JOSE C. BAGASAO, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

This is an appeal from the Decision of the Sandiganbayan^[1]
in six criminal cases thereof, Nos. 195, 196,
197, 198, 199, and 200, finding the petitioner guilty of six counts of estafa through falsification of public and
commercial documents, and sentencing him to suffer six separate jail terms
ranging from six years of prision correccional to ten years, eight months, and one
day of prision mayor.  In
the companion cases hereof, Castillo v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 52352, 52353, 52354, 52355, 52356, and 52357^[2], we upheld the respondent Sandiganbayan.  We
see no reason why we should hold otherwise with respect to this petition.  Accordingly, we likewise dismiss the same.

We adopt, by reference,
the findings of fact in our earlier Decision:

xxx                     xxx                   xxx

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.

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, counter-signed 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.

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.

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.

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, 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.

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.

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.

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.^[3]

xxx                     xxx                   xxx

Subsequently, it was made to appear that the region (VII)
embarked on certain public works projects, as we found in Castillo, supra, through the issuance of the various papers
above-mentioned, thereby enabling the petitioner, among others, to secure the
release of money to fund the said projects.  The respondent Sandiganbayan
found that the aforesaid papers had been falsified to facilitate the release of
funds, albeit the supplies allegedly requisitioned under them were short-delivered, or not delivered at all.

With respect to the petitioner, acting Regional Director of the
Seventh Regional Highways Office, the respondent Court found him guilty of
conspiring in the falsification of eight sets of various documents, to
wit:  (1) Letters of Advice of Allotments
(LAAs); (2) Sub-Advices of Cash Disbursement Ceilings
(SACDs); (3) General Vouchers (GVs);
(4) Requests for Obligation of Allotment (ROAs); (5) Abstracts of Sealed Quotations;
(6) Purchase Orders (POs); (7) Delivery Receipts; and (8) Reports of
Inspection,^[4]
either by signing, or otherwise approving, the same.  Specifically, the respondent Court held:

xxx                     xxx                   xxx

Next in point of inquiry is the determination of the respective
liability of the accused, if any.

To be sure, since the issuance of the fake LAAs
(Exhibits T-2 to T-7) is candidly owned by accused Mangubat,
it goes without saying that he must necessarily be criminally answerable for the established falsification thereof.  The same goes for accused Bagasao
who is likewise a signatory thereto and who also approved all the
falsified RSEs in his capacity as Acting Regional
Director.  No consideration can be
accorded to accused Bagasao’s
insistent claim that his signatures on said LAAs are
not only ministerial but also
dispensable.  At least, he does not deny
that he is as
Acting Regional Director, called upon to countersign said LAAs (Exhibit 3-A-Bagasao). 
Nor is it of any moment that, in an
interpretative indorsement of January 15, 1979, the
then Minister Baltazar Aquino,
Ministry of Public Highways, opined that that countersigning requirement
is not only a matter of purely ministerial duty but also to confirm and
authenticate the genuineness of the signatures of other officials signatory to
the LAA (Exhibit 4-Bagasao).  For, that may be tenable only in default of
any showing that accused Bagasao was privy to the
charged falsification.  In the cases at
bar, however, there is evidence from no less accused Mangubat
himself that accused Bagasao consulted with him
relative to the funding of the fake LAAs.  And, accused Mangubat
informed him of the mechanics of funding adopted by him therefor.  So much so that accused Bagasao
knew that there were actually no existing funds for said LAAs
but that they were merely intended to be funded from expected savings from
equipment rentals hoped to be derived at the
end of the fiscal year.  In that
posture, accused Bagasao was aware of the illegality
of the arrangement because he cannot feign ignorance of the law on the matter. 
Nor can he justifiably claim unawareness of any defect in the RSEs approved by him. 
For, he could not have missed noting that the Programs of Work in
support thereof are dated later, than said RSEs, and
that both said Programs of Work and RSEs were split in violation of applicable
regulations.  Hence, it is clear that
accused Bagasao was a knowing participant in the perpetration of the falsifications of
said fake LAAs and RSEs.^[5]

xxx                     xxx                   xxx

The petitioner now alleges that in so holding, the respondent Sandiganbayan erred:

xxx                     xxx                   xxx

(A)     When it failed to make an interpretation or
conclusion to the effect that the act of petitioner in affixing his signature on the questioned Letters of Advice of Allotment (LAAs) (Exhs. “T-3” and
“T-6”) and the Requisition
for Supplies and Equipment was purely an administrative and ministerial duty
and that the Presumption of regularity of official acts should have been
construed in his favor.

(B)     When it found that conspiracy was attendant
although no conclusive evidence was adduced to prove the same, hence, there was
a misappreciation of the concept of conspiracy.

(C)    When it found that the guilt of the petitioner was proven beyond reasonable
doubt whereas there was a wrong characterization of the offense charged, hence,
it was clear that the essential elements of the crime of estafa
through falsification of public
and commercial documents had never been established the prosecution.

(D)    Presidential
Decree 1606 creating the Sandiganbayan is an ex–post facto law, hence, the Sandiganbayan has no
jurisdiction to try and decide the instant cases.^[6]

xxx                     xxx                   xxx

The petitioner claims, first and foremost, that his signature on
documents pertaining to public works projects is a matter of ministerial duty,
once he is satisfied that the issuance thereof has been approved by the Finance
Officer (Angelina Escaño in this case), or in her
absence, the Chief Accountant (Rolando Mangubat).  With
respect to the LAAs in question, he avers that his
signature thereon was not in fact indispensable, the absence of which will not
invalidate the paper.  He insists that
the same were on their face, in order, and that was all that was allegedly
necessary to justify their confirmation by him. 
He cites, in support of his claims, a First Indorsement
issued by then Minister of Public Highways Baltazar Aquino:

xxx                     xxx                   xxx

xxx the
countersignature of the Regional Director is required on these Letters of
Advice of Allotment, not only as a
matter of purely administrative ministerial
duty but as to confirm and authenticate the genuineness of the signatures of
the aforecited officials.^[7]

It was not his duty, he adds, to verify the correctness of such
documents, and that as a matter of legal obligation, “he place(s)
considerable, if not total, trust and confidence
in subordinate officials of the region,”^[8] upon whom that duty allegedly devolves.^[9]

Significantly, the petitioner does not deny the falsity of the
aforementioned documents that facilitated the unauthorized release of funds to
finance the projects in question.  There is indeed ample evidence that the same,
especially the LAAs, were not entered in the logbook
of the regional office, an important safeguard against fraud, following their
issuance.

The preparation of such papers requires furthermore the intervention of the Finance Officer,
Angelina Escaño in this case, yet, there is no
showing that the documents in question
passed the hands of Escaño, and neither is there any
showing that Escaño was unavailable at that
time.  In fact, Escaño
was by-passed in all such transactions.

Apart from that, it is quite evident from the records that these
documents had indeed been falsified.  The
Solicitor General states and to which we agree:

xxx                     xxx                   xxx

x x x Other
factors indicative of the falsity of the LAAs
according to witness Quejada are as follows:

a)  The regular LAA’s
are usually numbered in sequence and there is a certain series.  Whereas, the doubtful LAA’s are not numbered in sequence.

b)  All the regular LAA’s
are dated.  The doubtful LAA’s are not dated.

c)  The regular LAA has always a reference number
from the sub-allotment advice.  Whereas, the doubtful LAA does not have any reference number.

d)  The regular LAA’s do
not bear the obligation number to be used by the district.  The doubtful LAA bears the obligation number to be used by the district.

e)    The certification as to availability of
funds in the middle portion for the
regular LAA’s are (sic) signed by the chief accountant
and most of these for 1978 were signed for Rolando Mangubat
by Delia Preagido. 
Whereas, the doubtful LAA’s
are all signed by Rolando Mangubat.

f)   For the regular LAA’s,
the transmittal is signed by Angelina Escaño and some
are countersigned by Jose C. Bagasao, with the
exception of two.  But for the
transmittal of the doubtful LAA’s, all are signed by
Rolando Mangubat and counter-signed by Jose C. Bagasao.

g)  Almost all the regular LAA’s
have centavos.  The doubtful LAA’s are mostly rounded figures.^[10]

xxx                     xxx                   xxx

We cannot accept the petitioner’s pleadings of good faith under
these circumstances.  As then acting
Regional Director, the highest official of the Ministry of Public Highways in the entire Region VII, the
petitioner occupied a very responsible position.  As such, his was an indispensable role in the
discharge of the functions of the then Ministry of Public Works regional
office.  And as such, he was necessarily
privy to the office’s businesses — and to any anomalies
therein.  But what impresses us is the
fact that, as found by the respondent Sandiganbayan:

xxx                     xxx                   xxx

x x x [T]here is evidence
from no less than accused Mangubat himself that
accused Bagasao consulted with him relative to the
funding of the fake LAAs.  And, accused Mangubat
informed him of the mechanics of
funding adopted by him therefor.  So much so that accused Bagasao
knew that there were actually no existing funds for said LAAs
but that they were merely intended to be funded from expected savings from
equipment rentals hoped to be derived at the end of the fiscal year.  In that posture, accused Bagasao
was aware of the illegality of the arrangement because he cannot feign
ignorance of the law on the matter.  Nor
can he justifiably claim unawareness of any defect in the RSEs
approved by him.  For, he could not have
missed noting that the Programs of Work in support thereof are dated later than
said RSEs, and that both said Programs of Work and RSEs were split in violation of applicable
regulations.  Hence, it is clear that
accused Bagasao was a knowing participant in
the perpetration of the falsifications of said fake LAAs
and RSEs.^[11]

xxx                     xxx                   xxx

As we said in Castillo, supra, save for certain exceptions, the
findings of fact of the Sandiganbayan are binding on
us.^[12]
Not one exception has been shown here to our satisfaction.

The subsequent inquiry is whether or not conspiracy has been duly
proved.  Conspiracy, as a rule, is a
question involving appreciation of facts, an undertaking that is generally, the realm of the trial court.^[13] But nonetheless, we find adequate evidence
to support the Sandiganbayan’s holding that
conspiracy indeed existed.  We quote:

xxx                     xxx                   xxx

Easily, under all the circumstances obtaining in these cases, the
existence of a conspiracy among and between the accused referred to is as clear
as day.  Of course, it is true that there
may not be any direct showing of any linkage between the accused in the
Regional Office and those in the District Office.  But, this is only more apparent than
real.  Such a contention overlooks the
very essence of conspiracy in that it exists where the acts committed by the
accused, taken collectively, results from concerted and associated action,
although if each circumstance is considered separately, it might not show
confederation, but, where linked together, the circumstances that in themselves
are inconclusive, may, when taken as a whole, show that apparently isolated act
spring from a common object and have in view the promotion of
a common purpose (1 Wharton’s Criminal Evidence, pp. 284-288).  x x x^[14]

But nevertheless, the petitioner argues that he had not been
shown to have in fact misappropriated the proceeds subject matter of the crime charged.

The essence of estafa (through
falsification) eludes the petitioner.

It is the gravamen of this offense that
the accused employ deceit resulting to damage.^[15]
In the case at bar, there is not one
iota of doubt that the written orders for the delivery of anapog had
been in fact simulated — giving
rise to deceit — because no
materials were actually supplied or if there were, they were
short-delivered.  As a result, the
government suffered losses — and hence, damage.  The appealed Decision thus states:

xxx                     xxx                   xxx

This ushers the Court to the determination of the extent of the
damage caused to the Government.  On this
score, the evidence bears looking into 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 meter. 
On this bases, the damage may be computed as
follows –

xxx                     xxx                   xxx

The petitioner’s involvement — pursuant to a conspiracy — in such
acts of deceit that brought about loss to the government amounts to estafa, accomplished
through falsification.

All told, we are convinced that the prosecution has successfully
established beyond reasonable doubt the crimes charged.

The challenge presented by the petitioner against the
constitutionality of Presidential Decree No. 1606, creating the Sandiganbayan, is nothing novel.  That the Decree is not unconstitutional is an issue that has been laid to rest as early as
Nuñez v. Sandiganbayan.^[17] It is a ruling that we had occasion to reiterate in two recent decisions, Gabison v. Sandiganbayan,^[18] and Mangubat v. Sandiganbayan.^[19]

WHEREFORE,
the Petition is DISMISSED and the Decision appealed from is AFFIRMED in toto.  Costs against the petitioner.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

^[1] Rollo, 81-179; Fernandez, J.; Pamaran, P.J. and Escareal,
J., Concurring.

^[2] Castillo v. Sandiganbayan,
G.R. Nos. 52352-57, June 30, 1987.

^[3] Supra, 8-11.

^[4] Rollo, 21.

^[5] Id.,
160-161.

^[6] Id.,
23-24.

^[7] Id., 40.

^[8] Id., 42.

^[9] Id.,
42-43.

^[10] Id.,
222-224.

^[11] Id., 161.

^[12] Castillo v. Sandiganbayan,
supra, at 41; see also Cesar v. Sandiganbayan,
Nos. L-54719-50, January 17, 1985, 134 SCRA 105 (1985).

^[13] Supra.

^[14] Rollo, id., 169-170.

^[15] Tuzon v. Cruz, No. L-27410, August 28, 1975, 66 SCRA 235, 239 (1975).

^[16] Rollo, id., 158-159.

^[17] Nos. L-50581-50617, January 30, 1982, 111 SCRA 433 (1982).

^[18] G.R. Nos. 53001-56, June 18,
1987.

^[19] Nos. L-52872-52997, January 30, 1987, 147 SCRA 478 (1987).