ANICETO RAMOS, PETITIONER, VS. THE SANDIGANBAYAN AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for certiorari of the decision dated
November 6, 1981, of the Sandiganbayan (First
Division) in Criminal Case No. 918 promulgated on November 11, 1981, finding Aniceto Ramos and his co-accused, Constantino
Galinato, guilty beyond reasonable doubt as
principals of the complex crime of Malversation of Public
Funds Through Falsification of Public Documents and sentencing them to an
indeterminate penalty ranging from nine (9) years, one (1) month and eleven
(11) days of prision mayor, as minimum,
to thirteen (13) years, seven (7) months and twenty (20) days of reclusion
temporal as maximum, to suffer perpetual special disqualification, to pay a fine of P9,720 and to indemnify the Government of the Philippines
(Bureau of Posts) in the amount of P9,720 (Rollo, pp.
99-100).

Accused Aniceto Ramos y Javate was a regular employee of Postal Region I (Exhibits
“A”, “A-1″ and “A-2”) and assigned as Postmaster of Bauang, La Union from 1970 to December, 1976.  Accused German Samonte
y Jacildo was an employee in the same Postal Region I
(Exhibits “B” and “B-1”) and assigned as Postmaster of the Nalinac Post Office, Bauang, La
Union, from May 1975 until August 15, 1976 when he was reassigned in Naguilian, La Union, until his resignation on September 28,
1977.  Accused Constante
Galinato y Marinas was likewise employed in the same
Postal Region I as Supervising Postal Service Officer I (Exhibits “D”
and “D-1”).

Under Circular No. 40 dated September 18, 1974 of the Acting Postmaster General,
motorcycle allowance for letter carriers using motorcycles in the delivery of
mails was increased to P60.00 a month effective July 1, 1974. 
Authority was given to postmasters to allow the letter carriers
concerned to collect their allowance from postal collections at the increased
rate to be charged as budgetary expenses (Exhibit “J”).  Implementing the aforesaid Circular No. 40,
the Chief of Finance and Management Division, Bureau of Posts, in a memorandum
to the Acting Postal Regional Director, Region I, San Fernando, La Union,
directed that payment of motorcycle allowance of letter carriers be allowed
from “the postal collections of the postmaster concerned where the letter
carrier is assigned effective the date when the letter carrier actually used
the motorcycle in the delivery of mails.” This memorandum was circularized
by the Officer-in-Charge of Postal Region I per Circular No. 3 dated February 19, 1976.  It was there specifically stated that
“payment of motorcycle allowance of letter carriers shall be made by the
postmaster under whose office said employees x x x are assigned which must be certified in the voucher or
payroll as the case may be.” (Exhibit “J-1”).

Pursuant to the memorandum of the Regional Director of Postal
Region I dated August 11, 1976
(Exhibit “G”), Regional Auditing Examiner Rodolfo Ramirez y Rodriguez
conducted an audit examination of the accounts of the postmasters in the Province
of La Union, among them the
postmaster of Nalinac
Beach and Bauang
Post Offices.  In the course of his
examination, Mr. Ramirez discovered spurious vouchers (Exhibits “E”,
“E-1” to “E-23”) in the Bauang Post Office
covering payments of motorcycle gasoline allowance of letter carriers not
assigned to that particular post office, and similar spurious vouchers
(Exhibits “F”, “F-1” to “F?6”) in the Nalinac Beach Post Office. 
The postmasters assigned in Bauang and Nalinac who made the payments of the vouchers were accused Aniceto J. Ramos and German J. Samonte,
respectively.  Examiner Ramirez submitted
a memorandum dated September 14, 1976 to the Regional Director on his
examination of the Nalinac Beach Post Office and
other post offices in La Union (Exhibit “H”), and a separate
memorandum dated October 14, 1976 on his examination of the Bauang
Post Office (Exhibit “I-1”). 
In both memoranda, the discovery of spurious claim vouchers representing
payments of motorcycle allowance of letter carriers not assigned to either Nalinac Beach
or Bauang Post Offices was reported.  This discovery was reported to the Central
Office, Bureau of Posts, in Manila
which forthwith disallowed the forged claim vouchers paid by Postmasters Aniceto Ramos and German Samonte
and recalled the credit advances previously issued to them relating to the said
irregular vouchers (Exhibits “K” and “K-1”).  Examiner Ramirez also sent a demand letter to
accused Postmaster Aniceto Ramos for the restitution
of the shortage found in his accounts amounting to P13,320.00 (Exhibit “L”).

On February 18, 1990,
the petitioner-appellant was charged, together with Constante
Galinato and Ernesto Benavidez, with Malversation of Public Funds through Falsification of
Public Documents in an information filed by Tanodbayan Prosecutor Jose G. Ferrer
with the Sandiganbayan (Criminal Case No. 918) which
reads:

“That on or about the period comprised from November 28, 1975
to July 19, 1976, inclusive, in the Municipality of Bauang,
La Union, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
accused ANICETO RAMOS, then a postmaster of the Post Office of Bauang, La Union, having been appointed and qualified as
such, and therefore, an accountable officer responsible for public funds
collected and received by him in the exercise of his duties and functions, and
conniving, confederating and conspiring with his co-accused CONSTANTE GALINATO,
then Supervisor and Acting Chief of the Operations Division of the Regional
Office of the Bureau of Post, San Fernando, La Union, did then and there, wilfully, feloniously, unlawfully and fraudulently misappro­priate,
misapply, embezzle and take away the total sum of ELEVEN THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED
FORTY PESOS (P11,640.00), Philippine Currency, and converted and appropriated
the same for their personal use and benefit, by making it appear that David Bisoy, Gavino Apilado,
Florencio Ramos, Bienvenido
Edralin, Pepito Samson,
Dante Biscocho, William Olano,
Dionisio Ochinang, Hector Centeno, Celestino Gasmen, Bienvenido Yaba, Hilario Guzman, Gabriel Alconis, Lucino Bravo, Jose Taclas,
Leonardo Frando, Alejandro Piaoan,
Gil Blanco, Nicencio Barlahan,
Benito Mangawang, Ernesto Gumawid,
German Estoesta, Matias Dumo, Simplicio Lusan, and Gregorio Villanueva, all letter-carrriers and employees of the Bureau of Post, Region I,
had filed and claimed their motorcycle allowances allegedly covered by Vouchers
Nos. D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4, D-11, D-12, D-18, D-19, D-21, D-22, D- 23, D-24, D-25,
D-26, D-28, D-40, D-41, D-42, D-70, D-76, D-77, D-86, D-99 and D-100,
respectively, when in truth and in fact they did not, as all their signatures
on the aforesaid vouchers are all forged and falsified, and that neither of
them (letter-carriers) received or benefited from the payments of proceeds
thereof, accused CONSTANTE GALINATO caused the presentation and payment of the
falsified vouchers, accused ERNESTO BENAVIDEZ presented the falsified vouchers
to, and received payment from, his co-accused ANICETO RAMOS, and that accused
ANICETO RAMOS certified to the correctness of the claim for motorcycle
allowances and paid for the same although he doubted the authenticity of the
signatures of the supposed claimants, to the damage and prejudice of the government
in the aforesaid amount of ELEVEN THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED FORTY PESOS
(P11,640.00), Philippine Currency, and to the interest of the public service.

CONTRARY TO LAW.” (Original
Record, pp. 1-2).

Upon arraignment, accused Galinato,
Ramos and Benavidez pleaded not guilty in Criminal Case No. 918 (Original
Record, pp. 26, 27 and 28).  Trial
ensued.

At the instance of the
prosecution, accused Ernesto Benavidez, an audit examiner of the Bureau of
Posts in Region I, was discharged from the Information in all the cases and
utilized as one of the People’s witnesses.

In Criminal Case No. 918, out of the twenty-five (25)
letter-carriers named in the information, only twenty (20) testified.  They all disowned their supposed signatures
in the vouchers ascribed to them, denied having filed any claim for motorcycle
allowance for the periods and received the amounts reflected therein or
authorized anybody to file any claim for them, or rendered service in the Bauang, La Union Post Office.

The principal witness for the prosecution against petitioner Aniceto Ramos, the sole appellant in this case, is the
discharged accused turned state witness. 
Ernesto Benavidez y Blanco, who testified as follows:  From 1970 to 1980, he was an employee of the
Bureau of Posts where he started as Accounting Clerk I, then as Senior Clerk
and later as Audit Examiner from June
16, 1976 to July, 1980.  When
he was assigned in the Regional Office of the Bureau of Posts at San
Fernando, La Union from 1973 to 1980, his immediate
superior was the Chief of the Administrative Division, Bernardo Tugade.  He denied
having been under the direct supervision of accused Constante
Galinato.  He
met for the first time Constante Galinato
in 1973 and, thereafter, they had been meeting in the Regional Office almost
everyday.  It was sometime in May, 1975
that Galinato and a certain Blandino
Gabriel, a buyer in the Regional Office, invited him to a round of drinks at
the Symphony Restaurant, San Fernando, La Union.  Because of his need for money, he agreed to
deliver fake motorcycle allowance vouchers. 
The said vouchers were to be prepared by Blandino
Gabriel and Francisco Asporias and to be delivered by
him to either the Nalinac
Beach or Bauang
Post Office.  The proceeds of the
vouchers would be divided in the following manner:  10% to Gabriel; 30% to the Postmaster; 50% to
Galinato; and 10% to him (Benavidez).  On June
2, 1975, he met Gabriel at Galinato’s
office and with Galinato proceeded to the Nalinac Beach
where he was given fake vouchers by Galinato in the
name of Crispin Fangon, signed by Samonte.  Thereafter, postal money order checks payable
to Galinato were issued.  He was then introduced as Galinato’s
trusted man.  Another delivery of fake
vouchers were made by Galinato
on June 25, 1975 to Samonte which was followed on July 15, 1975. 
Benavidez was instructed later by Galinato to
deliver gasoline allowance vouchers to either Nalinac Beach
or Bauang Post Office.  The voucher was in the name of Santiago
Asuncion, signed by Samonte who paid the amount to
Benavidez in postal money order.  It was encashed by Benavidez upon the order of Galinato
when he returned to the regional office. 
Two more notes with similar instructions were given to him on different
occasions (Exhibits “N” and “N-1”).  The vouchers given to him with the notes were
Exhibits “E”, “E-1” to “E-3”, “E-5” to
“E-14”, “E-16” to “E-19”, “E-22” and
“E-23”, and Exhibits “F”, “F-1” to “F-6”,
which were all signed by Gabriel, Asporias and Galinato above the printed phrase “Signature of
Creditor.” He brought the vouchers (Exhibits “E”,
“E-1” to “E?3”, “E-5” to “E-14”,
“E-16” to “E-19”, “E-22” and “E-23”) to
Bauang Postmaster Aniceto
Ramos who signed them and gave him the corresponding amounts of the vouchers,
some in cash and some in postal money orders, less Postmaster Ramos’ 30% share
in each voucher.  The rest of the
proceeds, amounting to 70% of the face value of the vouchers was
turned over by him (Benavidez) to Galinato who gave
him (Benavidez) his 10% share and 10% to Gabriel.  As to the other vouchers (Exhibits
“F”, “F-1” to “F-6”), he delivered them to
Postmaster Samonte at the Nalinac
Beach Post Office.  Samonte
signed the vouchers and paid him their value, some in plain cash and the others
in postal money orders (Exhibits “P”, “P-1” to
“P-8”) less the 30% share of Samonte in
each voucher.  Some of the postal money
orders (Exhibits “P”, “P-1” to “P-3”,
“P-7” and “P-8”) were issued in his name (Benavidez) as
payee, while Exhibits “P-4” to “P-6” in Galinato’s
name as the payee, all of these postal money orders were signed by Samonte as “Issuing Employee.” All the persons
whose names appear as “Remitter” were fictitious.  On his return to San
Fernando, he delivered the cash and the postal money
orders to Galinato who signed those issued in his (Galinato’s) name (Exhibits “P-4” to
“P-6”).  He was instructed by Galinato to cash all the postal money order checks.  Galinato then gave
him his 10% share.  Benavidez further
claimed that sometime in May, 1986, accused Samonte
and Ramos went to the Regional Office looking for Galinato
but failed to meet him because Galinato had been
designated Acting Postmaster of Baguio City.  Learning this, Ramos and Samonte
each prepared a letter (Exhibits “O” and “O-1”) and asked
him to deliver to Galinato which he did.

On the other hand, the defense presented petitioner Aniceto Ramos to testify in his behalf.  His version is as follows:  Sometime in November, 1975, Benavidez
presented to him a voucher of Benito Mangawang for
P960.00 and a note from Ernesto Ochavez, the Special
Disbursing Officer of Region I, urging him to pay the voucher.  He paid it to Benavidez who told him that Mangawang was a letter carrier.  He met Benavidez again in December,
1975.  This time, Benavidez presented to
him some more vouchers for payment, followed by still other vouchers the last
of which was either in June or July, 1976. 
These vouchers were Exhibits “E” to “E-23.” They were already
signed by the creditors when presented to him. 
Although the payees were not presented, were unknown to him and he knew
them to be not assigned in his office, he paid the vouchers to Benavidez in
good faith on the strength of the letter of Ochavez
and two (2) letters from Constante Galinato (one of them is Exhibit “9-Ramos”)
handed to him by Benavidez which instructed him to pay the vouchers and enter
them in his record of collections.  That
letter of Ochavez and the other letter of Galinato were taken by District Postal Inspector Natalio Robles. 
Further bases of his action were the credit advices (Exhibits “8-A” to
“8-H-Ramos”) he received from the Central Office of the Bureau of Posts which
did not disallow any of the previous paid vouchers.  About 3 or 4 vouchers were paid in money
orders which he entered in his record of collections while the rest were paid
in cash duly entered in his record of payments. 
He did not deduct any amount or receive any share from these vouchers he
paid.  From November, 1975 to June or
July, 1976, his accounts were periodically audited but not one of those
vouchers was disallowed.  But after the
August, 1976 audit of his accounts by Auditor Rodolfo Ramirez, the said
vouchers were disallowed.  He then sent
telegrams to all the creditors/payees in the vouchers asking them to return the
payments to him (Exhibits “4” to “4-N-Ramos”).  He disowned Exhibit “O”, the letter
dated May 6, 1976, ascribed
to him by Benavidez as not his letter, pointing out that the signature therein
is not his.  He made several signatures
before the Court to show that none matched the signature in aforesaid letter
(TSN, February 5, 1981, pp. 43-76).

After trial, the respondent court found accused-appellant
together with Constante M. Galinato
guilty, the dispositive portion of which reads as
follows:

“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered:

x x x              x x x                 x x x

2)      In Criminal Case No.
918, finding the accused Aniceto J. Ramos and Constante M. Galinato guilty
beyond reasonable doubt as principals of the complex crime of Malversation of Public Funds through Falsi­fication of
Public Document, as defined and penalized in Article 217, No. 3, and Article
171, No. 2, in relation to Article 48, all of the Revised Penal Code, without
mitigating or aggravating circumstances; and applying the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, sentencing each of them to an indeter­minate penalty ranging from
NINE (9) YEARS, ONE (1) MONTH and ELEVEN (11) DAYS of prision
mayor, as minimum, to THIRTEEN (13) YEARS, SEVEN (7) MONTHS and TWENTY
(20) DAYS of reclusion temporal, as maximum, to suffer perpetual
special disqualification, to pay a fine of P9,720 and to indemnify the
Government of the Republic of the Philippines (Bureau of Post) in the same
amount of P9,720;

x x
x              x
x x                 x x x.”

(Original Record, p. 399; Decision, p.
31)

Petitioner is the only accused-appellant who elevated this case
to this Court and raised the following assignment of errors:

I

RESPONDENT COURT ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF
ERNESTO BENAVIDEZ, AN ACCUSED TURNED STATE WITNESS.

II

RESPONDENT COURT ERRED IN DECLARING THE EXISTENCE OF A CONSPIRACY
BETWEEN HEREIN PETITIONER AND THE OTHER ACCUSED.

III

RESPONDENT COURT ERRED IN NOT HAVING RULED THAT PETITIONER HAS
ACTED IN GOOD FAITH AND WITHOUT ANY CRIMINAL INTENT.

IV

RESPONDENT COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO DECLARE THAT PETITIONER MERELY
OBEYED A LAWFUL ORDER ISSUED BY A SUPERIOR OFFICER.

I.

Petitioner contends that a perusal of the information filed
against the accused would readily show that Ernesto Benavidez played a very
major and substantial role in the afore­said cases, among which are the
following:  (a) it was Ernesto Benavidez
himself who personally caused the preparations of the alleged spurious vouchers
and (b) it was Ernesto Benavidez himself who, in all instances personally collected
and received from the postmasters concerned all of the
amounts represented by the alleged spurious vouchers.  Nonetheless, despite the objection of his
co-accused that Benavidez was the most guilty and
would, therefore, not qualify as state witness under Rule 119, Section 9(d),
the latter was discharged as such, on the ground that the prosecution cannot
prove the offenses charged without him.

The discharge of an accused in order that he may be utilized as a
state witness is expressly left to the sound discretion of the court.  Thus, section 9 of Rule 119, as amended,
provides as follows:

“SEC. 9. Discharge of accused to be
state witness.  – When two or more
persons are jointly charged with the commission of any offense, upon motion of
the prosecution before resting its case, the court may direct one or more of
the accused to be discharged with their consent so that they may be witnesses
for the state when after requiring the prosecution to present evidence and the
sworn state­ment of each proposed state witness at a hearing in support of the
discharge, the court is satisfied that:

(a) There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused
whose discharge is requested;

(b) There is no other direct evidence available for the proper
prosecution of the offense committed, except the testimony of said accused;

(c) The testimony of said accused can be substantially corroborated
in its material points;

(d) Said accused does not appear to be the most
guilty;

(e) Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any offense
involving moral turpitude.

Evidence adduced in support of the discharge shall automatically
form part of the trial.  If the court
denies the motion for discharge of the accused as state witness, his sworn
statement shall be inadmissible in evidence.”

The Court has the exclusive
responsibility to see that the conditions prescribed by the rule exist (People
v. Ibanez, etc., et al., 92 Phil. 936 [1953]). 
For the law seeks to regulate the manner of enforcement of the regulations
in the sound discretion of the court. 
The grant of discretion in cases of this kind under this provision was
not a grant of arbitrary discretion to the trial courts, but such is to be
exercised with due regard to the correct administration of justice (People v.
De Atras, 28 SCRA 389 [1969]).

It has, however, been ruled that while it is the duty of the
trial judge to exercise a sound discretion in conformity with the provisions of
the statute, if he fails in the performance of his duty, or errs in the
exercise of his discretion in this regard, such error does not relieve from
criminal responsibility the guilty participants who are not discharged to be
used as witnesses, any more than a similar error in the weighing of the
evidence submitted at the trial which results in the acquittal of one of
several co-accused, who was in truth and in fact a guilty participant in the
crime charged against them, will afford a claim of exemption from criminal
liability by the other accused who were properly convicted (United States v. Abanzado, 37 Phil. 666 [1918]).

While the discharge of Benavidez as state witness under the circumstances, was not in accordance with Section 9(d), Rule
119, nonetheless, in line with settled rulings and precedents, his testimony
has to be admitted.  But in accepting the
testimony of a co-accused-turned-state witness, this Court is not unmindful of
the principle that in such a case, the testimony of the witness should be
received with great caution and should be carefully scrutinized (People v. Gongora, 8 SCRA 473 [1963]).

Petitioner called attention to the fact that the oral testimony
of Benavidez is so replete with inconsistencies and with allegations that are
contrary to human nature and experience that they should not have been given
credence by the court.  Thus, it was
pointed out that Benavidez executed three sworn statements dated December 2,
1976; September 8, 1978; and October 28, 1980, the latter reiterated almost verbatim
in the oral testimony given to the Tanodbayan; all of
which are contradictory with one another; and admitted by the witness himself
to be false except the last one given to satisfy the investigator at the
particular time who promised to give him immunity from suit.  Likewise, it was noted that Benavidez
produced several typewritten notes purportedly signed by accused Galinato, who ordered him to deliver the vouchers to Ramos
and Samonte, a practice considered absurd and
improbable for if indeed there had been a prior arrangement between Galinato Benavidez and postmasters Ramos and Samonte, there would not have been a need for the
presentation of said typewritten notes.

There appears to be no dispute that had the Tanodbayan
relied solely or the testimony of Benavidez to establish the guilt of
appellant, it might have failed to prove the latter’s guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.

But it will be noted that the testimony of Benavidez was corrorobated by the admissions of appellant Aniceto Ramos himself, to wit:  (a) that he paid the questioned vouchers when
presented to him by Benavidez although they were already signed by the supposed
creditors who were not presented to him; (b) that aforesaid creditors were
unknown to him and more importantly; (c) that he knew the supposed payees were
not assigned to his office, obviously in violation of Circular No. 40, series of
1974 of the Bureau of Posts and Implementing Regional Circular No. 3 of Postal
Region I providing that payment of such allowance “shall be made by the
Postmaster under whose office said employees x x x are assigned which must be certified in the voucher or
payroll…  The certification shall
include x x x the kind,
make and serial number of the motorcycle.” (Exhibit
“J-1”, Rollo, pp. 93-94).  Ramos’ only excuse is that he paid the
vouchers in good faith and on the strength of the letter of Ochavez
and two (2) letters from Constante Galinato handed to him by Benavidez, which instructed him
to pay the vouchers.  However, the
provision of Regional Circular No. 3 is explicit and unmistakable.  His alleged lack of knowledge thereof is inexcusable, if not improbable considering that the said
circular is directly connected with his duties.

Neither can he avail of the defense that none of his previous
paid vouchers were disallowed in audit. 
Aside from the fact that the questioned vouchers were spurious and
cannot be legalized by the Central Office, the records show that the credit
advices were based on the reports of payment submitted by Ramos without the
corresponding vouchers attached, so that the Central Office would not be in a
position to determine whether or not the payees are letter carriers assigned to
the Bauang Post Office of Ramos (Rollo,
pp. 97-98).

Under the circumstances obtaining in the case at bar,
corroboration of the testimony of Benavidez by the inculpatory
evidence tending to connect and/or implicate Ramos with the offense, is
evident.  More than that, as found by the
Sandigan­bayan, they lend credence to the testimony
of Benavidez as to the existence of conspiracy among the accused (Rollo, p. 95).

II.

It has been ruled that the findings of the trial court on the
existence of conspiracy should not be disturbed where such findings are not
only logical but also because they are based on evidence appearing in the
record (People v. Arhis, 144 SCRA 691 [1986]).

Similarly, jurisprudence supports the contention that it is not
necessary that conspiracy be proved by direct evidence as the same can be
inferred from acts of the accused (People v. Pineda, 157 SCRA 73 [1988]).

Thus, conspiracy exists where the evidence on record shows that
the questioned documents were prepared and processed by the government
officials involved in connection with the performance of their official
functions and duties and the anomalous transactions could not have been made
possible without the connivance of the persons concerned (Bernabe
v. Sandiganbayan, 160 SCRA 683 [1988]).

As testified by Benavidez, conspiracy was first established at
their first meeting at the Symphony Restaurant where Galinato
convinced Benavidez to join them in the criminal scheme, their subsequent
meetings, the preparation of the fake vouchers and their presentation to the
two postmasters Samonte and Ramos, herein petitioner,
culminating in the payment of said fake vouchers.

The involvement of Ramos in this conspiracy,
is shown by his payment of the questioned vouchers to payees unknown to him and
not assigned to his post office, in violation of Circular No. 40, series of
1974 and Regional Circular No. 3 of Postal Region I.  The vouchers were presented by Benavidez and
honored by Ramos despite their obvious spurious nature, lending credence to the
testimony of Benavidez that they were effected in
pursuance of a previous arrangement among the accused:  Galinato, Samonte and Ramos.

Further confirming aforesaid agreement was the letter of Ramos
(Exhibit “O”) to Galinato urging Galinato to send him more vouchers.  Ramos disowned the signature on the letter
and wrote for comparison three (3) specimens, none of which were similar to the
questioned signature.  The Sandiganbayan, however, found that the questioned signature
is similar to Ramos’ signatures on the vouchers he admitted he had signed.

In any event, the testimony of Benavidez is duly corroborated by
physical evidence such as the vouchers, the instructing notes, the postal money
orders, as well as the incriminating letters, all of which persuasively show
the criminal conspiracy among the four postal officials.

III.

In general, evil intent must unite with an unlawful act for there
to be a crime.  Ignorance or mistake as to particular facts, honest and real, will as a
general rule, exempt the doer from criminal responsibility.  The exception, however, is neglect in the
discharge of duty or indifference to consequences, which is equivalent to
criminal intent.  The element of
malicious intent is supplied by the element of negligence and imprudence
(People v. Pacana, 47 Phil. 55 [1924]).  In the case at bar, the negligence if not
criminal intent of appellant in paying the vouchers in question, is beyond
question.

IV.

Neither can petitioner be declared as having merely obeyed a
lawful order issued by a superior officer; there being a clear violation of
Circular No. 40, series of 1974 of the Bureau of Posts, while Galinato, on whose order Ramos supposedly paid the
questioned vouchers, was not even his immediate supervisor.

In view of the foregoing considerations, no cogent reason could
be found to reverse the findings and conclusion of the Sandiganbayan.

 WHEREFORE, the
instant petition is Dismissed and the assailed
decision of the Sandiganbayan finding herein
petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 918 is Affirmed in
toto with costs against the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., (Chairman), Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez,
Jr., Cruz, Paras, Gancayco,
Padilla, Sarmiento, Grino-Aquino,
Medialdea, and
Regalado, JJ., concur.

Feliciano, J., on leave.