VALENTINO G. CASTILLO, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

The petitioner, City Engineer
of Tagbilaran City, appeals from the joint Decision^[1] of the respondent Sandiganbayan
in six (6) criminal cases thereof, Nos. 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, and 200 (G.R.
Nos. 52352-57) all prosecutions for estafa
through falsification of public and
commercial documents^[2] (six counts), entitled “People of the
Philippines, Plaintiff, versus Valentino G. Cas­tillo, Jose Bagasao,
Rolando Mangubat, Delia Preagido,
Jose Sayson, Ulrico Bolotaolo, Luis Rasonabe, Isidoro Recamadas, Filipinas Evardo, Praxedes Lopena, James Tiu alias
Jimmy Tiu and
Engracio Quiroz alias Dodong, Accused”;^[3] “People
of the Philippines, Plaintiff, versus Valentino G. Castillo, Jose Bagasao, Rolando Mangubat, Delia Preagido, Jose Sayson, Luis Rasonabe, Isidoro Recamadas, Filipinas Evardo, Praxedes Lopena, Nino Pilayre, James Tiu alias
Jimmy Tiu and
Engracio Quiroz alias Dodong,
Accused”;^[4] and “People of the Philippines,
Plaintiff, versus Valentino G. Castillo, Jose Bagasao,
Rolando Mangubat, Delia Preagido
Jose Sayson, Ulrico Bolotaolo, Luis Rasonabe, Isidoro Recamadas, Filipinas Evardo, Praxedes Lopena, Charita de Villa, Eliseo Cornell, James Tiu alias
Jimmy Tiu and
Engracio Quiroz
alias Dodong, Accused,”^[5] respectively.  The dispositive
portion of the Decision reads as follows:

xxx                xxx                   xxx

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows –

A) In Criminal Case No. 195 – finding accused Valentino G.
Castillo, Jose Bagasao, Rolando Mangubat,
Delia Preagido, Ulrico Bolotaolo, Luis Rasonabe, Isidoro Recamadas, Filipinas Evardo, Praxedes Lopena and James Tiu alias Jimmy Tiu guilty beyond reasonable doubt as co-principals in the
crime of Estafa thru Falsification of Public
Documents, as defined and penalized in Articles 318 and 171, in relation to
Article 48, all of the Revised Penal Code; and, in default of any modifying
circumstance in attendance, sentencing each of them to an indeterminate penalty ranging from Six (6) Years of prision
correccional, as minimum, to Ten (10) Years, Eight
(8) Months and One (1) Day of prision mayor, as
maximum, with the accessories provided by law; to pay a fine of Three Thousand
Five Hundred Pesos (P3,500.00); to indem­nify, jointly and severally, the
Republic of the Philippines in the amount of Thirty Eight Thousand Five Hundred Eighty ­One and 75/100
Pesos (P38,581.75); and, to pay their proportionate share of the
costs.

B) In Criminal
Case No. 196 – finding accused
Valentino G. Castillo, Jose Bagasao; Rolando Mangubat, Delia Preagido, Luis Rasonabe, Isidoro Recamadas, Filipinas Evardo,
Praxedes Lopena, Nino Pilayre and James Tiu alias Jimmy
Tiu guilty beyond reasonable doubt as co-principals in the crime of Estafa
thru Falsification of Public Documents, as defined and penalized in Articles
318 and 171, in relation to Article 48, all of the Revised Penal Code; and, in
default of any modifying circumstance in attendance, sentencing each of them to
an indeterminate penalty ranging from Six (6) Years of prision correccional; as minimum, to Ten (10) Years, Eight (8)
Months and One (1) Day of prision mayor, as maximum, with the accessories provided by
law; to pay a fine of Three Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P3,500.00); to indemni­fy,
jointly and severally, the Republic of the Philippines in the amount of Forty
Seven Thousand Four Hundred Forty Four and 25/100 Pesos (P47,444.25);
and, to pay their proportionate share of the costs.

C) In Criminal Case No. 197 – finding accused Valentino G.
Castillo, Jose Bagasao, Rolando Mangubat,
Delia Preagido, Luis Rasonabe,
Isidoro Recamadas,
Filipinas Evardo, Praxedes Lopena, Niño Pilayre
and James Tiu alias Jimmy Tiu
guilty beyond reasonable doubt as co-principals in the crime of Estafa thru Falsification of Pub­lic Documents, as defined
and penalized in Articles 318 and 171, in relation to Article 48, all of the
Revised Penal Code; and, in default of any modifying circumstance in
attendance, sentencing each of them to an indeterminate penalty ranging from
Six (6) Years of prision correccional, as minimum, to Ten (10) Years, Eight
(8) Months and One (1) Day of prision mayor, as
maximum, with the accessories provided by law; to pay a fine of Three Thousand
Five Hundred Pesos (P3,500.00); to indemnify, jointly and severally, the
Republic of the Philippines in the amount of Thirty Seven Thousand Six Hundred
Fifty-Two and 25/100 Pesos (P37,652.25);
and, to pay their proportionate share of the costs.

D) In Criminal Case No. 198 – finding accused Valentino G.
Castillo, Jose Bagasao, Rolando Mangubat,
Delia Preagido, Ulrico Bolotaolo, Luis Rasonabe, Isidoro Recamadas, Filipinas Evardo, Praxedes Lopena, Charita de Villa,
Eliseo Cornell and James Tiu
alias Jimmy Tiu
guilty beyond reasonable doubt as co-principals in the crime of Estafa thru Falsification of Public Documents, as defined
and penalized under Articles 318 and 171, in relation to Article 48, all of the
Revised Penal Code; and, in default of any modifying circumstance in
attendance, sentencing each of them to an indeterminate penalty ranging from
Six (6) Years of prision correccional,
as minimum, to Ten (10) Years, Eight
(8) Months and One (1) Day of prision mayor, as maximum, with the accessories provided by
law; to pay a fine of Three Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P3,500.00); to
indemnify, jointly and severally, the Republic of the Philippines in the amount
of Forty Seven Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Seven and 75/100 Pesos (P47,637.75);
and, to pay their proportionate share of the costs.

E) In Criminal Case No. 199 – find­ing accused Valentino G.
Castillo, Jose Bagasao, Rolando Mangubat,
Delia Preagido, Ulrico Bolotaolo, Luis Rasonabe, Isidoro Recamadas, Filipinas Evardo, Praxedes Lopena, Charita de Villa, Eliseo Cornell and James Tiu alias
Jimmy Tiu guilty beyond reasonable doubt as
co-principals in the crime of Estafa thru
Falsification of Public Documents, as defined and penalized in Articles 318 and
171, in relation to Article 48, all of the Re­vised Penal Code; and, in default
of any modifying circumstance in attendance, sentencing each of them to an
indeter­minate penalty ranging from Six (6) Years of prision correccional,
as minimum, to Ten (10) Years, Eight
(8) Months and One (1) Day of prision mayor, as maximum, with the accessories provided by
law; to pay a find of Three Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P3,500.00); to
indemnify, jointly and severally, the Republic of the Philippines in the amount
of Twenty Three Thousand Seven Hundred One and 75/100 Pesos (P23,701.75); and,
to pay their proportionate share of the costs.

F) In Criminal Case No. 200 – finding accused Valentino C.
Castillo, Jose Bagasao, Rolando Mangubat,
Delia Preagido, Luis Rasonabe,
Isidoro Recamadas, Filipinas Evardo, Praxedes
Lopena, Niño Pilayre, and James Tiu alias
Jimmy Tiu
guilty beyond reasonable doubt as co-principals in the crime of Estafa thru Falsification of Public Documents, as defined
and penalized in Articles 318 and 171, in relation to Article 48, all of the
Revised Penal Code; and, in default of any modifying circumstance in
attendance, sentencing each of them to an indeter­minate penalty ranging from
Six (6) Years of prision correccional,
as minimum, to Ten (1) Years, Eight (8)
Months and One (10) Day, of prision mayor, as maximum, with the accessories provi­ded by
law; to pay a fine of Three Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P3,500.00); to
indemnify, jointly and severally, the Republic of the Philippines in the amount
of Forty Five Thousand Nine Hundred Forty and 25/100 Pesos (P45,940.25); and,
to pay their proportionate share of the costs.

For insufficiency of evidence, accused Jose Sayson
and Engracio Quiroz alias Dodong
are hereby acquitted of the crimes charged in Criminal Cases Nos. 195, 196,
197, 198, 199 and 200, with their proportionate share of the the costs de officio.  The bailbonds
heretofore posted for their provisional liberty are hereby cancelled and their
sureties are henceforth relieved from any further responsibility thereunder.

The Tanodbayan is hereby directed
to conduct the appropriate inquiry into the possible complicity of Arsenio Sarigumba, Allan Apalisok and Miguel V. Bulac and to take such action in the premises as his findings may warrant.

SO ORDERED.^[6]

Except for James Tiu, a private contractor, and Engracio
Quiroz, his employee, the accused in all six (6) criminal Cases are public officers.  They are:

The six (6) criminal
charges are summarized in the petition itself. 
We quote:

xxx                xxx                   xxx

That in or about and during the period from April to June, 1978, the
accused public officials in their official capacity and in connection with the
functions of their office, and conspiring and conniving among themselves, as
well as with their private-party
co-accused, allegedly falsified or caused to be falsified Letters of Advice of
Allotment, both dated April 24, 1978, and sub-Advices of Cash Disbursement
Ceiling both dated April 28, 1978 and May 2, 1978, which are all public
documents, thereby making it appear that an amount of P300,000.00 had been
lawfully allocated for Tagbilaran City from the 7th Regional Highway Office
and made available for the maintenance of existing and unabandoned
roads and bridges; and, specified General Vouchers in the total amount of
P299,880.00 for the payment of specified quantities of anapog binder
allegedly requisitioned, purchased and delivered, as well as the
corresponding  Program of Work/Budget
Cost for Roads and Bridges, Request for Obligation of Allotment, Abstracts of
Sealed Quotations Purchase Orders, Records, Records of Inspection and other
papers in support thereof, also all public documents, thereby making it appear
that the afore­said documents were regularly prepared and approved, that the
bidding was properly conducted, that the purchase orders were prepared in favor
of the lowest bidder, and that the materials purchased were fully delivered in
accordance with specifications and duly inspected, when, in truth and in fact,
the aforesaid documents were falsified and the acts and transactions referred
to were false and simulated, inasmuch as only small quantities of the materials
were actually delivered; and by means of falsifications as abovesaid,
the accused were able to demand, collect and receive from the Government, thru
the Tagbilaran City Engineering Office the face value
of the vouchers in question, although the amount due should have been only the
value of the actual quantities delivered, and that, after said accused had
collected and received the amounts aforesaid, they unlawfully misapplied, misappropriated
and converted the same to their own personal use and benefit and/or consented
or permitted other persons to misapply, misappropriate or convert the same to their own personal use and benefit, to the
damage and preju­dice of the Government in the amount of P242,964.32,
representing the value of the short-delivered materials.^[8]

The accused all pleaded
“not guilty” to these
charges.^[9]

I.

In the regional level,
the requisition of funds for public works purposes, especially in the matter of
road and bridge repairs, involves a graduated series of steps.  As found by the respondent Sandiganbayan, it begins with the Sub-Allotment Advices (SAAs), as
well as the Advices of Cash Disbursement Ceilings (ACDCs),
issued by the Ministry of Public Highways in favor of its Highways Regional
Offices.  These serve as the Regional
Offices’ authority to obligate and disburse funds.  In turn, these become the sources of funds of
the various Engineering Districts apportioned throughout each region.^[10]

The Engineering District
then requests for the release of these funds from the Regional Director through
a Program of Work.  The Regional Finance
Officer issues a Letter of Advice of Allotment (LAA), certified as to
availability of funds by the Regional Accountant, countersigned by the Regional
Director, and addressed to the District (or City, as the case may be)
Engineer.  At the same time, he (the
Regional Finance Officer) prepares a Sub-Advice of Cash Disbursement Ceiling
(SACDC) for the Regional Director.

The LAA and SACDC are subsequently entered in a logbook. 
The funds requested are then released.^[11]

On the strength of such
LAA and SACDC, the District then prepares a Requisition for Supplies or
Equipment (RSE) as well as a Request for Obligation of Allotment
(ROA), pursuant to the Program of
Work.  Both are likewise certified as to
availability of funds by the Regional Accountant and approved by the Regional
Director.^[12]

Thereafter, the Property
Custodian or the Purchasing Officer, as the case may be, addresses Requests for
Sealed Quotations to various suppliers, usually through newspaper
advertisements or notices posted in conspicuous places in the District
concerned.  After ten days, the Sealed
Quotations are submitted to the Price Verification Committee which determines
the lowest bid in the presence of representatives of the District Engineer and
the Auditor.  An Abstract of Sealed
Quotations is then signed by the members of the Committee as well as the said
local repre­sentatives.  Thereafter, and
subject to the approval of the District Engineer, the proper award is made in
favor of the lowest bidder.  On the basis
thereof, the Property Custodian issues a Purchase Order (PO) in favor of
the winning bidder, again subject to the approval of the District Engineer and
certified as to availability of funds by the Regional Accountant.^[13]

The supplies thus to be
delivered are thereafter inspected (through Request for Inspection) by the
Property Custodian.  The deliveries
themselves are recorded in a Tally Sheet after which a Record of Inspection,
certified by the Property Custodian,^[14] is prepared by the representative of the
Auditor and the Property Custodian.

Payment to the supplier
is evidenced by a General Voucher (GV). 
Among others, the GV contains five parts:  (1) a certification of receipt of
supplies to be accomplished by the Property Custodian; (2) a certification of
correct­ness, that is, that the expenses are necessary and lawful, and that the
prices are not in excess of the current rates in the locality, to be
accomplished by the Project Engineer; (3) approval by the District Engineer;
(4) a certification, to be accomplished by the Auditor, that the GV has been
pro­perly approved, its account codes proper, and that it is supported by the
proper documents; and (5) a certification that the GV has undergone pre-audit,
to be accomplished by the Auditor.^[15]

The GV itself must carry
with it the following:  the RSE, ROA,
Program of Work, Detailed Estimates, Request for Sealed Quotations, Abstract of
Sealed Quotations, PO, Delivery Receipts, Request for Inspection,
Record of Inspection, Test Reports, and Tax Clearance of the supplier.^[16]

The process winds up with
the issuance of the check by the Cashier in the name of the supplier.  Like the GV, the check is pre-audited and
then released.^[17]

The District Accountant
thereafter prepares a Report of Obligation Incurred (ROI) and a Report of
Checks Issued (RCI) to be submitted to the Regional Office and entered in the
journals and the General Ledger thereof. 
On the basis thereof, the Regional Accountant prepares a trial balance
to be recommended by the Finance Officer and approved by the Regional
Director.  The same is then submitted to
the Ministry of Public highways.^[18]

With this prologue, we
come to the six (6) appeals at bar.

II.

It appears that from May
through June, 1978, the Tagbilaran City Engineering
Office (CEO) embarked on certain projects involving the restoration of various
roads and bridges in Tagbilaran City.^[19] Pursuant to five LAAs
addressed to the Ministry of Public Highways purportedly issued by the Seventh
Regional Highways Office on behalf of the Tagbilaran
CEO, more specifically described as follows:

as
well as six SACDCs, as follows:

the
Tagbilaran CEO prepared RSEs
and ROAs for the procurement of materials and
supplies, specifically, anapog binder, for the projects aforementioned.  All five LAAs were
certi­fied as to availability of funds by Rolando Mangubat,
allegedly on behalf of Angelina Escaño,
Finance Officer of the Seventh Regional
Highways Office (Mangubat signed, over her
typewritten name)^[22], and countersigned by Jose Bagasao.  The six SACDCs were likewise signed by Mangubat
for the Regional Director.^[23] The materials requisitioned were supplied by JV Sand & Gravel & Construction Supply, a private contractorship owned by James Tiu.  Six GVs were prepared therefor, as
follows:

representing
partial payments in favor of JV Sand & Gravel
& Construction Supply, which has been named as a creditor therein.^[25] The GVs themselves
were accompanied by various supporting papers, among them, the RSEs and ROAs earlier referred
to.

All these documents, as
we noted, are the subject of the prosecutions before the respondent Sandiganbayan.  For
purposes of these appeals, the particeps criminis involved are as follows:

1)
G.R. No. 52352/Crim. Case No. 195 (GV No. 01-780641)^[26]

This GV called for the payment of 3,123 cubic meters of anapog binder in the sum of P49,980.00.  It was certi­fied by Ulrico
Bolotaolo, the herein petitioner, Filipinas Evardo (for District Accountant Caridad
Ausa), and Praxedes Lopena.  The Program
of Work supporting it called for the use of 3,125 cubic meters of selected
borrow costing P50,000.00.  It was
submitted by Rasonabe, recommended by Bolotaolo, and approved by the petitioner.  The Detailed Estimates therefor, likewise calling for
3,125 cubic meters of selected borrow with an estimated cost of P50,000.00,
were prepared by Rasonabe, checked by Bolotaolo, and approved by the petitioner.  RSE No. 30, attached thereto, specified 3,123
cubic meters of anapog binder in the amount of P49,980.00.  It was certified as to availability of funds
by Ausa, recommended for approval by Bolotaolo, and approved by the petitioner and Bagasao.  The ROA therefor (under Obligation No. T-401-101-5-59-78), in the
sum of P49,980.00, was requested by Tagbilaran Senior
Civil Engineer Miguel Bulac on behalf of Bolotaolo and certified as to availability of funds by Ausa.  The PO likewise affixed to this GV called for 9,369 cubic meters of
anapog in
the sum of P149,940.00 addressed to Tiu’s company, JV
Sand & Gravel & Construction Supply. 
It was signed by Recamadas as
Purchasing Officer, certified as to availability of funds by Evardo (for Ausa), and approved
by the herein petitioner.

The GV in question was likewise
accompanied by three Delivery Receipts showing supposed deliveries of 1,040
cubic meters of anapog, all signed by Rasonabe.  Two other sets thereof showed further
deliveries of anapog.

The Request for Inspection
was signed by Recamadas, while the Record of
Inspection was certified correct by Allan Apalisok of
the Audit Commission, and Recamadas.

Check No. SN-4-4788136 in
the amount of P47,637.75 was issued in payment of the GV in favor of JV Sand
& Gravel & Construction.  It was
signed by the petitioner and countersigned by Lopena.  The balance of P2,342.25 was paid for mining
fees.^[27]

2)
G.R. No. 52353/Crim. Case No. 196 (GV No. 01-780684)^[28]

GV No. 01-780684, in the
amount of P49,980.00 as second partial payment for 3,125 cubic meters of anapog binder,
was certified by Recamadas, Bulac,
the petitioner, Evardo (for Ausa),
and Lopena. 
The Program of Work, provi­ding for 3,125 cubic meters
of selected borrow, was recommend­ed by Bulac,
submitted by Rasonabe, and approved by the petitioner.  The Detailed Estimates, providing for 3,125 cubic
meters of selected borrow costing P50,000.00, were prepared by Rasonabe, checked by Bulac, and approved by the petitioner.  The supporting RSE, No. 44, providing for
3,125 cubic meters of anapog binder costing P50,000.00, was certified as
to availability of funds by Evardo (for Ausa), recommended for approval by Bulac,
and approved by the peti­tioner and Bagasao.  Three Delivery Receipts, all unsigned, showed
certain deliveries of anapog.  Two
batches more, signed by Rasonable, likewise disclosed
certain deliveries of anapog.

The Record of Inspection
covered unspecified amounts of materials under RSE No. 54 and was certified
correct by Pilayre and Bulac.

Payment for the alleged
deliveries was effected through Check No. SN- 4-4788138 in the sum of P47,636.25 payable to JV Sand & Gravel &
Construction Supply.  The petitioner
signed it while Lopena countersigned it.  The balance, in the amount of P2,343.75, was
paid as and for mining fees.^[29]

3) G.R. No.
52354/Crim. Case No. 197 (GV No. 01-780682)^[30]

The GV covered herein,
No. 01-780682, called for the release of P49,980.00 by way of partial payment
for 3,125 cubic meters of anapog.  It
was certified by Recamadas, Bulac,
the petitioner, Evardo (for Ausa),
and Lopena. 
The Program of Work supporting the same, calling for the use of 3,125
cubic meters of selected borrow estimated at P50,000.00 was in turn
submitted by Rasonabe, recommended by Bulac, and approved by the petitioner.  The Detailed Estimates likewise called for
the use of 3,125 cubic meters of selected borrow estimated at P50,000.00.  They were prepared by Rasonabe,
checked by Bulac, and approved by the
petitioner.  The covering RSE, No. 43,
specified 3,125 cubic meters of anapog binder
worth P50,000.00, was certified as to funds availability by Evardo
(for Ausa), recommended for approval by the
petitioner and Bagasao.

The Requests for Sealed Quotations were addressed to, among others, JV Sand & Gravel
Construction Supply.  Under the Abstract
of Sealed Quotations, the contract was awarded to JV Sand & Gravel &
Construction Supply to supply 9,375 cubic meters of anapog
binder.  It was certified correct by Pineda, representing the Tagbilaran CEO, by Recamadas, as
Purchasing Agent, and by Cornell, on behalf of the Commission on Audit.  Bulac,
Administrative Officer Jorge Visarra, and Assistant
City Engineer Ponciano Mercado, members all of the
Price Verification Committee, likewise affixed their signatures thereto.  The petitioner approved it.  The PO, addressed to
the alleged lowest bidder, JV Sand & Gravel & Construction Supply,
mentioned 9,375 cubic meters of anapog binder
priced at P150,000.00.  Recamadas, as Purchasing Officer, signed it; Ausa certified it as to availability of funds; and the
petitioner approved it.  The Request for
Inspection was signed by Bulac.

The three Delivery Receipts appended to this GV were
unsigned.  Two more clusters of Delivery
Receipts accompanying it were, however, signed by Rasonabe.  A Record of Inspection, covering the delivery of an unspecified amount of materials
was certified correct by Niño Pilayre and Bulac.

The GV was paid through
Check No. SN-4-4788140 in the sum of P47,636.25 in favor of JV Sand &
Gravel & Construction Supply.  The
same was signed by the petitioner and countersigned by Lopena.  The balance of P2,343.75 was again paid for
mining fees.^[31]

4)
G.R. No. 52355/Crim. Case No. 198 (GV No. 01-780606)^[32]

GV No. 01-78606, in the
sum of P49,980.00 as and for partial payment for the delivery of 3,123 cubic
meters, was likewise certified by Recamadas, Bolotaolo, the peti­tioner, Evardo
(for Ausa), and by Charita
de Villa.  The supporting Program of Work specified the use
of 3,125 cubic meters of selected borrow worth P50,000.00.  It was submitted by Rasonabe,
recommended by Bolotaolo, and approved by
Castillo.  The Detailed Estimates,
calling for 3,125 cubic meters of selected borrow estimated at P50,000.00 were
prepared by Rasonabe, checked by Bolotaolo,
and approved by the herein petitioner. 
The supporting RSE, No. 29, was cer­tified as to funds availability by Ausa, recommended for approval by Bolotaolo,
and approved by the petitioner and Bagasao, called
for 3,123 cubic meters of anapog binder estimated at P49,980.00.  The corresponding ROA therefor
(under Obligation No. T-401-101-5-58-78), in the sum of P49,980.00, was
requested by Bulac for Bolotaolo
and certi­fied as to availability of funds by Ausa.  The PO therefor in the total amount of P149,940.09 in payment for
9,369 cubic meters of anapog binder, addressed to JV Sand & Gravel
& Construction Supply, was signed by Recamadas in
his capacity as Purchasing Officer, certified as to avail­ability funds by Ausa, and approved by the petitioner.  It also came with two bunches of Delivery
Receipts, signed by Rasonabe, showing certain
deliveries of anapog binder.

The Record of Inspection
covering 6,248 cubic meters of anapog under RSEs Nos. 29
and 30 were certified correct by Cornell and Recamadas.  The Taxpayer’s Certificate and Clearance were
issued in the name of Tiu.

Payment hereof was made
through Check No. SN-4-478812 in the sum of P47,637.75 in favor of JV Sand
& Gravel & Construction Supply signed by the petitioner and countersigned by Lopena.  The balance of P2,342.25 was paid to the City
Treasurer as and for mining fees.^[33]

5) G.R.
No. 52356/Crim. Case No. 199 (GV No. 01-780601)^[34]

GV No. 01-780601 called
for 3,123 cubic meters of anapog binder in the amount of P49,980.00 by way of
partial payment.  The certifications contained
therein were signed by Recamadas, Bolotaolo,
the petitioner, Filipinas Evardo (for Ausa), and de Villa. 
The Program of Work appended thereto called for 3,125 cubic meters of anapog binder
in the sum of P50,000.00.  It was
submitted by Luis Rasonabe, recommended by Bolotaolo, and approved by the petitioner.  The Detailed Estimates specifying 3,125 cubic
meters of selected borrow costing P50,000.00 were prepared by Rasonabe, checked by Bolotaolo,
and approved by the petitioner.  The RSE,
No. 28, on the other hand, specified 3,123 cubic meters of anapog binder
worth P49,980.00, and was certified as to availability of funds by Ausa, recommended for approval by Bolotaolo,
and approved by Castillo and Bagasao.  The ROA, in the sum of P49,980.00 (under
Obligation No. T-401-101-
5-57-78), was requested by Bulac for Bolotaolo and certified as to availability of funds by Ausa.

The Requests for Sealed Quotations were addressed to, among
others, the firm owned by Tiu.  The Abstract of Sealed Quotations showed that
the contract to supply 9,369 cubic meters of anapog
binder was awarded to JV Sand & Gravel & Construction Supply as the
lowest bidder, as cer­tified by Dioscoro Pineda on
behalf of the Tagbilaran CEO.  Recamadas was named
therein as the Purchasing Agent and Eliseo Cornell as
the representative of the Commission on Audit. 
It was likewise signed by Bolotaolo,
Administrative Officer Jorge Visarra, and Assistant
City Engineer Ponciano Mercado in his capacity as member of
the Price Verification Committee.  The
petitioner approved it.  The Request for Inspection
was signed by Recamadas.

The six Delivery Receipts likewise attached thereto showed
deliveries of a total of 1,248 cubic meters of anapog.  They were all signed by Rasonabe.  Two other sets of Delivery Receipts accompanying the GV in question, likewise
signed by Rasonabe, showed further deliveries of anapog binder. 
It carried another Record of Inspection covering 6,248 cubic meters of anapog binder based on RSEs
Nos. 29 and 30, certified correct by
Cornell and Recamadas.  The Taxpayer’s Certificate and Tax Clearance
Certificate attached thereto were issued in favor of Tiu.

It likewise appeared that Check No- SN-4-4788125, in the amount
of P47,637.75, was issued in favor of JV Sand & Gravel & Construction Corporation
in payment of such alleged deliveries. 
It was signed by the petitioner and countersigned by Praxedes
Lopena.  The
balance of P2,342.25 was supposedly paid to answer for mining fees.^[35]

6)
G.R. No. 52357/
Crim. Case No. 200 (GV No. 01-780694)^[36]

GV No. 01-780694, in the sum of P49,980.00 in final payment for
3,125 cubic meters of anapog binder,
contained certifications signed by Recamadas, Bulac, the petitioner,
Evardo (for Ausa), and Lopena.  The
supporting Program of Work called for the use of 3,125 cubic meters of selected
borrow worth P50,000.00.  It was
submitted by Rasonabe, recommended by Bulac for Bolotaolo, and approved
by the petitioner.  The Detailed
Estimates therefor likewise called for 3,125 cubic
meters of selected borrow valued likewise at P50,000.00.  It was prepared and approved like­wise by the
trio of Rasonabe, Bulac,
and the petitioner.  RSE No. 45,
providing for 3,125 cubic meters
of anapog binder priced at P50,000.00, was
certified as to availabi­lity of funds by Evardo (for
Ausa), recommended for approval by Bulac, and approved by the petitioner and Bagasao.  The
Abstract of Sealed Quotations showed that the lowest bidder was JV Sand &
Gravel & Construction Supply.  It was
certi­fied correct by Pineda, as representative of the Tagbilaran
CEO, by Recamadas, as Purchasing Agent, and Cornell,
as representative of the Commission on Audit. 
It was likewise signed by Bulac, Visarra, and Mercado as members of the Price Verification Committee.  It was approved by the petitioner.

The said GV likewise
included three unsigned Delivery Receipts showing alleged deliveries of anapog binder,
in addition to two more sets, signed by Rasonabe.  The Record of Inspection covered an
unspecified amount of materials under RSE No. 55, certified correct by Pilayre and Bulac.

In payment of the GV,
Check No. SN-4-4788142 was issued in
the sum of P47,636.25, payable to JV Sand & Gravel & Construction,
signed by Castillo, and countersigned by Lopena.  The balance of P2,343.75 was paid for mining
fees.^[37]

In due time, however,
certain discrepancies were discovered, particularly with respect to the
procurement of 9,369 cubic meters of anapog
under GVs
Nos. 01-78601, 01-780606, and 01-780641. 
COA Auditor Lopena noted that the invita­tions
to bid were insufficiently publicized; that the Requests for Sealed Quotations
were opened before the lapse of ten days after publication; that the prices
exceeded the canvass earlier made by the City Treasurer; and that the bidders
were not given equal opportunities to take part in the bidding.  For these reasons, Lopena
suggested a re-bidding.  According to the
petitioner, however, the Requests for Sealed Quotations themselves were posted
in conspicuous places and that the question had supposedly become academic, the
contracts having been awarded and the Purchase Orders issued.  Apparently satisfied, Lopena
passed the three GVs on pre-audit.^[38]

A similar question arose
with respect to the requisi­tion of 9,375 cubic meters of anapog binder
covered by GVs Nos. 01-780682,
01-780684, and 01-780694.  Lopena noted that the same did not carry the proper ROAs; that the requisitions
had been split into three RSEs (Nos. 53, 54, and 55); that the amount of funding putatively made available for the first
partial payment thereof had not been properly specified therein; that the said GVs were issued to answer for partial payments when they
were supported by one Inspection Report only and were presented for pre-audit
on the same date.  Assistant City Engineer Ponciano
Mercado, in a first indorsement issued on behalf of the petitioner, was supposed to have dismissed the noted
errors as mere clerical errors, and
that the single Inspection
Report was a consolidation of the various deliveries made on different dates.^[39] Lopena, in any
event, passed the GVs on pre-audit.

Eventually, the matter
reached the Commission on Audit which constituted two teams to mount an
inquiry.^[40]

The investigation
disclosed that the above-mentioned LAAs as well as SACDCs were spurious documents, and that the six GVs were in fact based on only two LAAs,
Nos. 107­780-05-78 and 107-780-014-78. 
It was further established that the total sum requested under the said LAAs – P474,100.00 – supposedly to cover the Tagbilaran CEO’s unliquidated
obligations were not in fact supported by its statement of accounts, under
which its total obligations totalled but
P160,639.55.  Moreover, the payee, JV
Sand & Gravel & Construction Supply, was not listed in the City’s books
as a creditor, for which it could have
been entitled to the sums
released.

The Audit Commission likewise observed certain discrepancies in
the GVs in question, notably, that the Programs of
Work had been “split”; that they were dated after the dates of the RSEs; that while the POs called for 9,369 to 9,375 cubic
meters of anapog binder, the GVs specified but 3,123 to 3,125 cubic meters thereof
apiece; that the Delivery Receipts had been issued “in lump quantities,”^[41] did not bear acknowledgment signatures or
were not initialled by the auditor or dated after the
dates of the pre-audit that the biddings were irregular;^[42] and that anapog
had been short-delivered.^[43]

The Commission on Audit moreover found that the Highways Regional
Office, as of this period, had in fact released “doubtful”^[44]
allotments to ten districts, the Tagbilaran CEO among
them, in the total sum of P24,052,750.00 supposedly to cover unliquidated obligations, although the statements of
account thereof showed a total of only P2,735,181.98 as and for unliquidated obligations.

The very books of the Regional Office appeared further­more to
have been doctored.  For while the total unliquidated obligations totalled
only P2,586,306.78, the entry in the Regional Office’s general ledger was
P35,509,002.99.  And in payment of such
doubtful obligations, the checks issued exceeded the cash disbursement ceiling
by P6,837,971.35.^[45]
Apparently, it was Rolando Mangubat who recorded these entries by way of seven Journal
Vouchers (JVs).^[46]

It likewise turned out
that James Tiu subsequently opened certain savings
accounts at the Allied Bank in favor of Niño Pilayre, Praxedes Lopena, and Miguel Bulac,
although Lopena insists that as far as she was
concerned, she knew nothing about it.^[47]

Amid this background, the
respondent Sandiganbayan rendered the challenged verdict. 
Except for the accused
Jose Sayson and Engracio
Quiroz, whom it acquitted, the­ Sandiganbayan passed
sentence against the petitioner, as well as his thirteen other co-accused, on
the basis of conspiracy.

In these six (6) appeals,
the petitioner submits that:  (1) The
various LAAs were genuine, or that he approved the
same in good faith;^[48] (2) The six Programs of Work supporting the
requests for funds were regular;^[49] (3) The prosecution failed to prove damage
or prejudice within the meaning of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code;^[50] and (4) Conspiracy was not established.^[51]

We affirm the Decision
appealed from.

That LAAs
Nos. 107-780-05-78, 107-0780-07-78, 107-780-012-78, 107-780-014-78, and
107-780-011-78 found by the respondent Sandiganbayan
to have been falsified were indeed, spurious documents, is a finding of fact by
the respondent, Sandibanbayan by which we are bound
as a general rule.^[52] While “this Court has been most
consistent in carefully examining all petitions seeking the review of the
special court’s decisions to ascertain that the fundamental right to be presumed innocent is not
disregarded,”^[53] we are, in these cases, satisfied with the correctness of the following
holding of the Sandiganbayan:

xxx                xxx                   xxx

Starting off with the LAAs (Exhibits T-3
to T-7), it is at once noted that, as convincingly demonstrated by Auditor Quejada, they are honeycombed with glaring discrepancies
which set them apart from others that were regularly issued.  To begin with, cursory scanning of the
unquestionably regular LAAs issued to the Tagbilaran CEO from January 31 to September 6, 1978 (Exhibits UU, UU-1 to UU-28)
reveals that they are all sequentially numbered from No. 107-80-001-78 to No.
107­-80-029-78.  However, the LAAs here in question, which appear to have been issued
within that span of time, bear numbers which are not only different in
composition but also which do not fit into the sequential pattern of the
regular LAAs. 
Thus, the second part of the number in the regular LAAs
is invariably “80”; whereas, in the questioned LAAs,
the number used is either “780” or “0780”.  And, if the third part of the number is
considered, it appears that there are already regular LAAs
which bear the same or substantially the same numbers as those appearing on the
questioned LAAs, thereby exposing the latter as mere
duplications of the former.  In the same
manner, the regular LAAs all bear dates which
chronologically follow the numerical order of the numbers carried by them;
whereas, some of those here questioned are not even dated at all (Exhibits T-4
and T-7), while the rest are dated April 24, 1978.  Again, the regu­lar LAAs
invariably make reference to the SAA from which they are taken; whereas, those
here in question uniformly carry no such reference.  It is true that cases there are when an LAA
may not have emanated from an SAA.  But,
in such instances, the source is
nevertheless indicated.  Thus, in one
case, the source is stated
as:  “Taken from equipment rental
savings ending March 31, 1978” (Exhibit UU-18).  And, although no reference to the
mother SAA appears in another (Exhibit UU-6), a check of the Log­book for LAAs (Exhibit KKK) reveals that the same was taken from
“SAA 107-08 dtd 2-16-78″ (p. 375). 
Furthermore, the regular LAAs are uniformly
signed by Finance Officer Angelina L. Escano as
transmitting officer; whereas, the challenged LAAs
are signed by accused Mangubat, both as Chief
Accountant and as transmitting officer, and counter­signed by accused Bagasao.  Of course,
it is conceded that accused Mangubat is authorized to
sign for Finance Officer Escano in the absence of the
latter.  But, in the cases at bar, there
is absolutely no showing that Finance Officer Escano
was either absent or otherwise not available on the dates the questioned LAAs were issued.  In
fact, at least on April 24, 1978
when three of the LAAs in question were supposedly
issued, Finance Officer Escaño was on duty from 8:00 o’clock, a.m. to 5:00 o’clock, p.m. (Exhibit MMM).  Also revelatory is the fact that, in the regular
LAAs, the Obligation Number against which the
disbursement is to be charged is never stated because it is the District
Accountant who is supposed to determine that upon receipt of the LAA; whereas, in the questioned LAAs, that Obligation Number is already predetermined by accused Mangubat.  To make
matters even worse, the Account Number stated is 81-400, which refers to prior
year’s un­liquidated obligations, while it is indubi­table
that the expenditures to be made therefrom are
actually for current obliga­tions. 
Besides, in the regular LAAs, a breakdown of
the specific purposes for which the amount alloted is
to be spent is invariably made, whereas, the questioned LAAs
do not carry such breakdown. 
Furthermore, while the amounts in
the regular LAAs are not rounded, those in the
questioned ones are always in round numbers. 
Finally, there is the equally patent fact that, while the regular LAAs are recorded in the Logbook for LAAs
(Exhibit KKK), besides bearing the “Released” stamp of the Regional
Accounting Division or the “Re­ceived” stamp of the Tagbilaran CEO, none of the questioned LAAs
appear in said Log­book or carry the “Released” or
“Received” stamp aforesaid. 
Instead, the questioned LAAs are listed in a
Subsidiary Ledger (Exhibit 7-Mangubat) privately maintained by accused Mangubat for his own purposes, as if to accentuate his
claim that the issuance of said LAAs is his private preserve. 
All these led the auditors to conclude that the questioned LAAs here involved are fake – a conclusion which We share.

Indeed, the falsity of the LAAs aforesaid
(Exhibits T-3 to T-7) is confirmed no less than by accused Mangubat
himself.  From his own lips came the
affirmation that said LAAs are not in fact supported
by existing budgetary funding.  He
conceded that he issued them exclusively on the basis of his projections of
expected savings from equip­ment rentals. 
In amplification, he sought to impress upon the Court that the Regional
Office is entitled to a 49% retention out of funds alloted
to it by the Ministry, 42% of
which is supposed to be for equipment rentals; and, that, since a sizable
portion of this retained amount allegedly becomes savings at the end of the
fiscal year, he claims he is authorized to disburse the expected savings by
means of LAAs under Account 81-400 and, thereafter,
make adjustments as soon as the expected savings will be realized.  All these are not only puerile but also serve
to clinch even more the illegality of the procedures resorted to.  To begin with, if any retention is allowed to
be made at all by the Regional Office, that fact is specifically stated in the
corresponding SAA.  Here, no showing had
been made that any of the SAAs received by the Regional Office from the Ministry
of Public Highways provided for such retention. 
Hence, there could be no retention to derive savings from to speak of in
the first place.  Then, as aforesaid,
Account 81-400 refers to prior year’s unliquidated
obligations.  However, the entire Region
VII had only P2,735,181.98 in unliquidated obligations
as of December 31, 1977, and yet, as of June 30, 1978, the total amount of
allotments covered by LAAs under Account 81-400
released to the districts already totalled
P24,052,750.00.  Respecting Tagbilaran CEO in particular, the total amount of LAAs released for prior year’s obligations totalled P474,100.00, whereas, the amount for such item as
of December 31, 1977 stood at only P160,639.55 (Exhi­bits BBB and BBB-1).  In this posture, it is evident that the
release made pursuant to the questioned LAAs under
Account 81-400 are outright falsities. 
Verily, there is no way by which accused Mangubat
could be justified in claiming that
there are saving (sic) expected to be realized out of equipment rental
appropriations at the end of the fiscal year. 
For, the record shows that, as of the end of 1977, there were actually
unpaid equipment rental bills amounting to P11,836,038,61 (Exhibits HHH and HHH-1); and, as of the end of 1978, that total even increased to P13,496,827.46
(Exhibits III and III-1).  Accused Mangu­bat’s claimed projections of expected savings are
thus just figments of his imagination.^[54]

xxx                xxx                   xxx

Notwithstanding this
finding, the petitioner insists that the five LAAs
were genuine documents.  He maintains that “as City Engineer of Tagbilaran City /he/ received the LAA’s from the MPH,
Region No. VII.”^[55] “He has nothing to do,” he
continues, “with the procurement of the LAAs
from the Regional Office (MPH) which
were prepared thereat.”^[56] “No evidence direct or circumstantial has
been established by the prosecution that herein petitioner made representations
with the Regional Office (MPH) for the release of the LAA’s to Tagbilaran City MPH.”^[57]

The point escapes the petitioner.

The five LAAs in question
were in the nature of simula­ted documents, as
evidenced by certain tell-tale indica­tors. 
We recapitulate:  (1) They do not
observe a sequential pattern;^[58] (2) They are not consecutively dated;^[59] (3) They do not refer to the proper SAAs where they were supposed to have been taken; (4) They
were not signed by the proper authority, in this case, Finance Officer Angelina
Escaño, but by the accused Chief Accountant, Rolando Mangubat, albeit there is no showing that at the time they
were issued, Escaño was unavailable;^[60] (5) They contain pre-determined obligation
numbers, which refer to prior years at that, although they were supposed to
have been expenditures for current years,^[61] and (6) They were entered only in Mangubat’s subsidiary ledger rather than the logbook for regular LAAs.^[62] They could not have therefore emanated from
the Regional Office of the Ministry of Public Highways for the plain reason
that the Ministry never issued them.

It is no defense that the said LAAs
carried the genuine signatures of the
Chief Accountant, Rolando Mangubat.  The petitioner is here charged with
falsification (to faci­litate estafa) under Article 171, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code, that is, by:

xxx                xxx                   xxx

2.  Causing it to appear that
persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so
participate;^[63]

xxx                xxx                   xxx

As early as U.S. v.
Corral,^[64] we have held that in this kind of
falsification, the document need not be an authentic official paper.  Its simulation is the essence of the falsification.  The signature appearing thereon need not have
been forged.^[65]

In this case, Mangubat affixed his signature upon the five LAAs notwithstanding the fact that the same were not supported by existing budgetary funding.^[66] As stated earlier, the Ministry of Public
Highways could not have authorized the release of money absent such available
funds.  By signing such LAAs, however, it was made to appear that the request for
funds had that authorization.  This is
falsification under the aforequoted Revised Penal Code provision.

Besides, if the
transactions were truly licit, Mangu­bat could have
easily secured Finance Officer Angelina Escaño’s
concurrence.  But as the records will
disclose, Escaño
knew nothing thereof.  In point of fact, Escaño was by-passed in all these proceedings.  This
alone makes these transactions
suspicious.

The petitioner cannot
plead good faith in approving the five counterfeit LAAs.  While his signature, and nothing more, is not
enough to establish his guilt, yet, there is sufficient evidence on record to
justify the respondent court’s holding. 
We quote:

xxx                xxx                   xxx

It is puerile for the accused to contend that they acted in good
faith in the regu­lar performance of their duties.  For, they were not only fully aware that the
transactions they either supposedly participated in or certified to have taken
place were in fact simulated or irregular but also that the documents they
signed bear unmis­takable hallmarks exposing the untruthful statements of the
facts narrated therein.  Thus, accused Castillo knew that
everything was a mere, put-up job.  It
was he who personally ordered the preparation of Programs of Work which were
deliberately split to such an extent that separate programs had even to be
prepared for each of the two approaches of a single bridge a discrepancy which,
when called to his attention on cross-examination, he nonchalantly dismissed as
a mere “slip of the typewriter” (Tr., 11/12/79, p. 68); it was he who
approved both the Programs of Work and the corresponding RSEs
even if said programs were actually prepared later than said RSEs; it was he who approved Abstracts of Sealed Quotations
and the POs, even if the biddings conducted were defective and his attention
thereto was repeatedly called by accused Lopena; it
was he who ordered accused Rasonabe to belatedly
prepare and sign the several bunches of delivery receipts in
blank while he, like Nero who fiddled while Rome burned, played on the piano
and asked Engineer Bulac to sing with him in order to
provide, as it were, musical background for accused Rasonabe;
it was he who approved the GVs even as he knew all
along that accused Tiu was not entitled to the full
amounts covered thereby; and, it was also he who finally signed the checks by
which said undue payments were made possible.^[67]

Indeed, as City Engineer,
the petitioner has been obliged, as follows:

xxx                xxx                   xxx

(a) He shall have charge of all the surveying and engineering work
of the city; and shall perform such service in connection with public
improvements or any work entered upon or projected by the city on any
department thereof, as may require the skill and experience of a civil
engineer.^[68]

It is a grant of vast
supervisory powers that is furthermore implicit from Presidential Decree No.
549, placing the City Public Works
Supervisor under his jurisdiction.

As such chief of his office, he cannot profess ignorance of these
illicit goings-on by invoking “good faith.” It is a lame excuse and
certainly unacceptable.

As furthermore found by the respondent court, the petitioner had
resorted to the “splitting” of programs of work, specifically with
respect to Totulan-Ubos-Dauis bridge restoration
project, in which the petitioner prepared two Programs of Work for each of the
two approaches of the bridge in the sum not exceeding P50,000.00 apiece.^[69]
According to the trial court, “these manipulations were resorted to
because of an intent to circumvent control measures promulgated by the
Government,”^[70]
that is, to avoid approval from the regional office.^[71]

We agree.

Under Commission on Audit Circular No. 76-41, the splitting of
requisitions, purchase orders, and similar requests for funding or supplies for
one particular work is prohibited.  In
this case, it appears that the peti­tioner submitted two programs of work for
the Totulan-Ubos­-Dauis bridge project when he could have prepared a single Program of
work.  This constitutes
“splitting” under the Circular.

It is of no moment that
the project in question was located in two separate sites, as the petitioner
claims.  The essence of splitting, as the term is defined in the aforementioned Circular, lies in dividing a requisition
order for a singular undertaking whether or not such project will entail work
in various locations.  It is not
required, in fact, that the division be accomplished with malice or deliberate intent.  The same is not a penal measure under the
Revised Penal Code where criminal intent is of the essence.  In fact, it does not even require proof of
loss to the government.^[72] It is sufficient that there has been a
violation.

In any case, whether or
not the petitioner was in good or bad faith in approving the split programs of
work addresses a question of credibility. 
As a general rule, the determination of credible testimony is the domain
of the trial court, not the Supreme Court.^[73]

The fact should be
underscored that the criminal cases under review are not prosecutions for
violation of the Commission on Audit Circular abovesaid.  The Circular, we reiterate, is not a criminal
enactment.  Its violation opens passages
for administrative action, or, as provided in the Circular,
authorizes the Commission to “disallow in audit all disbursements or
payments covering the transactions.”^[74] But it is material in determining the
character of the petitioner’s participation in the conspiracy found by the
respondent court.

And it is only one of
several acts attributed to the petitioner in this case.  In addition, he was found to have:  (1) approved the Programs of Work later than
the issuance of the RSEs;^[75] (2) approved Abstracts of Sealed Quotations
and Purchase Orders supported by defective biddings;^[76] (3) ordered Civil Engineer Luis Rasonabe to pre­pare Delivery Receipts in blank;^[77] (4) approved the six General Vouchers
covering full payment to the contractor, the accused James Tiu, “knowing that the accused Tiu
was not entitled to the full amounts”;^[78] and (5) signed the checks in payment of such
amounts.^[79]

That the petitioner did
approve the six Programs of Work without the proper supporting papers is clear
enough from the evidence on record.  As
summarized by the Solicitor General:

xxx                xxx                   xxx

xxx Witness Yolanda Requirme,
Supervising Civil Engineer I at the Bohol First
Engineering District, Region VII, testified that in the preparation of program
of work for the construction, restoration, reha­bilitation and/or improvement
of national and barangay roads, the step is to fill
up various format called KAMPSAX BERGER format, which consist of individual
project programs like the Work Program Schedule, the Work Item Requirement
Schedule, Budget Cost, Project Equipment Summary, Project Material Summary,
Project Labor Summary and Cash Flow.  When shown Exhibit C-9 which was the program
of work (PW) attached to Voucher No. 780641 involved in Criminal
Case No. 195, she stated that it lacked the follow­ing requirements:

1.  Work Program
Schedule.

2.  Work Item
Requirements Schedule.

3.  Project Equipment Summary.

4.  Project Labor
Summary.

5.  Project Material
Summary.

6.  Cash Flow.

(tsn., October 16, 1979, p. 116).

Exhibit E-4 (PW) attached to Voucher No.
01-7806-82 involved in Criminal Case No. 197
lacked the following:

1.  Work Program
Schedule.

2.  Work Item
Requirements Schedule.

3.  Budget Cost.

4.  Project Labor
Summary.

5.  Project Material
Summary.

6.  Project Equipment
Summary.

7.  Cash Flow.

(ibid, p. 117).

Exhibit D-9 (PW) attached to Voucher No.
01-7806-82 involved in Criminal Case No. 197 lacked the following:

1.  Work Program
Schedule.

2.  Work Item
Requirements Schedule.

3.  Budget Cost.

4.  Project Equipment
Summary.

5.  Project Labor
Summary.

6.  Project Material
Summary.

7.  Cash Flow.

(ibid, p. 118).

Exhibit F-3 (PW) attached to Voucher No.
01-7806-06 involved in Criminal Case No. 198 lacked the following:

1.  Work program
schedule.

2.  Work Item
requirement schedule.

3.  Budget cost.

4.  Project material
summary.

5.  Project labor
summary.

6.  Project equipment
summary.

7.  Cash flow.

(ibid, p. 119).

Exhibit G-7 (PW) attached to Voucher No.
01-7806-01 involved in Criminal Case No. 199 lacked the following:

1.  Work program
schedule.

2.  Work Item
requirement schedule.

3.  Budget Cost.

4.  Project labor summary.

5.  Project material
summary.

6.  Project equipment
summary.

7.  Cash flow.

(ibid, p. 120).

Exhibit H-4 (PW) attached to Voucher No.
01-7806-94 involved in Criminal Case No.
200 lacked the following:

1.  Work Program
Schedule.

2.  Work Item
Requirement Schedule.

3.  Budget Cost.

4.  Project Equipment
Summary

5.  Project Labor
Summary.

6.  Project Material
Summary.

7.  Cash Flow.

(ibid, p. 121).

Witness further testified that the
foregoing exhibits (Exhibits C-9 – H-4) could not be prepared ahead of the
other forms which were lacking, clearly indicating that said programs of work
lacked the appearance of regularity, contrary to petitioner’s claim.^[80]

xxx                xxx                   xxx

The petitioner has not
rebutted all these to our satisfaction.

He insists,
however, that he “did not have a hand in the preparation of the questioned
programs of work as the same were prepared by Engineer Rasonabe
upon recommendation of Engineers Bulac and Bolotaolo.”^[81]

The argument does not
impress us.

The preparation of plans
and other programs relative to public works constructions in the city of Tagbilaran, as we observed, rests chiefly with the City
Engineer.^[82] We cannot, as a consequence, accept the
posture, that the petitioner City Engineer had no part in the preparation of
the Programs of Work in question, especially considering the substantial amount
of funding involved therefor (P474,­100.00).

The petitioner next
claims that he had nothing to do with the issuance of the falsified Abstracts
of Sealed Quotations, POs, Delivery Receipts, GVs,
and checks.  We have rejected his claims
of good faith in connection with the spurious LAAs,
so also do we reject his same pretensions with respect to these additional
documents.

We reiterate that the
petitioner, by virtue of his position, ought to have known the unusual
movements of his subordinates, in this case, his engineers, whom the Sandiganbayan found to have, aptly enough, engineered the
whole operation.  It is indeed
unthinkable that such irregularities would have passed by him unnoticed when he
is in fact called upon to guard against such anomalies pursuant to his broad
supervisory duties.  In turn, his
engineers could not have so easily, and with such daring, consummated such
transactions alone – as the petitioner would have us believe – without his
willing cooperation.

With respect to the
invitations to bid found irregular by the Sandiganbayan,
the petitioner alleges:  “[I]t is
therefore incorrect to state that the only proper way of conducting the
dissemination of bidding is thru publication, for certainly under certain
circumstances posting of notices would also be proper to adopt.”^[83]

The petitioner does not address the fundamental question.  He was
not charged, to begin with, with improper bidding alone.  In Praxedes Lopena’s letter dated May 29, 1978,^[84] it was noted, in addition, that:  (1) The Requests for Sealed Quotations were
opened before the lapse of the days after publication,^[85] and that (2) the quoted prices exceeded the
quotations based on a canvass earlier conducted by the City Treasury.^[86] Confronted with such a letter, the
petitioner was supposed to have casually brushed aside Lopena’s
suggestions (“that any protest is already academic because an award had
since been made and the corresponding purchase order had been issued”).^[87] Appar­ently to us, there was a mad rush to
award the works, and as it turned out, in favor of James Tiu.

It is contended that the
damage resulting from the conversion has not been established, arising from the
failure of the government to issue a statement attesting to any loss as a
result of the misappropriations.

There is no merit in this contention.

As held by the respondent
Sandiganbayan, and as the evidence discloses, the
government suffered short deliveries of anapog
following the misappropriations in
question, and this is more than sufficient evidence to prove loss.  We turn to the Decision under appeal:

xxx                xxx                   xxx

Restituto Castro,
testifying for the People, detailed the volume of deliveries made to various
sections of the roads and bridge approaches covered by the projects here
involved based on his counting of truckloads of anapog
extracted from the Belderol Co and Picmao quarries and brought to the restoration sites.  On the other hand, Assistant Provincial
Engineer Sarmiento also made documented estimates of the volume of anapog
delivered and, significantly enough,
even after reckoning with pertinent factors bearing on the matter – including
the time lapse between the date of spreading and the date of inspection, the
effect of erosion, and a shrinkage factor of 20% and 30% as the case may
be – came up with figures higher than
those arrived at by Castro.  So much so
that, giving the defense the benefit of the doubt, the Court elects to go by
the figures furnished by Engineer Sar­miento as bases
for reckoning the damage caused.  For
this purpose, the amount to be considered as starting point should be the face
value of the respective checks actually paid to accused Tiu,
that is to say, deducting the amount paid to the City Treasurer for Mining
Fees.  And, the value of the anapog delivered
should be taken at the price it was supposed to have been sold to the
Government, that is, P16.00 per cubic meters. 
On this (sic) bases, the
damage may be computed as follows –

xxx                xxx                   xxx

As we noted, such factual
findings are controlling on this court.  While
this is a rule that is subject to exceptions,^[89] the petitioner has not shown why the
exceptions apply.

The respondent Sandiganbayan did not
err in holding that the illegal
transactions in question were accomplished through a conspiracy.  Conspiracy, by its very nature as a
clandestine arrangement, need not, be shown by direct proof, but may be
demonstrated by circumstantial evidence manifesting a joint effort on the part
of the accused to achieve a common criminal end.^[90] In the case at bar, there is ample proof
that the petitioner was a co-conspirator in the scheme to defraud the
government.  As earlier noted, the
petitioner, as City Engineer, is charged with the preparation of all
engineering works pertaining to the city. 
And as found furthermore by the Sandiganbayan,
“it was he who personally ordered the preparation of Programs of
Work,”^[91] notwithstanding his excuse that “he did
not have a hand”^[92] in them. 
It was he who approved the RSEs prior to the
submission of the Programs of Work, contrary to normal procedure.  It was he who approved the Abstracts of
Sealed Quotations notwithstanding the questions raised relative thereto.  It was he, finally, who signed the blank
Delivery Receipts, approved the GVs, and signed the
antedated checks in favor of James Tiu although the
latter was not entitled thereto.  These
are clear badges of conspiracy.

The long and the short of
it is that the petitioner played a major part in the illicit operations, a part
that significantly complemented his co-accused’s
acts.  For this, he is liable as a
co-conspirator.

The petitioner does not
deny the acts now ascribed to him.  To be
sure, he pleads good faith, but this is a defense we reject under the
circumstances.

While the proceeds
appropriated are comparatively minimal by present standards (P240,958.00) that
is not quite the point.  The plunder of
public funds (intended, espe­cially in this case, for a depressed region) has
become symptomatic of the cancer of graft and corruption, particularly in the
sphere of public works, that has gnawed at the very vitals of the nation and
has again and again threatened to devour the republic completely.  It is a national malady that, needless to
state, must be seriously addressed.  This
Court can do no less.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is
AFFIRMED.  The petition is DISMISSED with
costs against the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, C.J., Yap, Fernan, Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras,
Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin,
and Cortes, JJ., concur.

---

^[1]
Rollo, 24-122; Fernandez, J.; Pamaran, P.J. and Escareal, J., Concurring.

^[2]
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 315 (1) (b) in rel. to art. 171
(2).

^[3]
Crim. Case No. 195.

^[4]
Crim. Cases Nos. 196, 197, and 200.

^[5]
Crim. Cases Nos. 198 and 199.

^[6]
Rollo, id., 117-122.

^[7]
Id., 25-26.

^[8]
Id., 6.

^[9]
Id., 29.

^[10]
Id., 29-30.

^[11]
Id., 30.

^[12]
Id., 31.

^[13]
Id., 32.

^[14]
Id., 33.

^[15]
Id., 34.

^[16]
Id.

^[17]
Id., 34-35.

^[18]
Id.

^[19]
Id., 37.

^[20]
Id., 36.

^[21]
Id., 37.

^[22]
Id., 36.

^[23]
Id., 37.

^[24]
Id., 38-52.

^[25]
Id., 38.

^[26]
Id., 27.

^[27]
Id., 43-45.

^[28]
Id., 127.

^[29]
Id., 48-50.

^[30]
Id., 27.

^[31]
Id., 45-48.

^[32]
Id., 27.

^[33]
Id., 49-50.

^[34]
Id., 27.

^[35]
Id., 38-40.

^[36]
Id., 127.

^[37]
Id., 50-53.

^[38]
Id., 52-53.

^[39]
Id., 53-54.

^[40]
Id., 54.

^[41]
Id., 59.

^[42]
Id.

^[43]
Id., 60.

^[44]
Id., 55.

^[45]
Id., 56.

^[46]
Id.

^[47]
Id., 58.

^[48]
Id., 12-13.

^[49]
Id., 13-15.

^[50]
Id., 8-11.

^[51]
Id., 21-22.

^[52]
Cesar v. Sandiganbayan, Nos. L-54719-50, January 17, 1985, 134 SCRA 105
(1985); Pres. Decree No. 1606, sec. 7.

^[53]
Supra, at 121.

^[54]
Id., 78-83.

^[55]
Id., 12.

^[56]
Id.

^[57]
Id.

^[58]
Id., 79.

^[59]
Id.

^[60]
Id., 80.

^[61]
Id., 80-81.

^[62]
Id., 81.

^[63]
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 171(2).

^[64]
15 Phil. 383 (1910).

^[65]
See II R. AQUINO, THE REVISED
PENAL CODE 998 (1976).

^[66]
Rollo, id., 82.

^[67]
Id., 107-109.

^[68]
Rep. Act No. 4660, art. VIII, sec. 39(a) (1966).

^[69]
Rollo, id., 89.

^[70]
Id., 90.

^[71]
See COA Circ. No. 76-41 (1976).

^[72]
Id.

^[73]
People v. Patog, No. L-69620, September 24, 1986, 144 SCRA 429
(1986); People v. Anoncio, Nos. L-66917-18, September 24, 1986, 144 SCRA 384
(1986); People v. Patola, No. L-41265, February 27, 1986, 141 SCRA 401
(1986); People v. Soterol, No. L-53498, 140
SCRA 400 (1985); Guita v. Court of Appeals,
No. L-60409, November 11, 1985,
139 SCRA 576 (1985); People v. Cabanit, Nos.
L-62030-31, October 24, 1985,
139 SCRA 94 (1985); People v. Canamo, No.
L-62043, August 13, 1985,
138 SCRA 141 (1985); People v. Tuscano, Nos.
L-66570-71, June 24, 1985,
137 SCRA 203 (1985); People v. Egas, No. L­-65676,
June 24, 1985, 137 SCRA 188
(1985); People v. Pelias Jones, No. L-61165, June 24, 1985, 137 SCRA 166 (1985);
Chase v. Buencamino, Sr., No. L-20395, May 13, 1985, 136 SCRA 365 (1985);
People v. Millarpe, No. L-69281, February 25, 1985, 134 SCRA 555
(1985).

^[74]
COA Circ. No. 76-41 (1976), id.

^[75]
Rollo, id., 108.

^[76]
Id.

^[77]
Id.

^[78]
Id.

^[79]
Id., 108-109.

^[80]
Id., 158-160.

^[81]
Id., 192.

^[82]
Rep. Act No. 4660, id., art. VIII, sec. 39
(c).

^[83]
Rollo, id., 197.

^[84]
Id., 52.

^[85]
Id.

^[86]
Id.

^[87]
Id., 53.

^[88]
Id., 101-102.

^[89]
See Cesar v. Sandiganbayan, supra.

^[90]
People v. Astor, G.R. Nos. 71765-66, April 29, 1987; People v. Petil,
G.R. No. 70223, March 31, 1987;
People v. Veloso, G.R. Nos. 38551-53, February 27, 1987; People v. Abueg, No. L-54901, November 24, 1986, 145 SCRA 622 (1986); People v. Petenia, No. L-51256, August 12, 1986, 143 SCRA 361 (1986); People v. Nabaluna, No. L-60087, July 7, 1986, 142 SCRA 446 (1986); People v. Ebora, No. L-31013, February
10, 1986, 141 SCRA 282 (1986); People v. Tala,
Nos. L-69153-54; January 30, 1986,
141 SCRA 240 (1986).

^[91]
Rollo, id., 108.

^[92]
Id., see note 81.