ENRICO PEREZ Y DE LA MERCED, PETITIONER, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

For resolution is petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration of the
Decision of this Court of April 15, 1988.

Petitioner-movant Enrico
Perez y de la Merced, together with several others, (4 in Criminal Case No.
8286 and 8 in Criminal Case No. 8287) was charged with and prosecuted before
the Sandiganbayan in two (2) criminal cases:  (1) for Estafa thru
Falsification of Public Documents under Criminal Case No. 8286; and (2) for
Violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft Law (RA 3019) under Criminal Case
No. 8287.  He was acquitted in Criminal
Case No. 8286 but was convicted in Criminal Case No. 8287 and accordingly
sentenced to three (3) years and one (1) day of prision
correccional as minimum to six (6) years and
one (1) day of prision mayor as
maximum, to indemnify, jointly and severally with the other convicted
co-accused of his (supplier Leticia Baltazar, PNR
Officials/employees Arlie Cruz, Cipriano Dizon, Anacleto Bernabe, Lorenzo Culang, Marcos Espejo and Sotero Escandor) the Philippine National Railways in the amount of
P43,376.00 and to pay proportionate costs. 
On appeal, the Court affirmed the conviction of Leticia Baltazar, Arlie Cruz and herein accused-movant
Enrico Perez but acquitted, on ground of reasonable
doubt, Cipriano Dizon, Anacleto Bernabe, Lorenzo Culang, Marcos Espejo and Sotero Escandor.

In the judgment of affirmance, the
Court ruled:

“The evidence on record shows, that such a conspiracy existed,
considering that the anomalous or irregular award, and short or under delivery
of the requisitioned items in question could not have been made possible
without the connivance of the supplier and the PNR officials/employees involved
in the transaction.

x x
x              x
x x                 x x x

“But were all the petitioners part of the conspiracy so as to,
make them liable for the crime charged?

x x
x              x
x x                 x x x

“So with petitioners Arlie Cruz and Enrico
Perez, officers of the Receiving and Shipping Section of the PNR Caloocan Branch and the COA Technical Property Inspector,
respectively.  As such, they were charged
with the duty to see to it that the delivery made by the supplier conformed to
the Purchase Order and Sales Invoice. 
Yet they allowed the irregularities to be committed by signing the said
forms.  In fact, petitioner Perez even
made it appear in the Inspection Report he prepared that welding rods worth P43,776.00 had been delivered. 
And it was on the basis of the foregoing, that Disbursement Voucher No.
05102 was prepared allowing Baltazar to collect and
receive from the PNR the amount of P43,776.00 when
what was actually delivered were only 100 pieces of welding rods worth P100.00.”
(pp. 221, 222-223, Rollo)

Enrico Perez came back with a motion
for reconsideration.  He contends that
the foregoing findings and conclusions are without any factual and/or legal
basis because there is no competent evidence to prove the existence of
conspiracy and assuming arguendo that there was, petitioner-movant was never a
part but in fact only a victim of that conspiracy.  In support thereof, movant
argues that the Sandiganbayan stated that the
individual acts of the accused constituted vital links in the conspirational chain leading to the consummation of the
transaction; that there were several acts and omissions which made possible the
irregular processing, pre-audit and payment of the transaction and that without
one or some of the accused having contributed their specific participation in
the onward progress of the documents evidencing and supporting the transaction,
the crime alleged to have been committed could not have prospered or been
consummated (Decision p. 104, Rollo).  But the persons who, granting there was
conspiracy, may have been involved – Santos, who prepared the Purchase request
which was deemed to be the cause of the irregular purchase; Prospero Guevarra, Chief of the Bidding and Canvassing Section who
prepared the Price Quotation and Virgilio Tortuna, Chief of the Procurement Division who
counterchecked the entries therein were not even charged and/or included among
the accused, so with Cunanan, the main storekeeper at
PNR Caloocan. 
Then also Cipriano Dizon,
the Processing Agent in charge of the processing of the purchase request and
who had material part leading to the purchase of the subject welding rods, was
acquitted.  The other accused, Bernabe, Culang, Espejo and Escandor, the COA/PNR
auditors who were responsible for the pre-audit examination of the Disbursement
Voucher in question were also acquitted. 
The vital links in the “conspiratorial chain” were either not
prosecuted or were found to be guiltless. 
Thus, movant concludes, there being no
conspirators and no concerted acts which show community of purpose, a fortiori,
there is no conspiracy.

We have once again reviewed the evidence on record and We find movant’s arguments
well-taken.  We are, therefore,
constrained to reconsider our previous judgment of conviction finding movant guilty by means of conspiracy.

Movant’s criminal liability appeared
confined and/or merely limited to the preparation of the Inspection Report
where it was allegedly made to appear that welding rods worth P43,776.00 had been delivered on the basis of which
Disbursement Voucher No. 05102 was prepared thus allowing the supplier to
collect the aforesaid amount.  The record
however shows that there is no available competent and admissible evidence,
documentary or testimonial that proves that movant
did not receive the “360 kilograms of welding rods worth P43,776.00” at the receiving office of PNR Caloocan.  On the contrary, it has been established by
the defense that the 360 kilograms of welding rods contained in 100 tubes at
3.6 kilograms each were inspected by movant upon
their receipt by the receiving clerk, Cruz, in Caloocan.  All were found to be in order as specified in
the purchase order.  Cruz’s testimony on
the point is as follows:

“A  – (Perez and I) went out and
looked.  We went to the tamaraw, took a tube brought it inside and verified it and
we found out that the tube weighed 3.7 kgs., Your
Honor.

x x
x              x
x x                 x x x

“Q – … what did you do next?

“A  – We went out
bringing with us the tube and . . . we allowed the driver to carry it and had
(them) counted one by one.

“Q
– Who made the counting of that OK Esab welding rods?

“A  – The two of us, the TPI Enrico Perez and I.” (TSN, p. 21, August 15, 1985)

Based on the inspection thus conducted, movant
prepares the Inspection Report which merely attests that he inspected the
delivery of welding rods at PNR Caloocan and that the
items inspected were those written therein. 
The inspection report did not attempt to show that Santos,
whose office was in Tutuban, Paco,
Manila, received the items
described therein.  Whatever happened to
the welding rode from Caloocan
to Manila (where Santos
allegedly received only 100 pieces) is no longer the concern of movant nor may he be made accountable therefor.  The single circumstance of preparing the
Inspection report which, as the evidence on record shows, was regular in itself, is insufficient for conviction in a conspiracy.  Assuming that the amount or number of welding
rods were bloated or forged such that the same were more than the actual
numbers needed, this was not the fault of movant who
had no participation in their requisition and purchase, he being merely the COA
– Technical Property Inspector whose only function in this transaction is to
audit in the form of actual physical inspection the deliveries to the PNR
Stores Department at Caloocan.  The responsibility, if any, rests upon the
officials/employees of the PNR, who were either not prosecuted or who were
acquitted.  As the required proof beyond
reasonable doubt has not been surmounted by the evidence on hand to prove the
existence of conspiracy and movant’s participation
therein, the Court will not hesitate to reconsider its previous decision.  It is settled that the same degree of proof
required for establishing the crime is required to support a finding of
conspiracy.  In other words, it must be
shown to exist as clearly and convincingly as the commission of the offense
itself inorder to uphold the fundamental principle
that no one shall be found guilty of crime except upon proof beyond reasonable
doubt.

“The defendant in a criminal case must always be presumed
innocent until the contrary is proven, and in case of reasonable doubt and when
his liability shall not have been satisfactorily shown he shall have the right
to be acquitted, even though his innocence be doubted (U.S. v. Gutierrez, 4
Phil. 493 cited in People v. Sadie, 149 SCRA 240, 244).

WHEREFORE, finding the motion for reconsideration filed by
petitioner Enrico Perez y de la Merced to be well
taken, the same is hereby granted and he is hereby ordered ACQUITTED.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., Narvasa,
Cruz, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Cortes, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Melencio-Herrera, J., on leave.

Gutierrez, Jr., J., on official leave.