RENATO A. VALDEZ, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, AND THE SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION), RESPONDENTS.

In this petition for review,
petitioner vigorously argues for his acquittal and prays for the reversal of
the Sandiganbayan’s judgment in Crim.
Case Nos. 6681-6684, which found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of estafa through falsification of public documents.*

The dispositive portion of the assailed
decision reads:

*        *           *

In Criminal Cases Nos. 6681, 6682, 6683 and 6684, We find and declare Genaro T. Basilio, Pio
B. Ulat, Renato M. Valdez,
Agustin V. Talino and Alejandro C. Macadangdang, GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt, as principals for four separate crimes
of Estafa Through Falsification of Public
Documents.  Because neither aggravating nor extenuating
circumstances have been alleged or proved, but applying Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code as well as the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, each one of the above named accused is
sentenced to suffer in each of the four cases, an indeterminate penalty ranging
from Four (4) Years, Two (2) Months and One (1) Day of prision
correccional as minimum, to Ten (10) Years and One (1) Day of prision
mayor as maximum; pay a fine of P5,000.00; solidarily
indemnify the Republic of the Philippines the sum of P7,600.00, P4,723.00, P7,500.00 and P6,700.00 – in Criminal Cases Nos. 6681, 6682, 6683 and 6684, respectively; pay the costs in each case.

The evidence reveals that other officials and employees of the
postal region may have been involved in
the swindle.  For this reason, the Tanodbayan is directed
to investigate the case further
particularly the participation of the disbursing officer, to whom the proceeds
were delivered by Ulat.

SO ORDERED.

[Decision, pp. 45-46; Rollo, pp. 51-52; Underscoring
supplied.]

Petitioner moved for
reconsideration of the adverse judgment, but the Sandiganbayan,
in a resolution promulgated on July 16, 1986 denied
his motion and those filed by the other accused.  Hence, the instant
petition.

In support of his case, petitioner attributes the following errors to the Sandiganbayan:

1.  THE SANDIGANBAYAN ERRED
IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONER-ACCUSED RENATO A. VALDEZ IS GUILTY OF FALSIFICATION BECAUSE OF HIS REPORTS, EXHIBITS D-9,
E-7, F-7 AND G-9 SUPPORTING VOUCHERS D, E, F AND G WHEN HE CERTIFIED THAT UPON
INSPECTION OF THE VEHICLES THE ARTICLES CONFORMED AS TO QUALITY, QUANTITY AND
PRICE.

2.  THE SANDIGANBAYAN
LIKEWISE ERRED IN FAULTING THE PETITIONER-ACCUSED FOR LIMITING HIS AUDIT TO
STARTING AND/OR RUNNING THE ENGINE OF THE VEHICLES REPORTEDLY REPAIRED AND
OVERHAULED.

3.  THE SANDIGANBAYAN ERRED
IN HOLDING HIM GUILTY OF CONSPIRACY WITH THE OTHER ACCUSED.  [Rollo, pp. 3-4.]

The facts, as they
relate to petitioner Renato Valdez, are as follows:

Petitioner, as auditing examiner in the Office of the Provincial
Auditor of San Fernando, La Union (TSN, January 14, 1985, p. 7; TSN, July 12, 1983, p. 11;
Decision, p. 4), prepared and signed a “Report or Inspection” dated May 23, 1980 (TSN, July 13, 1983, p. 11; Exhibits D-9,
D-9-b; Decision, Sandiganbayan, pp. 6, 8).  He certified as having been conducted repairs
on 4 Bureau of Posts vehicles – Toyota Jeep JA-10, Isuzu Truck JT-155, Ford Fiera FF-45, and Isuzu Truck DF-320 (Exhibit D-9; Decision,
Commission on Audit, Adm. Case No. 81-555, p. 1) – without having ascertained
both the pre- and post-repair/overhaul condition of either the vehicles or their supposedly defective
parts (TSN, January 14, 1985,
pp. 8-13).  No repairs were actually made
on these vehicles (Decision, Sandiganbayan, pp. 11,
30; TSN, October 25, 1983, pp. 21-24).

On the strength of that inspection report, 7 individual vouchers, the first 3 of which were later on
cancelled, were drawn and treasury warrants were paid on them (see Exhibits
“A,” “B,” “C,” “D,” “D-11,” “E,” “E-9,” “F,” “F-9,” “G,” and
“G-11”; Decision, Sandiganbayan, pp.
5-9).  Ulat,
the Motorpool Dispatcher, received those warrants (see
Exhibits “H,”
“H-1,” and “H-1-a”; Decision, Sandiganbayan,
p. 10).  These were turned over to Flora Hufano of the Finance Section to redeem certain cash
advances (Decision, Sandiganbayan, p. 21; TSN, August
8, 1984, p. 40).  [Solicitor General’s
Comment, pp. 3-4; Rollo, pp. 91-92.]

In his brief, petitioner
reiterated and amplified the assignment of errors in his petition and prayed
for his acquittal.  The Solicitor General
did not file a brief and instead adopted his comment as his brief.  The issues having been joined, the Court
considered the case submitted for decision.

The issues may be
narrowed down to:  (1) whether or not
petitioner conspired with the other accused; and (2) whether or not he is
guilty of the crime charged.

The issues shall be
discussed and resolved seriatim.

1.  The Sandiganbayan,
in holding petitioner criminally liable, said:

*           *           *

3.  The
accused Renato M. Valdez’ participation in these
transactions were his inspections of the vehicles supposedly repaired.  His inspection reports (Exhs.
D-9, E-7, F-7, and G-9) were submitted
as supporting documents to the four vouchers (Exhs. D, E, F and G).  In everyone of these reports, he certified that he had
inspected, on May 23, 1980, the four vehicles (Toyota Jeep J-10; Mail
Truck Isuzu DF-320; Mail Truck FF-45; and Mail Truck Toyota VT-155).  He further certified that upon his
inspection, the articles delivered conformed to specifications as to quality,
quantity and prices.

As adverted to above, the evidence established the fact that no
major repairs, such as general overhauling of engine, transmission or brakes or
general body repairs, were made on these vehicles.  The accused’s
certifications, therefore, had no basis in fact.  They were clear falsifications.

Testifying in his own behalf, Valdez
admitted that he hardly knew anything about what he was inspecting.  He limited the latter to seeing whether the
vehicle’s engine was running or not.  He
merely required the mechanic to start the motors and he saw to it that the
papers were complete.  He did not require
the presentation of the parts that were replaced nor ask to see any new parts
introduced.

In the first place, if he had no knowledge about evaluating repairs
of motor vehicles, he should have asked the Auditor to replace him with one who
knew something about the subject.  His
duty was to see to it that the services and materials delivered were of the
quantity and quality as described in the RIV. 
How could he protect the government’s interest if he did not know the
difference between overhauling an engine and replacing a flat?

*        *           *

[Decision, pp. 39-40; Rollo,
pp. 45-46.]

Article 8 of the Revised
Penal Code provides that there is
a conspiracy “when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning
the commission of a felony and
decide to commit it.” Well-settled is the rule that when there is a conspiracy, the act of one is considered
the act of all the conspirators, and a conspirator may be held liable as a principal even if he did
not participate in the actual commission
of every act constituting the offense [People v. Paredes,
G.R. No. L-19149, August 16,
1968, 24 SCRA 635; People v. Serante, G.R. No. L-46724, July 31, 1987, 152 SCRA 510; Antonio v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 57937, October 21, 1988.] The Court, however, notes
that nowhere is it stated in
the appealed decision how the Sandiganbayan came to the conclusion that petitioner
conspired with the other accused to defraud the government.  Apparently, there was no evidence presented
to establish petitioner’s participation in the conspiracy.

Conspiracy must be shown
to exist, by direct or circumstantial evidence, as clearly and convincingly as
the commission of the crime itself [People v. Vicente, G.R. No.
L-26241, May 21,
1969, 28 SCRA 247; People v. Trinidad, G.R. No. L-38930, June 28, 1988.] In the same vein, so must an accused’s alleged participation in the conspiracy be so proved.  In the
instant case, such participation had not been established.

The Solicitor General’s
observation on the dearth of evidence to establish that petitioner is a
conspirator is apropos:

Petitioner states that he is not a co-conspirator.

Carefully assessing the evidence, we are not prepared to
disagree.  For while there is ample proof
establishing a conspiracy among Ulat, Macadangdang, Basilio, and Talino, there is dearth
of evidence pointing to petitioner’s
part in that conspiracy.  And even if his negligent acts jive (sic) with those men’s fraudulent design, such acts do not
necessarily manifest concurrence of purpose.

It is to be noted that
while the aforementioned four are all postal officials working closely
together, petitioner is not.  Closeness
of personal association can be easily
discerned from the former but
not from the latter.

Too, the purpose of the felonious scheme – to cover certain cash
advances – is office-related.  Four
officemates, familiar with their office’s procedures, each played a role in
achieving that purpose.  This is concert
of design undisguised.

On the other hand, petitioner, in not having exerted such effort as
is required of his office to ascertain the necessity and propriety of the
repairs in question, unwittingly paved the way towards the success of that
criminal design.  His fault then lies in the positively inexcusable laxity
he had exhibited in the performance of his official duties.  One cannot therefore be blamed if
petitioner’s actuations were to be treated as a detail of the unscrupulous
scheme of Ulat’s group.

But this will not justify an a priori conclusion that
petitioner’s negligent acts indicate participation in a common agreement
between Ulat and the rest.  As mentioned earlier, there is scant proof of
conspiracy vis-a-vis petitioner as against the clear
and convincing evidence of the closeness
of personal association between and among the latter.  [Comment, pp. 5-6; Rollo,
pp. 93-94.]

It cannot be denied that
petitioner had been remiss in his duties as auditing examiner, as in fact he
had been suspended by the Commission on Audit after having been found guilty of
neglect of duty and violation of auditing rules and regulations in Adm. Case
No. 81-555 [Annex “C”, Petition; Rollo, pp. 65-69], but
certainly, the concurrence of his negligence with the defalcation perpetrated
by his co-accused does not suffice to make him a conspirator.

2.  In view of the failure
of the prosecution to establish that petitioner had conspired with his
co-accused, he cannot be convicted as principal, together with his co-accused,
for the crime of estafa through falsification of
public document.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition
is GRANTED.  The decision of the Sandiganbayan in Crim. Case Nos. 6681-6684 is MODIFIED in that
petitioner Renato A. Valdez is ACQUITTED in the four (4) cases for estafa through falsification of public documents.

SO ORDERED.

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

Grino-Aquino, J., joins J. Sarmiento in his dissenting opinion.

* In Crim. Case Nos. 6678-6680 for “Attempted Estafa Through Falsification of Public Documents,”
which were tried and decided jointly with Crim. Case Nos.
6681-84, the accused (petitioner, Basilio and Ulat) were acquitted.