THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL., PETITIONERS AND APPELLANTS, VS. JOSE C. ZULUETA, RESPONDENT AND APPELLEE.

Review of a decision of the Court of Appeals that
annulled the order of Hon. Juan R. Liwag, Judge, admitting the amended
information filed in Criminal Case No. 11232 of Manila.

There is no question about these facts:

1. On
   October 15, 1949 an information was filed in said criminal case
   charging Jose C. Zulueta with the crime of malversation of public
   property. Copy of the information is appended hereto (App. A). The
   substance of the accusation is that the accused, as Acting Chairman of
   the Surplus Property Commission, wilfully or thru abandonment permitted
   Beatriz Poblete to take and convert 3,000 kegs of nails of the
   aforesaid Commission. It is alleged that he secured the approval of a
   sale to her of said nails at very low prices by “astutely” prevailing
   upon Commissioner Angel Llanes to approve it on the pretext of urgency
   to expedite the liquidation of surplus properties. As an alternative
   charge the information states that at least through abandonment the
   accused permitted Beatriz Poblete to carry the hardware away.

2. Arraigned on November 24, 1949, the accused pleaded “not guilty.”

3. On
   January 14, 1950, the prosecution submitted an amended information
   (App. B), which practically reproducing the original accusation,
   contained the additional assertion—among others—that in permitting the
   misappropriation the accused Jose C. Zulueta acted in conspiracy
   with Commissioner Llanes, who had subsequently been booked for
   malversation of the identical public property (nails) in Criminal Case
   No. 11727 of the same court.

4. The
   accused objected to the admission of the amended information contending
   that it introduced allegations about acts and omissions constituting
   another offense, and that the amendments were substantial and
   prejudicial to his rights.

5. The court admitted the amended information by its order dated February 28,1950.

6. Having
   failed in a motion to reconsider, the accused started proceedings on
   certiorari in the Court of Appeals to annul the last mentioned order of
   admission.

7. The appellate court upheld his contentions. Hence, the People presented this petition for review, which was given due course.

The issue requires application of the principles that after the
defendant has pleaded, the information may be amended as to all matters of form,
in the discretion of the court, when the same can be done without
prejudice to the rights of the defendant. (Sec. 13, Rule 106). At that
stage, no substantial amendment may be permitted.

The question for decision is: Was the amendment purely a matter of form? Or did it touch upon matters of substance?

The amended pleading, with its deletions, transpositions and
rephrasings, practically added a full page to the original seven-page
information. Seeing the prosecution’s insistence in its admission, to
the extent of appealing to this Court even at the risk of delaying the
proceedings, one, would naturally suppose that its moves are dictated
by the necessities—neither formal nor unsubstantial—of the case for che
People.

Indeed, contrasting the two informations one will perceive that whereas
in the first the accused is charged with misappropriation of public
property because: (1) he deceived Angel Llanes into approving the
bargain sale of nails to Beatriz Poblete or (2) at least, by his
abandonment he permitted that woman to obtain the articles at very
cheap prices, in the amended information a third ground of
responsibility is inserted, namely, that he connived and conspired with
Angel Llanes to consummate the give-away transaction.

Again it will be observed that the third ground of action in effect
contradicts the original theory of the information: if the accused conspired with Llanes, he did not deceive the latter, and did not by mere negligence permit the sale.

Now therefore, an amended information setting forth a different manner
of committing the felony,—a totally new proposition—does it merely
introduce a formal amendment?

We do not think so. Even in civil cases—wherein the rules are more
liberal as to amendments—it is not generally permissible to alter
plaintiff’s theory of the case, alteration being substantial.^[1]

In this connection it must be recalled that under the rules of criminal
procedure there is a further limitation to formal amendments, namely,
that the amendment “can be done without prejudice to the rights of the
defendant.” Surely the preparations made by herein accused to face the
original charges will have to be radically modified to meet the new
situation. For undoubtedly the allegation of conspiracy enables the
prosecution to attribute and ascribe to the accused Zulueta all the
acts, knowledge, admissions and even omissions ^[2]
of his co-conspirator Angel Llanes in furtherance of the conspiracy.
The amendment thereby widens the battlefront to allow the use by the
prosecution of newly discovered weapons, to the evident discomfiture of
the opposite camp. Thus it would seem inequitable to sanction the
tactical movement at this stage of the controversy, bearing in mind
that the accused is only guaranteed two-days’ preparation for trial.
Needless to emphasize, as in criminal cases the liberty, even the life,
of the accused is at stake, it is always wise and proper that he be
fully apprised of the charges, to avoid any possible surprise that may
lead to injustice. The prosecution has too many facilities to covet the
added advantage of meeting unprepared adversaries.

Some passages from “Regala contra El Juez del Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Bataan” ^[3]
are quoted by petitioners. Therein the accused pleaded not guilty to an
information for murder, and later the fiscal amended the indictment by
including two other persons charged with the same offense and alleging
conspiracy between the three. Five justices held that the amendment was
not substantial. But that situation differs from the one at bar. The
amendment there did not modify the basic theory of the prosecution that
the accused had killed the deceased by a voluntary act and deed. Here
there is an innovation, or the introduction of another alternative
imputation, which, to make matters worse, is inconsistent with the
original allegations.

In view of the above, we believe it
unnecessary to discuss the defendant’s proposition that the original
information did not actually describe the crime of malversation (but
only of theft), which the amended information sets forth. Neither is it
necessary to pas? on the other minor amendments objected to.

One other point remains to be threshed out. The petitioners insist that
certiorari is improper, because the accused has an adequate remedy by
appeal. Of course these special civil actions may not generally be
entertained if the party has an adequate remedy by appeal. However
there have been exceptions. (Cf. Moran 3rd Ed. Vol. II, p. 148). For
instance, in Yu Cong Eng vs. Trinidad 47 Phil. 385 this Court took
cognizance cf a petition for certiorari and prohibition notwithstanding
the accused could have appealed in due time. The Court’s action was
premised on the public welfare and the advancement of public policy, in
view of the many merchants interested in the Chinese Bookkeeping Law.

In Dimayuga vs. Fajardo (43 Phil., 304) this Court admitted a petition
to enjoin the prosecution of certain chiropractors. Although these
could have appealed if convicted, the petition was given due course for
the orderly administration of justice to avoid possible oppression by
the strong arm of the law.

And Arevalo vs. Nepomuceno, (63 Phil. 627), was a petition for
certiorari to challenge the trial judge’s action permitting an amended
information. This Court passed on the petition, despite the
availability of appeal at the proper time.

Now, inasmuch as the surplus property cases have attracted nationwide
attention, making it essential to proceed with dispatch in the
consideration thereof, and inasmuch as the Court of Appeals delving
into the legal question has reached a conclusion which we do not reckon
to be erroneous, it would not be,in furtherance of justice presently to
dismiss the whole proceedings on the technical ground that the accused
has a remedy by appeal at the proper time.

Wherefore the judgment under review will be affirmed. No costs.

Paras, C. J., FeHa, Pablo, Padilla, Tuason and Reyes, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Moran, Comments 3rd E. Vol. I p. 317 citing Torres vs. Tomacruz, 49 Phil. 913.

^[2] U. S. vs. Ipil, 27 Phil. 530; U. S. vs. Remigio, 37 Phil., 599; XL S. vs. Raymundo, 14 Phil. 416.
Amendment calling for different defense is substantial. People vs. Sims, 241 N. W. 247; State vs. Walton, 164 S. W. 211.

^[3] 44 Off. Gaz., p. 45; 77 Phil., 684.

NOW
COMES the undersigned Special Attorney, Division of Special Attorneys
of the Office of the Solicitor General, and appointed by the Secretary
of Justice as Special Counsel under Article 1686 of the Revised
Administrative Code and accuses Jose C. Zulueta of a violation of
Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code committed as follows:

That on or about the period from January 10, 1949 to April 6, 1949, and
for sometime prior and subsequent thereto, in the Cities of Manila and
Rizal, Philippines, the herein accused Jose C. Zulueta, after having
been duly appointed to the Office of Acting Chairman of the Surplus
Property Commission, qualified and discharged and performed the
functions and duties pertaining to his aforementioned public office;
that as such Acting Chairman of the Surplus Property Commission the
herein accused was entrusted and charged with the proper
“administration, care, custody protection, disposition and/or sale” and
“under such terms and conditions as
may be deemed most advantageous” to the Government, of the surplus
properties acquired under the Agreement between the United States of
America and the Republic of the Philippines, as approved by the
Congress of the Philippines under Republic Act No. 33, which by virtue
thereof have become public properties for which the said accused Jose
C. Zulueta was and is accountable by reason of his said position; that
during the period from January 10, 1949 to April 6, 1949, and for some
time prior and subsequent thereto, in the City of Manila, Philippines,
where the offices of the Surplus Property Commission were located and
in the City of Rizal where the said accused as Acting Chairman
established subsidiary office without the consent of the Commission and
over and above the objection of the Auditor, the said accused, as
Acting Chairman of the Surplus Property Commission, did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously and fraudulently consent or at least,
through abandonment permit one Beatriz Poblete to take and
misappropriate, as she did take and misappropriate from Depot No. 14 of
the Surplus Property Commission 3,000 kegs of surplus nails in the
following manner: That on January 10, 1949, Mrs. Constantina Reyes
filed with the Surplus Property Commission an offer to purchase nails
at Depot No. 14 at seventy per cent (70%) of procurement cost
and immediately thereafter the herein accused assumed almost absolute
control over the processing of offers to purchase and invoices for
nails; that thereafter there appeared offers to purchase and invoices
in the name of Beatriz Poblete, Jose del Rosario, Ruben Adriano and
Eugenia Adriano purportedly dated and filed “January 17, 1949”, but in
fact not officially filed on that day but sometime between January 18
and January 26, 1949, for the purchase of nails in Depot No. 14 at twenty-five per cent (25%) of procurement cost as follows:
 

	Kegs (SALVAGED) at 25 per cent of
	Procurement cost
Beatiz Poblete …………………………………………	3,000
Jose del Rosario………………………………..	3,000
Ruben Adriano……………………………………	1,500
Eugenia Adriano ………………………………………………	4,020

that on January 18, 1949, Depot No. 14 was frozen allegedly preparatory
to public bidding, which was not carried out, but in fact was to
prevent the filing of other offers at a higher percentage; that on
February 5, 1949, Depot No. 14 was declared open for negotiated sale;
that on February 7, 1949, the following offers to purchase nails,
salvaged at Depot No. 14 at one hundred per cent (100%) of procurement
cost, were duly filed:

Eastern Commercial Corporation by:
	Kegs (SALVAGED) at 25 per cent of
	Procurement cost

Constantina Eeyes …………………………………………	2,225
Lourdes Angeles David ………………………………..	1,500
Fortunata Estanislao ……………………………………	2,010
Grata Ranara ………………………………………………	750
Jacinto Baldeo ………………………………………………	12
Clarito Baldeo ………………………………………………	12

that
on or about February 16, or 18, 1949, the set of invoices of Eastern
Commercial Corporation filed by Constantina Reyes, Lourdes Angeles
David, Fortunata Estanislao, Grata Ranara, Jacinto Baldeo, and Clarito
Baldeo, all at 100 per cent of procurement cost, were unanimously
recommended by the then Technical Review Committee of five (5) members,
and by the Sales Manager, for approval of the Surplus Property
Commission, while the act of invoices of Beatriz Poblete, Jose del
Rosario, Eugenia Adriano and Ruben Adriano all at 25 per cent only of
procurement cost were “conditionally” recommended by only two of the
five members of the said Technical Review Committee; that on February
23, 1949, the set of invoices of Eastern Commercial Corporation by
Constantina Reyes, and others, at 100 per cent of procurement cost was
submitted to the Acting Chairman the accused, Jose C. Zulueta, and to
Commissioners Romero and Llanes; that Commissioners Romero and Llanes
upheld the opinion of the Auditor that “nails” were “critical”
materials and must be bidded in accordance with Presidential directive
on the matter; [that] the (said accused, Acting Chairman Jose C.
Zulueta [did not oppo&e this opinion and] the said set of invoices
were returned to the Sales Manager, but, upon a petition for
reconsideration “filed by the parties concerned, the same set of
invoices were again submitted tc the Commission for further
consideration; that on March 2, 1949, the Surplus Property Commission
received the letter of the Procurement Office dated February 25, 1949,
advising that said Office is ready to acquire all the “stock of 4-inch
to 6-inch long nails available at the time in Engineering Depot No.
li”; that the Acting Chairman, the accused herein, in order to subserve
his ulterior interested purposes, did not indorse to Commissioner
Romero and Llanes the said letter of the procurement Office, although
he well knew that Government Offices had preferential right over
(needed) surplus articles; that on March 3, 1940, Commissioner Romero
formally made of record his “comment” on “nails” as follows:

“The Auditor * * * certified that common nails are a critical item and
must be bidded in accordance with the Presidential directive, * * *. If
the Control Committee, however, should waive the bidding requirement *
* * and authorize the sale at 100 per cent of Procurement Cost, the
undersigned will concur therein. * * *.”; that on March 7, 1949, the
Acting Chairman, the accused herein, indorsed to the Government
Enterprises Council, the aforesaid “comment” of Commissioner Romero at
the same time recommending that the requirement of public bidding for common nails as critical items be toaived provided the sale be
at 100 per cent of procurement cost” and forwarded to the Government
Enterprises Council his indorsement together with the invoices of
Eastern Commercial Corporation by Constantina Reyes, Lourdes Angeles
David, Fortunata Estanislao, Grata Ranara, Jacinto Baldeo and Clarito
Baldeo and the aforestated letter of the Procurement Office that the
invoices of Beatria Poblete, Jose del Rosario, Ruben Adriano and
Eugenia Adriano were purposely kept by the accused and did not submit
them to Commissioner (s) Romero (and Llanes) for consideration on
February (22, 23,) 1949, and craftily did not endorse them to the
Government Enterprises Council [together with the invoice of Eastern
Commercial Corporation by Constantina Reyes and its parallel invoices
abovementioned] [that the Acting Chairman] the accused herein, knowing,
or at least having reason to believe, that [the original and] the
renovated invoices [of Beatriz Poblete and its sister invoices] were
not properly acted upon by the Technical Review Committee and were not
recommended by the Sales Manager and knowing, or at least having
motives to suspect that the original and/or the renovated invoices of
Beatriz Poblete and Jose del Rosario were not signed by them
personally, [the Acting Chairman readily signed and approved said
invoices at twenty-five per cent (25%) only of procurement cost,]
notwithstanding his knowledge that there were other pending invoices at
one hundred per cent (1009c) of procurement cost; that pursuant to’his
interest in having them approved by at least the majority, the said
accused, as Acting Chairman, exerted all efforts to convince
Commissioner Llanes to approve the said invoice of Beatriz Poblete and
its sister invoices, [but the Commissioner Llanes twice disapproved
them on the ground that] the price offered was very low, nails being a
critical item that should be bidded and the invoices were not
recommended for approval by the Sales Manager;] [that the Acting
Chairman, the accused herein, submitted for the third time said
invoices to Commissioner Llanes and astutely prevailed upon him to
approve the same on the pretext of “urgent need to speed up
liquidation” of surplus properties, and Commissioner Llanes for that
alleged reason and because of the strong recommendation of the herein
accused, finally] consented to approve them provided that the accused
secure first the recommendation of the Sales Manager; [that before and
after the approval of said invoices by Commissioner Llanes, the accused
purposely withheld said invoices from the consideration of and action
of Commissioner Romero, in view of the latter’s comments on the subject
which the accused himself had previously indorsed favorably to the
Government Enterprises Council;] that on or about March 29, 1949, [the
herein accused] received from the Purchasing Agent of the Procurement
Office a letter advising him that they were definitely buying and
wanted to take delivery of seventy-seven (77 )tons of surplus nails
from Depot No. 14 and enclosed with said letter the needed
certification of the availability of funds for the purchase, but the
herein accused, fearing that said purchase would defeat his ultimate
interested purpose, did not submit said letter to the Commissioner
Romero and Llanes for their consideration and action; that on April 1,
1949, the Acting Chairman issued on order, “for immediate and strict compliance”,
for the delivery of the 3,000 kegs of nails covered by the invoices of
Beatriz Poblete which was not carried out due to the opposition of the
Auditor’s representative; that on April 2, 1949, the accused had
learned of the advise of Atty. Gregorio S. Licaros, Executive Secretary
of the Government Enterprises Council, that deliveries on invoices for
nails be suspended; that anticipating that the formal decision by the
Government Enterprises Council was imminently forthcoming and would
adversely affect the invoice of Beatriz Poblete, as in fact said
decision of the Government Enterprises Council was rendered and
forwarded to the Commission on April 4, 1949, declaring that “Under
no circumstances should sale of nails of any type, classification or
quantity bet made at less than 100% of procurement cost, any such sale
pending delivery to be cancelled’, and that the quantity of nails
requisitioned by the Procurement Office should be reserved, the [herein
accused, as] Acting Chairman, in order to consummate the sale in favor
of Beatrix Poblete in which they (he) had become [greatly] interested,
issued a second order to different officer of [the Superintendent,
Officer-inCharge, and Security Officer of Depot No. 14 and to other
subordinate officers in] the Surplus Property Commission urging
complete delivery of the nails covered by the invoice of Beatriz
Poblete, regardless of tag numbers; that as a direct and necessary
consequence of all the afore-stated actuations, (machinations and
omissions) of the herein accused, (all) committed, incurred, and/or
carried out in the Cities of Manila, Rizal and Quezon, the said accused
in his capacity as Acting Commissioner (Chairman) of the Surplus
Properly Commission and as an accountable public officer did there and
or about March 24, th«n on April 4, and 5, 1949 wilfully, unlawfully,
feloniously and fraudulently, or at least, through abandonment, consent
and permit Beatriz Poblete, through her representative Ngo Teck, to
appropriate and carry away, as she did in fact appropriate and take,
three thousand (3,000) kegs of nails from Engineer Depot No. 14, then
with a market value of P81.000, for which public property the said
accused as such Acting1 Chairman and public officer was then and is
still accountable, to the damage and prejudice of the Surplus Property
Commission, an agency of the Republic of the Philippines, in the total
amount of twenty-five thousand two hundred pesos (P25,200), including
compensating tax, representing 100 per cent of original procurement
cost, minus six thousand three hundred pesos (P6,300) which was paid to
the Surplus Property Commission under the fraudulent guise of purchase
price of the said three thousand (3,000) kegs of nails.

Contrary to Law.
City of Manila, Philippines, this 15th day of October, 1949.
		(Sgd.) PEDRO C. QUINTO
		Special Attorney
		Office of the Solicitor General
		and Special Counsel
		appointed by the Secretary of Justice
		under section 1686 of the
		Revised Administrative Code

In
this copy of the original information, the words or phrases inclosed by
brackets refer to deletions, transpositions, and rephrasings made in
the amended information.

	PEDRO C .QUINTO
	Special Attorney
	Office of the Solicitor General
	and Special Counsel appointed
	by the Secretary of Justice

NOW COMES the undersigned Special Attorney, Division of Special
Attorneys of the Office of the Solicitor General, and appointed by the
Secretary of Justice as Special Counsel under Article 1686 of the
Revised Administrative Code and, with leave of Court amends the
information as to matter of form, by accusing Jose C. Zulueta, of a
violation of Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code committed as follows:

That on or about the period from January 10, 1949 to April 6, 1949, and
for sometime prior and subsequent thereto, in the Cities of Manila and
Rizal, Philippines, the herein accused Jose C. Zulueta, after having
been duly appointed to the Office of Acting Chairman of the Surplus
Property Commission, qualified and discharged and performed the
functions and duties pertaining to his aforementioned public office;
that as such Acting Chairman of the Surplus Property Commission the
herein accused was entrusted and charged with the proper
“administration, care, custody, protection, disposition and/or sale”
and “under such terms and conditions as may be deemed most advantageous”
to the Government, of the surplus properties acquired under the
Agreement between the United States of America and the Republic of the
Philippines, as approved by the Congress of the Philippines under
Republic Act No. 33, which by virtue thereof have become public
properties for which the said accused Jose C. Zulueta was and is
accountable by reason of his said position; that during the period from
January 10, 1949 to April 6, 1949, and for some time prior and
subsequent thereto, in the City of Manila, Philippines, where the
offices of the Surplus Property Commission were located and in the City
of Rizal where the said accused as Acting Chairman established
subsidiary office without the consent of the Commission and over and
above the objection of the Auditor, the said accused, as Acting
Chairman of the Surplus Property Commission, did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously and fraudulent consent or at least,
through abandonment permit one Beatriz Poblete to take and
misappropriate, as she did take and misappropriate from Depot No. 14 of
the Surplus Property Commission 3,000 kegs of surplus nails in the
followingmanner: that on January 10, 1949, Mrs. Constantina Reyes filed
with the Surplus Property Commission an offer to purchase nails at
Depot No. 14 at seventy per cent (70%) of procurement cost
and immediately thereafter the herein accused assumed almost absolute
control over the processing of offers to purchase and invoices for
nails; that thereafter there appeared offers to purchase and invoices
in the name of Beatriz Poblete, Jose del Eosario, Ruben Adriano and
Eugenia Adriano purportedly dated and filed “January 17, 1949”, but in
fact not officially filed on that day but sometime between January 18
and January 28, 1949, for the purchase of nails in Depot No. 14 at twenty-five per cent (25%) of procurement cost as follows:

	Kegs (SALVAGED) at 25 per cent
	of procurement cost
Beatiz Poblete …………………………………………	3,000
Jose del Rosario………………………………..	3,000
Ruben Adriano……………………………………	1,500
Eugenia Adriano ………………………………………………	4,02

That on January 18, 1949, Depot No. 14 was frozen allegedly preparatory
to public bidding, which was not carried out, but in fact was to
prevent the filing of other offers at a higher percentage; that on
February 5, 1949, Depot No. 14 was declared open for negotiated sale;
that on February 7, 1949, the following offers to purchase nails,
salvaged at Depot No. 14, at one hundred per cent (100%) of procurement
cost, were duly filed.

Eastern Commercial Corporation by:
	Kegs (SALVAGED) at 25 per cent of
	Procurement cost

Constantina Eeyes …………………………………………	2,225
Lourdes Angeles David ………………………………..	1,500
Fortunata Estanislao ……………………………………	2,010
Grata Ranara ………………………………………………	750
Jacinto Baldeo ………………………………………………	12
Clarito Baldeo ………………………………………………	12

that on or about February 16, or 18, 1949, the act of invoices of
Eastern Commercial Corporation filed by Constantina Reyes, Lourdes
Angeles David, Fortunata Estanislao, Grato Ranara, Jacinto Baldeo, and
Clarito Baldeo, all at 100 per cent of procurement cost, were
unanimously recommended by the then Technical Review Committee of five
(5) members, and by the Sales Manager, for approval of the Surplus
Property Commission, while the set of invoices of Beatriz Poblete, Jose
del Rosario, Eugenia Adriano and Ruben Adriano all at 25 per cent only
of procurement cost, irregularly filed and processed, were
conditionally recommended for personal use or rehabilitation purposes
only by two of the five members of the said Technical Review Committee;
that on February 23, 1949, the set of invoices of Eastern Commercial
Corporation by Constantina Reyes, and others, at 100 per cent of
procurement cost was submitted to the Acting Chairman the accused, Jose
C. Zulueta, and to Commissioners Romero and Llanes; that Commisioners
Romero and Llanes upheld in writing the opinion of the Auditor that
“nails” were “critical materials and must be bidded6 in accordance with
Presidential directive on the matter, and with the acquiescence of the
accused, Acting Chairman Jose C. Zulueta, the said set of invoices were
returned to the Sales Manager, but, upon a petition for reconsideration
filed by the parties concerned, the same set of invoices were again
submitted to the Commission on .February 26, 1949, for further
consideration; that on March 2, 1949 the Surplus Property Commission
received the letter-offer of the Procurement Office dated February 25,
1949, advising that said Office was ready to acquire all the “stock of
4-inch to 6-inch long nails available at the time in Engineering Depot No. 14;
that the Acting Chairman, the accused herein, in order to subserve his
ulterior interested purposes, did not indorse to Commissioners Romero
and Llanes the said letter of the Procurement Office, although he well
knew that Government Offices had preferential right over PRIVATE
PARTIES to acquire surplus articles; that on March 3, 1949,
Commissioner Romero formally made of record his “comment” on “nails” as
follows:

“The Auditor * * * certified that common nails are a critical item and
must be bidded in accordance with the Presidential directive, * * *. If
the control Committee, however, should waive the bidding requirement *
* * and authorize the sale at 100 per cent of Procurement Cost, the
undersigned will concur therein * * *.”;

that on March 7, 1949, the accused herein, as Acting: Chairman,
indorsed to the Government Enterprises Council, the aforesaid “comment”
of Commissioner Romero at the same time recommending that the requirement of public bidding for common nails as critical items be waived provided the sale be at 100 per cent of procwrement cost”
and forwarded to the Government Enterprises Council his indorsement
together with the invoices of Eastern Commercial Corporation by
Constantina Reyes, Lourdes Angeles David, Fortunate Estanislao, Grata
Ranara, Jacinto Baldeo and Clarito Baldeo, the AFOREMENTIONED LETTER OF
EASTERN COMMERCIAL CORPORATION ASKING FOR RECONSIDERATION, the
aforestated letter of the Procurement Office, AND OTHER PERTINENT
PAPERS; that the invoices of Beatriz Poblete, Jose del Rosario, Ruben
Adriano and Eugenia Adriano AT 25 PER CENT PROCUREMENT COST were
purposedly retained by the herein accused and did not submit them to
Commissioner Romero for consideration on February 23, 1949, and
craftily did not indorse them to the Government Enterprises Council;
and the accused herein, knowingly, or at least havingreason to believe,
that the said renovated invoices AT 25 PER CENT OF PROCUREMENT COST
were not properly acted upon by the Technical Review Committee, ONE OF
WHOSE MEMBERS HAVING RECOMMENDED THEM FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY AND NOT FOR
RESALE, and were not recommended by the Sales Manager, knowing, or at
least having motives to suspect that the original and/or the renovated
invoices of Beatriz Poblete and Jose del Rosario were not signed by
them personally, notwithstanding his knowledge that there were other
pending invoices at one hundred per cent (100%) of procurement cost,
AND IT WAS PENDING DECISION HIS INDORSEMENT AND RECOMMENDATION
ABOVE-MENTIONED and pursuant to his interest in having them approved by
at least a majority OF THE COMMISSION, the said accused as Acting
Chairman, exerted all efforts to convince Acting Commissioner Llanes to
approve the said invoices of Beatriz Poblete and its sister invoices,
TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE FACT THAT ADOLFO Q. LLANES, BROTHER OF ACTING
COMMISSIONER LLANES, HAD A PENDING OFFER TO PURCHASE ALSO 2,000 KEGS OF
NAILS AT DEPOT NO. 14 AT A LOW RECOVERY PRICE OR PERCENTAGE OF
PROCUREMENT COST, AND IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH HIS PURPOSE, THE HEREIN
ACCUSED BEFORE OR ABOUT FEBRUARY 23, 1949 SUBMITTED, THRU HIS
REPRESENTATIVE, THE RENOVATED INVOICES OF BEATRIZ POBLETE. JOSE DEL
ROSARIO, EUGENIA ADRIANO, AND RUBEN ADRIANO, AT A PRICE OF 25 PER CENT
ONLY OF PROCUREMENT COST AND OTHER PERTINENT PAPERS TO ACTING
COMMISSIONER ANGEL LLANES FOR HIS CONSIDERATION, WHO RETURNED AND
DISAPPROVED THEM ON THE GROUND THAT NAILS WERE OF GREAT DEMAND AND
SHOULD BE SOLD ON A BID BASIS, THE INVOICES WERE IMPROPERLY
ACCOMPLISHED, AND WERE NOT RECOMMENDED BY THE SALES MANAGER; THAT ON
MARCH 18, 1949, OR THEREABOUTS, THE HEREIN ACCUSED RESUBMITTED TO
ACTING COMMISSIONER ANGEL LLANES THE AFOREMENTIONED INVOICES OF BEATRIZ
POBLETE, JOSE DEL ROSARIO, EUGENIA ADRIANO, AND RUBEN ADRIANO, ALREADY
SIGNED BY THE SAID ACTING CHAIRMAN, AND ACTING COMMISSIONER LLANES ON
MARCH 19, 1949 DISAPPROVED THEM FOR THE SECOND TIME IN VIEW OF THE
DIRECTIVE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES DATED FEBRUARY 17, 1947
AND ON THE GROUND THAT NAILS WERE CRITICAL CONSTRUCTION ITEMS WHICH
SHOULD BE SOLD TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE ON A BID BASIS; THAT ON OR
ABOUT MARCH 22, 1949 THE SET OF INVOICES OF BEATRIZ POBLETE, JOSE DEL
ROSARIO, EUGENIA ADRIANO, AND RUBEN ADRIANO WERE SUBMITTED FOR THE
THIRD TIME BY THE ACCUSED ACTING CHAIRMAN JOSE C. ZULUETA TO THE SAID
ACTING COMMISSIONER LLANES FOR HIS FURTHER CONSIDERATION; THAT ON THE
OCCASION THE HEREIN ACCUSED AS ACTING CHAIRMAN, AND ANGEL LLANES, AS
ACTING COMMISSIONER, BOTH OF THE SURPLUS PROPERTY COMMISSION, CONSPIRED
AND MUTUALLY COOPERATED BY ACTS WITHOUT WHICH THEY COULD NOT HAVE
ACCOMPLISHED THEIR ILLEGAL PURPOSE, AND TO THIS EFFECT, ACTING
COMMISSIONER ANGEL LLANES VOLUNTARILY CONSENTED TO APPROVE ALSO SAID
INVOICES AT 25 PER CENT OF PROCUREMENT COST provided the herein accused
secure first the recommendation of the Sales Manager, AS HE DID SECURE
THE SAME, AFTER WHICH ON OR ABOUT MARCH 24, 1949, ACTING COMMISSIONER
ANGEL LLANES ACTUALLY APPROVED ALSO SAID INVOICES WITH HIS INITIALS;
THAT IN FURTHERANCE OF SAID CONSPIRACY, THE ACTING CHAIRMAN, WHO, ON OR
ABOUT MARCH 29, 1949, received ANOTHER LETTER from the Procurement
Office advising that they were definitely buying 77 tons of surplus
nails, ACCOMPANYING said letter with the NECESSARY certification of the
availability of funds for the purchase; but fearing that said purchase
would defeat their ultimate interested purpose, did not submit said
letter to the COMMISSION for consideration and action; that on April 1,
1949 the Acting Chairman issued an order, “for immediate and strict compliance
for the delivery of 3,000 kegs of nails covered by the invoice No.
10248 of Beatriz Poblete, which was not carried out ON ACCOUNT OF the
opposition of the AUDITOR, AND DUE TO SAID OPPOSITION THE ACTING
CHAIRMAN AND THE AUDITOR AGREED THAT NO ACTION ON THE MATTER OF NAILS
AND ON THE INVOICE OF BEATRIZ POBLETE SHALL BE TAKEN PENDING DECISION
OF THE GOVERNMENT ENTERPRISES COUNCIL; that on April 2, 1949, the
Acting Chairman Jose C. Zuiueta had learned of the advice of Atty.
Gregorio Licaros, Executive Secretary of the Government Enterprises
Council, that deliveries on invoices for nails be suspended; that
anticipating that the formal decision by the government enterprises
council was imminently forthcoming and would adversely affect the
invoice of Beatriz Poblete AND ITS SISTER INVOICES, as in fact said
decision of the Government Enterprises Council was rendered and
forwarded to the Commission on April 4, 1949, declaring that “under
no circumstances should sale of nails of any type classification or
quantity be made at less than 100% of procurement cost, and such sale
-pending delivery to be cancelled.” and that the quantity of nails
requisitioned by the Procurement Office should be reserved, the Acting
Chairman, CONTRARY TO SAID AGREEMENT AND THE ADVICE OF THE EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY of the Government Enterprises Council and in order to
consummate the sale IN FAVOR of Beatriz Poblete IN WHICH HE AND ACTING
COMMISSIONER ANGEL LLANES had become interested, ISSUED A SECOND
PEREMPTORY order to DIFFERENT officers of the Surplus Property
Commission urging complete delivery of the nails covered by the invoice
of Beatriz Poblete, regardless of tag numbers; that as a
direct and necessary consequence of all the aforestated joint
actuations of the herein acused Acting Chairman of the Surplus Property
Commission, and of Commissioner Angel Llanes, subsequently accused also
for malversation of public property in criminal case No. 11727 of this
court, committed, incurred, and/or carried out in the Cities of Manila,
Rizal and Quezon, the said accused Jose C. Zuiueta, in his capacity as
Acting Chairman of the Surplus Property Commission, and as an
accountable officer and in conspiracy with the aforesaid Acting
Commissioner Angel Llanes did then and there on or about February 23,
1949, March 24, 1949, April 4, and 5, 1949, wilfully, unlawfully,
feloniously and fraudulently or at least, through abandonment or
negligence, consent and permit Beatriz Poblete through her
representative Ngo Teck, to appropriate and carry away, as she did in
fact appropriate and take, three thousand (3,000) kegs of nails from
Engineer Depot No. 14, then with a market value of P81,000, for which
public property the herein accused and Acting Commissioner Angel
Llanes, who as a public officers, were then and are still accountable,
to the damage and prejudice of the Surplus Property Commission, an
agency of the Republic of the Philippines, in the total amount of
twenty-five thousand two hundred pesos (F25,2000), including
compensating tax, representing 100% of original procurement cost, minus
six thousand three hundred pesos (P6,300) which was paid to the Surplus
Property Commission under the fraudulent guise of purchase price of the
said three thousand (3,000) kegs of nails.

Contrary to Law.
City of Manila, Philippines, this 15th day of October, 1949.
		(Sgd.) PEDRO C. QUINTO
		Special Attorney
		Office of the Solicitor General
		and Special Counsel
		appointed by the Secretary of Justice