitioner points out:

There are two committees in SHED – the Committees on Bidding, which
is responsible for the opening of bids and writing the quotations of bids on
the Abstract of Bids; and the Committee on Awards, of which the petitioner was
a member. Petitioner is not a member of
the bidding committee. The Committee on
Award recommends the award to the lowest bidder based on the quotations on the
abstract of bids submitted by the bidding committee. The committee on award will not be in a position to know what
transpired in the proceedings of the committee on bidding. Petitioner’s signature on the Abstract of
Bids is merely incidental to her being member of the Committee on Award. (p. 264, Rollo.)

On the charge that the LAAs (issued by the Regional Office) were
not covered by Sub-Allotment Advices (SAA) from the Ministry of Public
Highways, which circumstance impliedly, rendered the LAAs spurious, petitioner
again points out that since, precisely, the SAAs emanate from the Ministry, the
district office is not in a position to know whether or not an LAA is covered
by an SSA.

Auditor Ruth I. Paredes, the companion of Tejada, declared for
the prosecution that upon receipt by the Budget Officer of the Advice of
Allotment (AA) from the Ministry of Budget, she prepares 5 copies for each
regional office of the Ministry of Public Highways. The district offices are
not furnished copies.

Auditor Paredes further testified
that not all LAAs issued by the Regional
Office are covered by SAAs. The
only instance that the SSA number is indicated on the LAA is when the released funds come from savings on equipment rentals (TSN, p.
11, January 12, 1983; p. 25, Rollo).

Based on the foregoing facts and circumstances, it appears that
petitioner merely applied
and observed standard operating procedures. If there were deficiencies in these
procedures which could have facilitated irregularities or misappropriation of funds, We believe that these should have
been corrected at the Regional level where the anomally seems to have been
hatched.

Petitioner carefully pointed out that where LAAs indicate Fund
81-400, the district had no choice but to record them and allow the expenses because
the Regional Office had already obligated the funds in its books.

There is no direct evidence to show that petitioner connived and
schemed with the others. Seemingly, and
only because the LAAs were spurious, the Sandiganbayan thereupon surmised that
the funds authorized therein were illegal. Petitioner was convicted solely on the theory of conspiracy. We have emphasized times without number that
conspiracy must be established by clear and convincing evidence (Bayan vs.
Court of Appeals, 181 SCRA 844 [1990]). The liability of a person depends on his
participation. In the case at bar,
aside from petitioner’s certification of the availability of funds as District
Accountant and her signature on RSEs and GVs
(which duty is attached to
her position), there is no
showing that she participated in transactions that would reveal a criminal
intent or scheme to defraud.

We had occasion to observe in Macadangdang vs. Sandiganbayan (170 SCRA
308 [1989])

Simply because a person in a
chain of processing officers happens to sign or initial a voucher as it
is going the rounds, it does not necessarily follow that said person becomes
part of a conspiracy in an illegal scheme. It is all too easy to be
swept into a long prison term simply because the guilt of some conspirators is
overwhelming and somehow it attached
to all who happen to be charged in one
indictment.” (at p. 327)

And of course, We need
but recall in this regard that to accuse is different from convicting, that
assertion is not synonymous to proof. For basic in our criminal
justice system is the universal principle that the guilt of the accused must be shown beyond
reasonable doubt and that the strongest suspicion cannot suffice to
convict. Rather, every circumstance
favoring the innocence of the person charged must be taken into account and any
doubt as to his culpability must be resolved in his favor.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Sandiganbayan, insofar as
it convicted petitioner Cresencia L. Tan, is hereby SET ASIDE. Petitioner Tan is acquitted on grounds of
reasonable doubt. No special
pronouncement is made as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Griño-Aquino,
Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo, Quiason, Puno, and Vitug, JJ., concur.