TOLENTINO MENDOZA AND SALOME MADAMBA, PETITIONERS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND SANDIGANBAYAN, RESPONDENTS.

Tolentino Mendoza versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This is a petition for review filed by Tolentino Mendoza and Salome Madamba against the People of the Philippines and the Sandiganbayan, asking the Supreme Court to annul the Sandiganbayan's decision finding them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 3, paragraph (e) of Republic Act Number 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The case matters because it is a clean illustration of two things every examinee must hold: the elements of the offense of causing undue injury to the government through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence, and the strict rule that a petition for review under Rule 45 raises only questions of law, so the Supreme Court will not re-examine the factual findings of the Sandiganbayan absent the recognized exceptions.

Procedural History

The National Treasurer filed a complaint before the Ombudsman charging Mendoza, Madamba, and others with technical malversation and violation of Republic Act Number 3019. The Ombudsman found probable cause for violation of Section 3, paragraph (e) and ordered the filing of an Information in the Sandiganbayan. After arraignment, where Mendoza and Madamba entered pleas of not guilty, and after the denial of their motions to quash, trial commenced and the case was submitted for decision. The Sandiganbayan convicted Mendoza and Madamba, sentencing each to eight years of imprisonment, perpetual disqualification from public office, and solidary payment to the government of 295,597 pesos and 79 centavos with legal interest, while acquitting their co-accused Anita Lising and Marcelina Agustin. Mendoza timely filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court. Madamba's petition was filed late and was denied, and that denial became final, so only Mendoza's petition was resolved on the merits.

Facts

In February 1989, Tolentino Mendoza was the National Cashier of the Bureau of Treasury in Manila, and Salome Madamba was the General Manager of Executive Care Services, a private corporation rendering janitorial services to the Bureau. Horacio Alvarez of Triple Crown Services issued two checks payable to Executive Care Services, one for 150,000 pesos and another for 140,000 pesos. Madamba and Marcelina Agustin indorsed these checks, Mendoza approved them for encashment, and the paying teller, Anita Lising, paid out the amounts. Both checks were later dishonored by the drawee bank, first for insufficient funds and then because the account had been closed.

On 17 February 1989, Executive Care Services issued a check for 150,000 pesos in favor of Triple Crown Services. Through a series of instructions, this check reached Agustin, who indorsed it, obtained Mendoza's approval, and encashed it with Lising. Later that morning, Mendoza borrowed the encashed check from Lising and never returned it, and it has been missing since. That same day, the Vault Auditor, Jose Cruz, told Madamba's liaison officer to replace the missing check with two checks of 75,000 pesos each. These two checks were signed with Madamba's name by the liaison officer on her instruction, and were initialed by Cruz and Mendoza without Agustin's indorsement. When presented for payment, both were dishonored for insufficient funds.

Not one of the four checks passed through the Assistant National Treasurer, Milagros Baltazar, for approval prior to encashment, as required by a memorandum addressed to Mendoza. A regular audit disallowed the total amount of 440,000 pesos, and after partial payments, an unpaid balance of 295,597 pesos and 79 centavos remained. An administrative investigation resulted in Mendoza's dismissal for dishonesty.

Issues

• Whether or not the evidence on record is sufficient to sustain a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt against Mendoza for violation of Section 3, paragraph (e) of Republic Act Number 3019.
• Whether or not the Supreme Court may review the factual findings of the Sandiganbayan in a petition for review under Rule 45.

Applicable Provisions

Section 3, paragraph (e) of Republic Act Number 3019, as amended, defines the offense charged:

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.

This is the very provision under which Mendoza and Madamba were convicted, and its elements — undue injury to the government, unwarranted benefit to a private party, and manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence — are what the Sandiganbayan found present.

Section 1, Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure governs the petition filed before the Supreme Court:

Filing of petition with Supreme Court. — A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth.

This provision limits the Court's review to questions of law, which is the ground on which the petition was denied.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition has no merit. The Sandiganbayan found that all the elements of Section 3, paragraph (e) were present: Mendoza was a public officer, and Madamba, though a private person, was charged with conspiring with him. The checks bore the signatures, initials, or stamp of the accused, and were encashed even though drawn against insufficient funds. Mendoza facilitated the encashment without the approval of the Assistant National Treasurer, in violation of the Bureau's standard operating procedure. The government suffered a loss, of which an unpaid balance remained. The Court sustained the finding that Mendoza and Madamba engaged in a fraudulent scheme to withdraw government funds through the encashment of worthless commercial checks, and that Madamba was able to encash her checks only because of Mendoza's indispensable aid.

On the second issue, the Court held that Mendoza was asking it to re-examine the evidence already passed upon by the Sandiganbayan, which is not permitted. The Court distinguished a question of law from a question of fact:

A question of law exists when the doubt or controversy concerns the correct application of law or jurisprudence to a certain set of facts; or when the issue does not call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented, the truth or falsehood of facts being admitted. A question of fact exists when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of facts or when the query invites calibration of the whole evidence considering mainly the credibility of witnesses, the existence and relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances as well as their relation to each other and to the whole, and the probability of the situation.

The Court acknowledged exceptions where it may pass upon questions of fact, such as when the conclusion is grounded entirely on speculation, when the inference is manifestly mistaken, when there is grave abuse of discretion, when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts, when the findings are premised on the absence of evidence, and when the findings are contradicted by the evidence on record. Mendoza failed to show that his case fell within any of these exceptions. The Court reiterated that its jurisdiction over the Sandiganbayan's decisions is limited to questions of law, and that the policy is to sustain the factual findings of the Sandiganbayan, which as a trial court is in a better position to assess the evidence before it.

Doctrine

First, a violation of Section 3, paragraph (e) of Republic Act Number 3019 requires the concurrence of the following: that the accused is a public officer discharging administrative, judicial, or official functions; that he acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence; and that his action caused undue injury to any party, including the government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference. A private person may be convicted under this provision if he conspires with a public officer.

Second, a petition for review on certiorari under Section 1, Rule 45 raises only questions of law. The Supreme Court will not calibrate the evidence or review the factual findings of the Sandiganbayan, which as a trial court is in the best position to assess the evidence, except upon a showing of the recognized exceptions, such as findings grounded on speculation, manifestly mistaken inferences, grave abuse of discretion, misapprehension of facts, findings premised on the absence of evidence, or findings contradicted by the evidence on record.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied Mendoza's petition for lack of merit, sustaining his conviction and the penalties imposed by the Sandiganbayan.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a petition for review under Rule 45 raises only questions of law, and the Supreme Court will not re-examine the factual findings of the Sandiganbayan absent the recognized exceptions. Examiners use this case to test the elements of Section 3, paragraph (e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, the liability of a private person who conspires with a public officer, and the question-of-law limitation on appeals to the Supreme Court.