CONTACT: |
Supreme Court of the Philippines Library Services, Padre Faura, Ermita, Manila, Philippines 1000 |
(632) 8524-2706 |
libraryservices.sc@judiciary.gov.ph |
853 Phil. 407
THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. Nos. 237106-07, June 10, 2019 ]
FLORENDO B. ARIAS, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
PERALTA, J.:
This is to resolve the Petition[1] for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, dated March 15, 2018, of petitioner Florendo B. Arias assailing the Sandiganbayan's Decision[2] promulgated on November 10, 2016, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa Thru Falsification of Official/Commercial Documents in Criminal Case No. 28100, and for Violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019, as amended, in Criminal Case No. 28253, and its Resolution[3] issued on January 15, 2018, denying his Motion for Reconsideration.
Culled from documentary and testimonial evidence, the antecedents of this case are summarized by the Sandiganbayan, as follows:
In its Resolution[12] dated January 15, 2018, the Sandiganbayan denied the motions for reconsideration filed by some of the accused, including that of the petitioner. The court stood by its earlier findings that the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the petitioner and his other co-accused. The dispositive portion of the said Resolution reads as follows:
Petitioner raised the following issues for our consideration:
All the elements of the crime of Estafa through Falsification of Official/Commercial Documents were established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
Article 315, paragraph 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) reads, as follows:
Thus, as aptly ruled by the Sandiganbayan, all the elements of the crime of Estafa through Falsification of Official/Commercial Documents are present because the petitioner and his co-accused utilized false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means to make it appear that the DPWH service vehicles underwent emergency repairs or required the purchase of spare parts, and that reimbursements are due to petitioner by using falsified documents. Through those falsified documents, petitioner and his co-accused employed fraudulent means in order to defraud the government in paying the claims for the fictitious emergency repairs/purchases of spare parts. Therefore, the government suffered undue injury or damages in the amount of P5,166,539.00 through such fraudulent act.
As held by the Sandiganbayan:
Petitioner further seeks a review of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses for allegedly being "self-serving" and "perjured."
Findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are generally accorded great respect by an appellate court. Well-settled is the rule that findings of facts and assessment of credibility of witnesses are matters best left to the trial court because of its unique position of having observed that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witnesses' deportment on the stand while testifying, which opportunity is denied to the appellate courts. For this reason, the trial court's findings are accorded finality, unless there appears in the record some fact or circumstance of weight which the lower court may have overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated and which, if properly considered, would alter the results of the case.[30]
At any rate, the records of this case show no reversible error to warrant a reversal of the assailed decision. It appears that petitioner did not impugn his signatures appearing in the Disbursement Vouchers, Reports of Waste Materials, Requisitions for Supplies and/or Equipment and Certificates of Emergency Purchase. Furthermore, the repeated issuance and execution of these documents belies petitioner's claim that his participation was not necessary and that his function in signing documents is merely ministerial; on the contrary, these documents were necessary for the claims for payment of emergency repairs of DPWH service vehicles and/or purchases of spare parts which were found to be fictitious. Thus, petitioner's signatures on these documents were a clear manifestation of his assent and participation or complicity to the illegal transactions, and his assertion of lack of participation is without merit.
With regard to petitioner's contention as to the Best Evidence Rule, or, more specifically, to the Sandiganbayan's admission on the prosecution's exhibits despite the non-presentation of the original documents, such is misplaced. Instructive on this point is the case of Citibank, N.A. v. Sabeniano,[31] wherein this Court stated that:
As to petitioner's guilt for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, such has been established beyond reasonable doubt.
Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 reads, as follows:
Petitioner acted with evident bad faith when he affixed his signature to the falsified documents in order to induce the government to pay the claim for fictitious emergency repairs and purchases of spare parts of certain vehicles. Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence; it imputes a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong; a breach of sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill will; it partakes of the nature of fraud.[35]
In view, however, of R.A. No. 10951 (An Act Adjusting the Amount or the Value of Property and Damage on which a Penalty is Based, and the Fines Imposed under the Revised Penal Code, amending for the Purpose Act No. 3815, otherwise known as "The Revised Penal Code"), a modification must be made as to the penalty imposed by the Sandiganbayan. Section 85 of the said law provides the following:
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari dated March 15, 2018 of petitioner Florendo B. Arias is DENIED for lack of merit. Consequently, the Decision of the Sandiganbayan dated November 10, 2016, in the consolidated Criminal Case No. 28100 and Criminal Case No. 28253, and its Resolution dated January 15, 2018 are AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that in Criminal Case No. 28100 for Estafa through Falsification of Official/Commercial Documents, petitioner is sentenced to suffer imprisonment of from four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional medium, as minimum, to eight (8) years of prision mayor minimum, as maximum.
SO ORDERED.
Leonen, A. Reyes, Jr., Hernando, and Inting, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 18-43.
[2] Id. at 73-133. Penned by Associate Justice Oscar C. Herrera, Jr., and concurred in by Associate Justices Jose R. Hernandez and Alex L. Quiroz.
[3] Id. at 44-50.
[4] Id. at 96-109.
[5] Id. at 77.
[6] Id. at 75.
[7] Id. at 77.
[8] Id. at 76.
[9] Supra note 2.
[10] Id. at 131-132.
[11] Rollo, pp. 51-65.
[12] Supra note 3.
[13] Id. at 49.
[14] Rollo, p. 23.
[15] Id. at 71.
[16] Id. at 67-72.
[17] Id. at 123-126.
[18] 712 Phil. 310 (2013).
[19] Id. at 334.
[20] 618 Phil. 499 (2009).
[21] Id. at 517-518.
[22] Rules of Court, Rule 132, Section 19.
[23] Patula v. People, 685 Phil. 376, 397 (2012).
[24] Intestate Estate of Manolita Gonzales Vda. De Carungcong v. People, et al., 626 Phil. 177, 206 (2010).
[25] Id.
[26] Id.
[27] Id.
[28] Id. at 208.
[29] Id.
[30] People v. Suarez, 496 Phil. 231, 242-243 (2005).
[31] 535 Phil. 384 (2006).
[32] Id. at 457-458.
[33] Rollo, pp. 219-254.
[34] Sison v. People, 628 Phil. 573, 583 (2010).
[35] Fonacier v. Sandiganbayan, 308 Phil. 661, 693 (1994).
Culled from documentary and testimonial evidence, the antecedents of this case are summarized by the Sandiganbayan, as follows:
During the period March to December 2001, or sometime subsequent thereto, reimbursements were claimed and paid by DPWH in an amount totaling millions of pesos covering 409 transactions purportedly for the emergency repairs of 39 DPWH service vehicles. Of the 409 transactions, 274 transactions were made in the name of accused Martinez for which the total sum of P5,166,539.00, not P6,368,364.00, were claimed and paid as reimbursements. The spare parts were purportedly supplied by J-CAP Motorshop, owned by accused Capuz, and DEB Repair Shop and Parts Supply owned by accused Dela Cruz. The transactions are covered by Disbursement Vouchers with supporting documents to justify the release of checks, pertinent details of which are as follows:On May 16, 2005,[5] petitioner, together with his co-accused, was arraigned in Criminal Case No. 28100 in an Information that reads, as follows:
1) Mitsubishi L-200 with Plate No. TSC 482 purportedly underwent 44 emergency repairs and reimbursements for 2 of them were in the name of accused Martinez, to wit:
DISBURSEMENT
VOUCHER NO. PAYEE CHECK SUPPLIER NO. DATE AMOUNT 1 101-01-04-05261 Borje, M. 359433 4/10/01 22,170.00 DEB 2 101-01-04-01690 Borje, M. 359879 4/23/01 24,350.00 DEB 3 101-01-03-01687 Borje, M. 360306 5/2/01 20,200.00 DEB 4 101-01-03-01692 Borje, M. 360307 5/2/01 24,660.00 DEB 5 101-01-03-01688 Borje, M. 360323 5/2/01 24,990.00 DEB 6 101-01-06-10012 Borje, M. 380120 6/7/01 10,675.00 DEB 7 101-01-06-10397 Borje, M. 381059 6/28/01 8,580.00 DEB 8 101-01-06-10400 Borje, M. 381306 7/4/01 19,200.00 DEB 9 101-01-06-11050 Borje, M. 381326 7/4/01 22,580.00 DEB 10 101-01-07-12059 Borje, M. 381664 7/10/01 11,080.00 DEB 11 101-01-07-13313 Borje, M. 382465 7/25/01 6,560.00 DEB 12 101-01-07-13307 Borje, M. 382469 7/25/01 10,930.00 DEB 13 101-01-08-14639 Borje, M 383426 8/14/01 3,750.00 DEB 14 101-01-08-15040 Borje, M. 383732 8/20/01 5,000.00 DEB 15 101-01-09-16371 Borje, M. 384492 9/4/01 7,060.00 DEB 16 101-01-11-22707 Valdez, C. 385615 12/3/01 24,450.00 GK & J 17 101-01-12-25096 Borje, M. 390386 12/21/01 8,160.00 DEB 18 102-01-02-01206 Borje, M. 1265854 2/26/01 24,556.00 DEB 19 102-01-02-12137 Borje, M[.] 1265847 2/28/01 22,050.00 DEB 20 102-01-01-00632 Borje, M. 1200464 2/15/01 23,120.00 DEB 21 102-01-01-00631 Borje, M. 1200468 2/15/01 21,900.00 DEB 22 102-01-02-12126 Borje, M. 1266081 3/12/01 24,640.00 DEB 23 102-01-02-12128 Borje, M. 1266083 3/12/01 19,800.00 DEB 24 102-01-02-12113 Borje, M. 1266086 3/12/01 13,800.00 DEB 25 102 01-02-121-- Borje, M. 1266093 3/12/01 24,900.00 DEB 26 102-01-03-01681 Borje, M. 1266218 3/20/01 20,450.00 DEB 27 102-01-03-02010 MARTINEZ, J. 1266301 3/23/01 10,900.00 DEB 28 102-01-03-02014 MARTINEZ, J. 1266304 3/23/01 16,580.00 DEB 29 102-01-07-05562 Borje, M. 1358964 7/17/01 9,100.00 DEB 30 102-01-08-08145 Borje, M. 1474242 9/10/01 18,190.00 DEB 31 102-01-09-08960 Borje, M. 1474974 9/26/01 22,400.00 DEB 32 102-01-09-08961 Borje, M. 1474991 9/26/01 19,600.00 DEB 33 102-01-09-09718 Borje, M. 1475050 9/28/01 1,500.00 DEB 34 102-01-09-09719 Borje, M. 1475058 9/28/01 6,540.00 DEB 35 102-01-10-10760 Borje, M. 1585982 10/23/01 5,680.00 DEB 36 102-01-11-11926 Valdez, C. 1586876 11/9/01 25,000.00 GK & J 37 102-01-11-12011 Valdez, C. 1587204 11/22/01 24,760.00 GK & J 38 102-01-11-12018 Valdez, C. 1587223 11/22/01 24,350.00 GK & J 39 102-01-12-13538 Valdez, C. 1587844 12/7/01 23,950.00 GK & J 40 102-01-12-13966 Valdez, C. 288164 12/20/01 24,400.00 GK & J 41 102-01-12-13969 Valdez, C. 288165 12/20/01 24,990.00 GK & J 42 102-01-12-14542 Valdez, C. 288307 12/21/01 24,500.00 GK & J 43 102-01-12---- Valdez, C. 288320 12/21/01 25,000.00 GK & J 44 102-01-12-13666 Borje, M. 288519 12/21/01 10,520.00 DEB TOTAL 768,561.00
2) Nissan Pathfinder with Plate No. PND-918 purportedly underwent 27 emergency repairs and reimbursements for 21 of them were in the name of accused Martinez, to wit:
DISBURSEMENT
VOUCHER NO. PAYEE CHECK SUPPLIER NO. DATE AMOUNT 1 101-01-11-21783 Umali, N 385035 11/22/01 24,340.00 J-Cap 2 101-01-11-21790 Umali, N. 385039 11/22/01 25,000.00 J-Cap 3 101-01-11-21786 Umali, N. 385064 11/22/01 24,850.00 J-Cap 4 101-01-12-25448 Umali, N. 390299 12/21/01 24,600.00 J-Cap 5 102-01-05-03626 Fernandez, D. 1267343 5/17/01 11,600.00 DEB 6 102-01-02-00742 MARTNEZ, J. 1267567 5/24/01 24,196.00 J-Cap 7 102-01-03-02308 MARTINEZ, J. 1267570 5/24/01 24,850.00 J-Cap 8 102-01-02-00741 MARTINEZ, J. 1267576 5/24/01 23,582.00 J-Cap 9 102-01-03-02301 MARTINEZ, J. 1267578 5/24/01 24,500.00 J-Cap 10 102-01-03-02293 MARTINEZ, J. 1267581 5/24/01 21,550.00 J-Cap 11 102-01-03-02306 MARTINEZ, J. 1267582 5/24/01 19,150.00 J-Cap 12 102-01-03-02294 MARTINEZ, J. 1267585 5/24/01 23,650.00 J-Cap 13 102-01-06-05416 MARTINEZ, J. 1358474 7/3/01 24,800.00 J-Cap 14 102-01-06-05411 MARTINEZ, J. 1358493 7/3/01 24,900,00 J-Cap 15 102-01-07-06395 MARTINEZ, J. 1359260 7/31/01 24,800.00 J-Cap 16 102-01-08-07648 MARTINEZ, J. 1360500 8/28/01 13,760.00 DEB 17 102-01-08-07651 MARTINEZ, J. 1473651 8/28/01 20,650.00 DEB 18 102-01-08-07650 MARTINEZ, J. 1473653 8/28/01 13,230.00 DEB 19 102-01-09-08291 MARTINEZ, J. 1473958 9/4/01 24,800.00 J-Cap 20 102-01-08-08089 MARTINEZ, J. 1473965 9/4/01 24,900.00 J-Cap 21 102-01-09-08671 MARTINEZ, J. 1474370 9/13/01 25,000.00 J-Cap 22 102-01-09-08680 MARTINEZ, J. 1474381 9/13/01 25,000.00 J-Cap 23 102-01-10-11322 MARTINEZ, J. 1586723 11/5/01 24,000.00 J-Cap 24 102-01-11-12122 MARTINEZ, J. 1587500 11/27/01 23,120.00 DEB 25 102-01-12-14437 MARTINEZ, J. 288358 12/21/01 24,800.00 J-Cap 26 101-01-12-25446 Umali, N. 340192 03/12/02 24,150.00 J-Cap 27 101-01-12-24449 Umali, N. 340218 03/12/02 24,700.00 J-Cap GRAND TOTAL 614,478.00
3) Nissan Pick-Up with Plate No. PLH-256 purportedly underwent 30 emergency repairs and reimbursements for 20 of them were made in the name of accused Martinez, to wit:
DISBURSEMENT
VOUCHER NO. PAYEE CHECK SUPPLIER NO. DATE AMOUNT 1 102-00-12-31221 P. Badere 1199738 01/12/01 1,640.00 DEB 2 102-01-01-00218 P. Badere 1200449 02/15/01 1,500.00 DEB 3 102-01-02-01198 P. Badere 1265963 03/07/01 22,240.00 DEB 4 102-01-03-01663 P. Badere 1266207 03/19/01 24,980.00 DEB 5 102-01-03-02011 P. Badere 1266302 03/23/01 24,215.00 DEB 6 102-00-11-354201 P. Badere 333203 04/19/01 1,350.00 DEB 7 102-01-05-03683 P. Badere 1267320 05/17/01 9,200.00 DEB 8 102-01-05-03901 M. Borje 1267548 05/24/01 3,960.00 DEB 9 102-01-03-02299 J. MARTINEZ 1267571 05/24/01 23,100.00 J-CAP 10 102-01-03-02290 J. MARTINEZ 1267583 05/24/01 21,450.00 J-CAP 11 102-01-07-06388 J. MARTINEZ 1359433 08/02/01 24,800.00 J-CAP 12 102-01-07-06547 J. MARTINEZ 1359440 08/02/01 22,450.00 J-CAP 13 102-01-09-08731 J. MARTINEZ 1474365 09/12/01 8,730.00 DEB 14 102-01-10-11169 M. Borje 1586453 10/29/01 14,650.00 DEB 15 102-01-10-11301 J. MARTINEZ 1586662 11/05/01 23,200.00 J-CAP 16 102-01-10-11305 J. MARTINEZ 1586728 11/05/01 24,800.00 J-CAP 17 102-01-11-12134 J. MARTINEZ 1587271 11/22/01 4,070.00 DEB 18 102-01-11-12101 P. Badere 1587272 11/22/01 16,190.00 DEB 19 102-01-11-12129 J. MARTINEZ 1587286 11/22/01 3,500.00 DEB 20 102-01-11-12124 J. MARTINEZ 1587332 11/22/01 2,400.00 DEB 21 102-01-11-13366 J. MARTINEZ 1588063 12/01/01 23,650.00 J-CAP 22 102-01-12-13690 J. MARTINEZ 288197 12/20/01 24,800.00 DEB 23 102-01-12-13687 J. MARTINEZ 288207 12/20/01 19,160.00 DEB 24 102-01-12-13686 J. MARTINEZ 288208 12/20/01 24,980.00 DEB 25 102-01-12-13689 J. MARTINEZ 288210 12/20/01 13,055.00 DEB 26 102-01-11-13376 J. MARTINEZ 288578 12/21/01 24,550.00 J-CAP 27 102-01-12-14781 J. MARTINEZ 288763 12/21/01 24,900.00 DEB 28 102-01-11-12829 J. MARTINEZ 1588348 12/21/01 24,990.00 DEB 29 102-01-11-12826 J. MARTINEZ 1588354 12/21/01 24,800.00 DEB 30 102-01-12-14887 J. MARTINEZ 333459 02/11/02 24,300.00 DEB TOTAL 507,610.00
4) Nissan Pick-Up with Plate No. PMY-110 purportedly underwent 24 emergency repairs and reimbursements for 18 of them were made in the name of accused Martinez, to wit:
DISBURSEMENT
VOUCHER NO. PAYEE CHECK SUPPLIER NO. DATE AMOUNT 1 101-01-09-16313 S. Florencio 384672 09/06/01 2,500.00 DEB 2 101-01-09-16314 S. Florencio 384680 09/06/01 13,760.00 DEB 3 101-01-11-22595 L. Velasquez 385366 11/27/01 24,580.00 RCF MOTOR 4 102-00-12-16212 S. Florencio 1199784 01/16/01 11,498.00 DEB 5 102-01-03-02292 J. MARTINEZ 1267574 05/24/01 22,540.00 J-CAP 6 102-01-03-02305 J. MARTINEZ 1267579 05/24/01 21,850.00 J-CAP 7 102-01-06-05419 J. MARTINEZ 1358473 07/03/01 23,140.00 J-CAP 8 102-01-06-05413 J. MARTINEZ 1358485 07/03/01 23,550.00 J-CAP 9 102-01-07-06389 J. MARTINEZ 1359556 08/07/01 24,800.00 J-CAP 10 102-01-08-07521 L. Velasquez 1359981 08/15/01 24,880.00 NEMAN 11 102-01-08-08157 L. Velasquez 1473752 08/30/01 24,500.00 NEMAN 12 102-01-09-08301 J. MARTINEZ 1473944 09/04/01 16,640.00 J-CAP 13 102-01-09-08293 J. MARTINEZ 1473950 09/04/01 23,550.00 J-CAP 14 102-01-09-08296 J. MARTINEZ 1473953 09/04/01 23,140.00 J-CAP 15 102-01-09-08672 J. MARTINEZ 1474388 09/13/01 15,200.00 J-CAP 16 102-01-09-08688 J. MARTINEZ 1474391 09/13/01 25,000.00 J-CAP 17 102-01-10-10112 L. Velasquez 1475424 10/04/01 24,860.00 RCF MOTOR 18 102-01-10-11304 J. MARTINEZ 1586713 11/05/01 23,670.00 J-CAP 19 102-01-10-11303 J. MARTINEZ 1586722 11/05/01 25,000.00 J-CAP 20 102-01-11-13375 J. MARTINEZ 1588074 12/11/01 22,150.00 J-CAP 21 102-01-11-13361 J. MARTINEZ 1588209 12/13/01 24,400.00 J-CAP 22 102-01-12-14436 J. MARTINEZ 288357 12/21/01 23,140.00 J-CAP 23 102-01-12-14438 J. MARTINEZ 288359 12/21/01 23,550,00 J-CAP 24 102-01-12-14426 J. MARTINEZ 288362 12/21/01 16,640.00 J-CAP TOTAL 504,538.00
5) Toyota Land Cruiser (Jeep) with Plate No. CEJ-591 purportedly underwent 23 emergency repairs and reimbursements for all of them were in the name of accused Martinez, to wit:
DISBURSEMENT
VOUCHER NO. PAYEE CHECK SUPPLIER NO. DATE AMOUNT 1 102-01-03-01666 MARTINEZ J. 1266209 03/19/01 15,400.00 DEB 2 102-00-10-12400 MARTINEZ J. 333235 04/19/01 4,900.00 DEB 3 102-01-03-02295 MARTINEZ J. 1267573 05/24/01 23,600.00 J-CAP 4 102-01-03-02296 MARTINEZ J. 1267580 05/24/01 24,400.00 J-CAP 5 102-01-06-05421 MARTINEZ J. 1358484 07/03/01 24,550.00 J-CAP 6 102-01-06-05410 MARTINEZ J. 1358494 07/03/01 19,450.00 J-CAP 7 102-01-07-06383 MARTINEZ J. 1359435 08/02/01 22,500.00 J-CAP 8 102-01-09-08290 MARTINEZ J. 1473942 09/04/01 24,540.00 J-CAP 9 102-01-08-08090 MARTINEZ J. 1473959 09/04/01 19,450.00 J-CAP 10 102-01-09-08696 MARTINEZ J. 1474386 09/13/01 23,900.00 J-CAP 11 102-01-09-08689 MARTINEZ J. 1474390 09/13/01 24,700.00 J-CAP 12 102-01-09-09694 MARTINEZ J. 1475066 09/28/01 21,470.00 DEB 13 102-01-10-10234 MARTINEZ J. 1475490 10/08/01 24,000.00 DEB 14 102-01-10-11165 MARTINEZ J. 1586481 10/29/01 10,100,00 DEB 15 102-01-10-11319 MARTINEZ J. 1586719 11/05/01 24,900.00 J-CAP 16 102-01-10-11312 MARTINEZ J. 1586725 11/05/01 25,000.00 J-CAP 17 102-01-11-12131 MARTINEZ J. 1587276 11/22/01 5,180.00 DEB 18 102-01-11-12116 MARTINEZ J. 1587285 11/22/01 18,300.00 DEB 19 102-01-11-12121 MARTINEZ J. 1587457 11/27/01 20,520.00 DEB 20 102-01-11-12125 MARTINEZ J. 1587565 11/28/01 24,720.00 DEB 21 102-01-11-13367 MARTINEZ J. 1588061 12/11/01 22,550.00 J-CAP 22 102-01-11-13369 MARTINEZ J. 1588206 12/13/01 24,150.00 J-CAP 23 102-01-12-14431 MARTINEZ J. 288097 12/19/01 23,940.00 J-CAP TOTAL 472,220.00
6) Toyota Land Cruiser with Plate No. TNY-416 purportedly underwent 22 emergency repairs and reimbursements for 18 of them were in the name of accused Martinez, to wit:
DISBURSEMENT
VOUCHER NO. PAYEE CHECK SUPPLIER NO. DATE AMOUNT 1 101-01-07-12433 J. MARTINEZ 381850 07/13/01 11,290.00 DEB 2 102-00-12-15398 M. Borje 1199744 01/12/01 10,750.00 DEB 3 102-00-12-15401 M. Borje 1199747 01/12/01 13,990.00 DEB 4 102-01-01-00225 J. MARTINEZ 1200038 02/01/01 21,900.00 DEB 5 102-01-01-00230 J. MARTINEZ 1200039 02/01/01 24,350.00 DEB 6 102-01-01-00228 J. MARTINEZ 1200041 02/01/01 24,990.00 DEB 7 102-01-01-00226 J. MARTINEZ 1200043 02/01/01 24,660.00 DEB 8 102-01-01-00227 J. MARTINEZ 1200050 02/01/01 22,050.00 DEB 9 102-01-01-00231 J. MARTINEZ 1200055 02/01/01 24,556.00 DEB 10 102-01-01-00229 J. MARTINEZ 1200069 02/01/01 24,640.00 DEB 11 102-01-01-00642 J. MARTINEZ 1200447 02/15/01 24,900.00 DEB 12 102-01-01-00641 J. MARTINEZ 1200462 02/15/01 22,050.00 DEB 13 102-01-02-01208 M. Borje 1265851 02/28/01 14,700.00 DEB 14 102-01-02-01197 J. MARTINEZ 1265962 03/07/01 19,800.00 DEB 15 102-01-02-01207 M. Borje 1265971 03/07/01 19,000.00 DEB 16 102-01-03-01664 J. MARTINEZ 1266206 03/19/01 20,450.00 DEB 17 102-01-03-02017 J. MARTINEZ 1266300 03/23/01 8,750.00 DEB 18 102-01-03-02012 J. MARTINEZ 1266303 03/23/01 17,860.00 DEB 19 102-01-03-02016 J. MARTINEZ 1266306 03/23/01 15,220.00 DEB 20 102-01-10-10235 J. MARTINEZ 1475476 10/08/01 2,780.00 DEB 21 102-01-11-12119 J. MARTINEZ 1587267 11/22/01 21,550.00 DEB 22 102-01-10-09930 J. MARTINEZ 1587324 11/22/01 20,070.00 DEB TOTAL 410,306.00
7) Toyota Land Cruiser with Plate No. CEJ-514 purportedly underwent 19 emergency repairs and reimbursements for 15 of them were in the name of accused Martinez, to wit:
DISBURSEMENT
VOUCHER NO. PAYEE CHECK SUPPLIER NO. DATE AMOUNT 1 101-00-12-33114 M. Borje 338105 04/26/01 24,800.00 DEB 2 102-00-12-15418 J. MARTINEZ 1199745 01/12/01 9,400.00 DEB 3 102-00-12-15397 J. MARTINEZ 1199743 01/12/01 13,600.00 DEB 4 102-00-12-15396 J. MARTINEZ 1199732 11/12/01 13,600.00 DEB 5 102-01-02-01211 M. Borje 1265862 02/28/01 20,740.00 DEB 6 102-01-02-01203 M. Borje 1265900 03/02/01 19,070.00 DEB 7 102-01-04-01670 M. Borje 1266744 04/16/01 22,250.00 DEB 8 102-00-10-12399 J. MARTINEZ 333236 04/19/01 13,400.00 DEB 9 102-08-06-05409 J. MARTINEZ 1358475 07/03/01 24,250.00 J-CAP 10 102-01-06-05422 J. MARTINEZ 1358477 07/03/01 24,900.00 J-CAP 11 102-01-07-06382 J. MARTINEZ 1359557 08/07/01 24,800.[00] J-CAP 12 102-01-09-08299 J. MARTINEZ 1473941 09/04/01 24,900.00 J-CAP 13 102-01-09-08298 J. MARTINEZ 1473955 09/04/01 24,250.00 J-CAP 14 102-01-09-08673 J. MARTINEZ 1474372 09/13/01 24,720.00 J-CAP 15 102-01-09-09255 J. MARTINEZ 1474773 09/24/01 25,000.00 J-CAP 16 102-01-10-09927 J. MARTINEZ 1587323 11/22/01 12,850.00 DEB 17 102-00-12-31216 J. MARTINEZ 1199746 12/10/01 22,980.00 DEB 18 102-01-12-14432 J. MARTINEZ 288098 12/19/01 24,900.00 DEB 19 102-01-12-14440 J. MARTINEZ 288360 12/21/01 24,250.00 DEB TOTAL 394,660.00
8) Mitsubishi Pajero with Plate No. TKL-106 purportedly underwent 17 emergency repairs and reimbursements for 15 of them were in the name of accused Martinez, to wit:
DISBURSEMENT
VOUCHER NO. PAYEE CHECK SUPPLIER NO. DATE AMOUNT 1 102-00-12-31218 Santos M. 1199739 01/12/01 3,960.00 DEB 2 102-00-12-15612 Santos M. 1199750 01/12/01 10,190.00 DEB 3 102-01-03-02015 MARTINEZ J. 1266305 03/23/01 23,640.00 DEB 4 102-01-03-02302 MARTINEZ J. 1267566 05/24/01 22,700.00 J-CAP 5 102-01-03-02304 MARTINEZ J. 1267575 05/24/01 22,840.00 J-CAP 6 102-01-06-05423 MARTINEZ J. 1358478 07/03/01 25,000.00 J-CAP 7 102-01-06-05406 MARTINEZ J. 1358492 07/03/01 22,440.00 J-CAP 8 102-01-07-06384 MARTINEZ J. 1359261 07/31/01 24,600.00 J-CAP 9 102-01-09-08300 MARTINEZ J. 1473943 09/04/01 25,000.00 J-CAP 10 102-01-08-08093 MARTINEZ J. 1473964 09/24/01 22,640.00 J-CAP 11 102-01-09-08675 MARTINEZ J. 1474387 09/13/01 25,000.00 J-CAP 12 102-01-09-08685 MARTINEZ J. 1474389 09/13/01 25,000.00 J-CAP 13 102-01-10-11313 MARTINEZ J. 1586721 11/05/01 24,990.00 J-CAP 14 102-01-10-11321 MARTINEZ J. 1586724 11/05/01 24,140.00 J-CAP 15 102-01-11-13363 MARTINEZ J. 1588059 12/11/01 24,700.00 J-CAP 16 102-01-11-13358 MARTINEZ J. 1588073 12/11/01 24,350.00 J-CAP 17 102-01-12-14434 MARTINEZ J. 288356 12/21/0[l] 24,900.00 J-CAP TOTAL 376,090.00
9) Nissan Pick-Up with Plate No. PMB-631 / HI-4148 purportedly underwent 17 emergency repairs and reimbursements for 16 of them were in the name of accused Martinez, to wit:
DISBURSEMENT
VOUCHER NO. PAYEE CHECK SUPPLIER NO. DATE AMOUNT 1 102-01-02-01199 Badere P. 1265856 02/28/01 8,350.00 DEB 2 102-01-03-02303 MARTINEZ J. 1267565 05/24/01 24,750.00 J-CAP 3 102-01-03-02291 MARTINEZ J. 1267568 05/24/01 21,900.00 J-CAP 4 102-01-02-00743 MARTINEZ J. 1267572 05/24/01 24,701.00 J-CAP 5 102-01-06-05408 MARTINEZ J. 1358481 07/03/01 21,800.00 J-CAP 6 102-01-06-05417 MARTINEZ J. 1358496 07/03/01 13,050.00 J-CAP 7 102-01-07-06364 MARTINEZ J. 1359262 07/31/01 24,900.00 J-CAP 8 102-01-09-08297 MARTINEZ J. 1473954 09/04/01 21,800.00 J-CAP 9 102-01-08-08094 MARTINEZ J. 1473966 09/04/01 13,050.00 J-CAP 10 102-01-09-08773 MARTINEZ J. 1474366 09/21/01 7,980.00 DEB 11 102-01-09-08674 MARTINEZ J. 1475377 09/13/01 23,500.00 J-CAP 12 102-01-09-08669 MARTINEZ J. 1474380 09/13/01 23,500.00 J-CAP 13 102-01-10-11315 MARTINEZ J. 1586664 11/05/01 23,800.00 J-CAP 14 102-01-10-11311 MARTINEZ J. 1586666 11/05/01 23,640.00 J-CAP 15 102-01-11-13371 MARTINEZ J. 1588060 12/11/01 24,000.00 J-CAP 16 102-01-11-13359 MARTINEZ J. 1588075 12/11/01 24,750.00 J-CAP 17 102-01-12-14427 MARTINEZ J. 288111 12/19/01 21,800.00 J-CAP TOTAL 347,271 .00
10) Mitsubishi L-200 with Plate No. SFG-496 purportedly underwent 19 emergency repairs and reimbursements for 10 of them were in the name of accused Martinez, to wit:
DISBURSEMENT
VOUCHER NO. PAYEE CHECK SUPPLIER NO. DATE AMOUNT 1 101-01-07-12432 Jimenez R. 381999 07/16/01 4,800.00 DEB 2 102-00-12-15395 MARTINEZ J. 1199734 1/12/01 3,600.00 DEB 3 102-00-05-03682 Jimenez R. 1267319 05/17/01 11,000.00 DEB 4 102-01-01-00221 Jimenez R. 1358245 06/27/01 3,900.00 DEB 5 102-01-01-00220 Jimenez R. 1358251 06/27/01 3,800.00 DEB 6 102-01-06-05401 MARTINEZ J. 1358495 07/13/01 23,700.00 J-CAP 7 102-01-08-08092 MARTINEZ J. 1473962 09/04/01 23,700.00 J-CAP 8 102-01-09-08732 Jimenez R. 1474358 09/12/01 2,658.00 DEB 9 102-01-09-08678 MARTINEZ J. 1474373 09/13/01 24,900.00 J-CAP 10 102-01-09-08681 MARTINEZ J. 1474382 09/13/01 24,200.00 J-CAP 11 102-01-10-11308 MARTINEZ J. 1586720 11/05/01 24,290.00 J-CAP 12 102-01-10-11318 MARTINEZ J. 1586726 11/05/01 17,970.00 J-CAP 13 102-01-11-12814 Jimenez R. 1587539 11/28/01 4,440.00 DEB 14 102-01-11-13379 MARTINEZ J. 1588208 12/13/01 14,850.00 J-CAP 15 102-01-11-12827 MARTINEZ J. 1588352 12/21/01 15,220.00 DEB 16 102-01-12-13683 Jimenez R. 288206 12/20/01 22,420.00 DEB 17 102-01-11-13364 MARTINEZ J. 288572 12/21/01 20,670.00 J-CAP 18 102-01-12-14785 MARTINEZ J. 288762 12/21/01 17,860.00 DEB 19 102-01-14888 Jimenez R. 333422 02/11/02 4,980.00 DEB TOTAL 268,958.00
11) Mitsubishi L-200 with Plate No. SFC-309 purportedly underwent 15 emergency repairs and reimbursement for 1 of them is in the name of accused Martinez, to wit:
DISBURSEMENT
VOUCHER NO. PAYEE CHECK SUPPLIER NO. DATE AMOUNT 1 10-01-06-10943 MARTINEZ J. 380910 06/25/01 3,536.00 DEB 2 101-01-07-11697 Valdez C. 381495 07/06/01 15,220.00 DEB 3 101-01-08-14147 Borje M., Jr. 383032 08/07/01 18,750.00 DEB 4 101-01-09-17042 Borje M., Jr. 386245 09/18/01 5,000.00 DEB 5 101-01-10-19568 Valdez C. 387810 10/18/01 14,260.00 DEB 6 101-01-10-20056 Valdez C. 387872 10/19/01 17,860.00 DEB 7 102-01-03-01897 Valdez C. 1266161 03/16/01 20,130.00 GK & J 8 102-01-07-05571 Borje M., Jr. 1358970 07/17/01 15,460.00 DEB 9 102-01-08-08153 Borje M., Jr. 1474247 09/10/01 14,950.00 DEB 10 102-01-09-09703 Borje M., Jr. 1475061 09/28/01 9,980.00 DEB 11 102-01-10-10903 Planta D. 1476031 10/18/01 24,680.00 GK & J 12 102-01-10-10908 Planta D. 1476109 10/22/01 24,400.00 GK & J 13 102-01-10-11519 Valdez C. 1586497 10/29/01 24,600.00 GK & J 14 102-01-11-12013 Valdez C. 1587052 11/15/01 24,700.00 GK & J 15 102-01-11-11953 Valdez C. 1587795 12/06/01 25,000.00 GK & J TOTAL 258,526.00
12) Nissan Pathfinder with Plate No. PND-908 / HI-4321 purportedly underwent 11 emergency repairs and all reimbursements were in the name of accused Martinez, to wit:
DISBURSEMENT
VOUCHER NO. PAYEE CHECK SUPPLIER NO. DATE AMOUNT 1 102-01-03-02300 MARTINEZ J. 1267569 05/24/01 21,650.00 J-CAP 2 102-01-03-02298 MARTINEZ J. 1267586 05/24/01 18,400.00 J-CAP 3 102-01-06-05414 MARTINEZ J. 1358476 07/03/01 23,400.00 J-CAP 4 102-01-07-06391 MARTINEZ J. 1359563 08/07/01 24,400.00 J-CAP 5 102-01-09-09261 MARTINEZ J. 1474765 09/24/01 24,900.00 J-CAP 6 102-01-09-09260 MARTINEZ J. 1474776 09/24/01 20,950.00 J-CAP 7 102-01-10-11316 MARTINEZ J. 1586665 11/05/01 21,150.00 J-CAP 8 102-01-10-11300 MARTINEZ J. 1586716 11/05/01 24,250.00 J-CAP 9 102-01-11-13365 MARTINEZ J. 1588064 12/11/01 24,900.00 J-CAP 10 102-01-11-13360 MARTINEZ J. 1588070 12/11/01 24,700.00 J-CAP 11 102-01-11-13357 MARTINEZ J. 1588207 12/13/01 24,200.00 J-CAP TOTAL 252,900.00
13) Nissan Pick Up with Plate No. PME-676 purportedly underwent 17 emergency repairs and reimbursements for 7 of them were in the name of accused Martinez, to wit:
DISBURSEMENT
VOUCHER NO. PAYEE CHECK SUPPLIER NO. DATE AMOUNT 1 101-01-09-16316 Fernandez D. 384501 09/04/01 22,530.00 DEB 2 101-01-09-16317 Fernandez D. 384504 09/04/01 19,410.00 DEB 3 101-01-09-16366 Fernandez D. 384514 09/04/01 20,340.00 DEB 4 102-00-09-11707 Quarto E. 333240 04/19/01 24,180.00 DEB 5 102-01-05-03622 Fernandez D. 1267342 05/17/01 4,800.00 DEB 6 102-01-03-01659 Fernandez D. 1358081 06/21/01 3,900.00 DEB 7 102-01-03-01661 Fernandez D. 1358248 06/27/01 4,910.00 DEB 8 102-01-03-01660 Fernandez D. 1358256 06/27/01 4,500.00 DEB 9 102-01-08-07645 MARTINEZ J. 1473655 08/28/01 23,900.00 DEB 10 102-01-09-08735 MARTINEZ J. 1474368 09/12/01 9,600.00 DEB 11 102-01-10-09936 MARTINEZ J. 1475801 10/12/01 20,200.00 DEB 12 102-01-10-09935 MARTINEZ J. 1475841 10/12/01 4,310.00 DEB 13 102-01-10-09937 MARTINEZ J. 1475797 10/12/01 22,680.00 DEB 14 102-01-11-12103 Fernandez D. 1587282 11/22/01 16,400.00 DEB 15 102-01-11-12114 MARTINEZ J. 1587289 11/22/01 5,110.00 DEB 16 102-01-11-12104 Fernandez D. 1587540 11/28/01 17,290.00 DEB 17 102-01-11-12123 MARTINEZ J. 1587564 11/28/01 17,480.00 DEB TOTAL 241,540.00
14) Toyota Land Cruiser with Plate No. SFT-208 purportedly underwent 11 emergency repairs and reimbursements for all of them were in the name of accused Martinez, to wit:
DISBURSEMENT
VOUCHER NO. PAYEE CHECK SUPPLIER NO. DATE AMOUNT 1 102-01-06-05402 MARTINEZ J. 1358488 07/03/01 22,190.00 J-CAP 2 102-01-07-06385 MARTINEZ J. 1359564 08/07/01 22,600.00 J-CAP 3 102-01-08-08091 MARTINEZ J. 1473956 09/04/01 24,590.00 J-CAP 4 102-01-09-08684 MARTINEZ J. 1474375 09/13/01 15,780.00 J-CAP 5 102-01-09-08687 MARTINEZ J. 1474384 09/13/01 25,000.00 J-CAP 6 102-01-10-09933 MARTINEZ J. 1475799 10/12/01 20,850.00 DEB 7 102-01-10-09942 MARTINEZ J. 1475831 10/12/01 1,800.00 DEB 8 102-01-10-11314 MARTINEZ J. 1586718 11/23/01 14,790.00 J-CAP 9 102-01-10-11320 MARTINEZ J. 1586717 11/05/01 14,470.00 J-CAP 10 102-01-11-13368 MARTINEZ J. 1588062 12/11/01 24,500.00 J-CAP 11 102-01-11-13372 MARTINEZ J. 1588076 12/11/01 21,150.00 J-CAP TOTAL 207,720.00
15) Toyota Land Cruiser with Plate No. SFT-308 / HI-4398 purportedly underwent 10 emergency repairs and reimbursements for all of them were in the name of accused Martinez, to wit:
DISBURSEMENT
VOUCHER NO. PAYEE CHECK SUPPLIER NO. DATE AMOUNT 1 102-01-06-05400 MARTINEZ J. 1358490 07/03/01 24,540.00 J-CAP 2 102-01-07-06363 MARTINEZ J. 1359264 07/31/01 16,700.00 J-CAP 3 102-01-09-09257 MARTINEZ J. 1474767 09/24/01 20,900.00 J-CAP 4 102-01-09-09259 MARTINEZ J. 1474777 09/24/01 24,700.00 J-CAP 5 102-01-10-11309 MARTINEZ J. 1586661 11/05/01 17,900.00 J-CAP 6 102-01-10-09929 MARTINEZ J. 1586615 11/05/01 2,770.00 DEB 7 102-01-10-11307 MARTINEZ J. 1586727 11/05/01 18,670.00 DEB 8 102-01-11-13381 MARTINEZ J. 1588201 12/13/01 20,770.00 J-CAP 9 102-01-11-13377 MARTINEZ J. 1588210 12/13/01 21,500.00 J-CAP 10 102-01-12-14439 MARTINEZ J. 288361 12/21/01 24,550.00 J-CAP TOTAL 193,000.00
16) Mitsubishi L-200 with Plate No. SFG-417 purportedly underwent 12 emergency repairs and reimbursements for 8 of them were in the name of accused Martinez, to wit:
DISBURSEMENT
VOUCHER NO. PAYEE CHECK SUPPLIER NO. DATE AMOUNT 1 101-01-08-15628 T. Bauzon 384132 08/28/01 3,200.00 DEB 2 101-01-08-16112 T. Bauzon 384357 08/31/01 2,550.00 DEB 3 102-01-05-03620 T. Bauzon 1267380 05/18/01 9,700.00 DEB 4 102-01-03-01667 T. Bauzon 1358250 06/27/01 24,970.00 DEB 5 102-01-06-05407 MARTINEZ J. 1358482 07/03/01 19,470.00 J-CAP 6 102-01-08-07485 MARTINEZ J. 1360025 08/16/01 22,150.00 J-CAP 7 102-01-08-07654 MARTINEZ J. 1360496 08/28/01 11,510.00 DEB 8 102-01-09-08306 MARTINEZ J. 1473948 09/04/01 19,470.00 J-CAP 9 102-01-09-08668 MARTINEZ J. 1471376 09/13/01 25,000.00 J-CAP 10 102-01-09-08683 MARTINEZ J. 1474383 09/13/01 24,720.00 J-CAP 11 102-01-10-09926 MARTINEZ J. 1586616 11/05/01 5,090.00 DEB 12 102-01-12-14428 MARTINEZ J. 288113 12/19/01 19,470.00 DEB TOTAL 187,300.00
17) Mitsubishi L-200 with Plate No. SED-999 purportedly underwent 6 emergency repairs and reimbursements for all of them were in the name of accused Martinez, to wit:
DISBURSEMENT
VOUCHER NO. PAYEE CHECK SUPPLIER NO. DATE AMOUNT 1 102-01-11-12589 MARTINEZ J. 1587189 11/22/01 24,800.00 J-CAP 2 102-01-11-12590 MARTINEZ J. 1587191 11/22/01 24,750.00 J-CAP 3 102-01-11-13092 MARTINEZ J. 1588205 12/13/01 24,920.00 J-CAP 4 102-01-11-13374 MARTINEZ J. 288095 12/19/01 24,000.00 J-CAP 5 102-01-12-14044 MARTINEZ J. 288112 12/19/01 25,000.00 J-CAP 6 102-01-12-14043 MARTINEZ J. 288116 12/19/01 24,900.00 J-CAP TOTAL 148,370.00
18) Mitsubishi L-200 with Plate No. SFG-361 / HI-4237 purportedly underwent 6 emergency repairs and reimbursements for all of them were in the name of accused Martinez, to wit:
DISBURSEMENT
VOUCHER NO. PAYEE CHECK SUPPLIER NO. DATE AMOUNT 1 102-01-11-12591 MARTINEZ J. 1587190 11/22/01 24,750.00 J-CAP 2 102-01-11-12491 MARTINEZ J. 1587192 11/22/01 24,800.00 J-CAP 3 102-01-12-14046 MARTINEZ J. 288094 12/19/01 25,000.00 J-CAP 4 102-01-12-14045 MARTINEZ J. 288099 12/19/01 24,900,00 J-CAP 5 102-01-11-13373 MARTINEZ J. 288110 12/19/01 24,000.00 J-CAP 6 102-01-11-13093 MARTINEZ J. 288115 12/19/01 24,920.00 J-CAP TOTAL 148,370.00
19) Mitsubishi L-200 with Plate No. SFG-346 purportedly underwent 20 emergency repairs and reimbursements for 15 of them were in the name of accused Martinez, to wit:
DISBURSEMENT
VOUCHER NO. PAYEE CHECK SUPPLIER NO. DATE AMOUNT 1 101-01-09-16363 Fernandez D. 384500 09/04/01 6,400.00 DEB 2 102-01-01-00224 Fernandez D. 1200445 02/15/01 3,000.00 DEB 3 102-01-01-00223 Fernandez D. 1200469 02/15/01 1,900.00 DEB 4 102-01-03-01658 Fernandez D. 1358249 06/27/01 6,200.00 DEB 5 102-01-08-07646 MARTINEZ J. 1473654 08/28/01 14,300.00 DEB 6 102-01-08-07644 MARTINEZ J. 1360499 08/28/01 13,590.00 DEB 7 102-01-09-08734 MARTINEZ J. 1474364 09/12/01 7,030.00 DEB 8 102-01-10-10233 MARTINEZ J. 1475482 10/08/01 17,600.00 DEB 9 102-01-10-09928 MARTINEZ J. 1475795 10/12/01 2,180.00 DEB 10 102-01-10-09938 MARTINEZ J. 1475798 10/12/01 1,795.00 DEB 11 102-01-10-09939 MARTINEZ J. 1475840 04/19/01 2,200.00 DEB 12 102-01-10-09932 MARTINEZ J. 1475833 10/12/01 3,070.00 DEB 13 102-01-10-09934 MARTINEZ J. 1475842 10/12/01 8,470.00 DEB 14 102-01-10-09943 MARTINEZ J. 1475854 12/12/01 2,470.00 DEB 15 102-01-10-09941 MARTINEZ J. 1475843 10/12/01 2,180.00 DEB 16 102-01-10-11167 Borje M. Jr. 1586473 10/29/01 19,200.00 DEB 17 102-01-10-12120 MARTINEZ J. 1587275 11/22/01 2,900.00 DEB 18 102-01-11-12133 MARTINEZ J. 1587284 11/22/01 3,100.00 DEB 19 102-01-11-12128 MARTINEZ J. 1587288 11/22/01 10,400.00 DEB 20 102-01- MARTINEZ J. 288766 12/21/01 5,700.00 DEB TOTAL 133,685.00
20) Toyota Land Cruiser with Plate No. SFT-304 purportedly underwent 5 emergency repairs and reimbursements for all of them were in the name of accused Martinez, to wit:
DISBURSEMENT
VOUCHER NO. PAYEE CHECK SUPPLIER NO. DATE AMOUNT 1 102-01-06-05405 MARTINEZ J. 1358491 07/02/01 16,640.00 J-CAP 2 102-01-07-06387 MARTINEZ J. 1359422 08/02/01 23,200.00 J-CAP 3 102-01-09-08303 MARTINEZ J. 1473946 09/04/01 23,550.00 J-CAP 4 102-01-09-08304 MARTINEZ J. 1473947 09/04/01 24,550.00 J-CAP 5 102-01-12-14433 MARTINEZ J. 288092 12/19/01 23,550.00 J-CAP TOTAL 111,490.00
21) Mitsubishi L-200 with Plate No. SFG-455/H1-4231 purportedly underwent 8 emergency repairs and reimbursements for 2 of them were in the name of accused Martinez, to wit:
DISBURSEMENT
VOUCHER NO. PAYEE CHECK SUPPLIER NO. DATE AMOUNT 1 101-01-05-10279 Borje M., Jr. 360465 05/07/01 15,220.00 DEB 2 101-01-05-07902 Borje M., Jr. 360475 05/07/01 17,860.00 DEB 3 101-01-09-17910 Borje M., Jr. 387150 10/08/01 3,845.00 DEB 4 101-01-11-22977 Borje M., Jr. 385585 12/03/01 10,540.00 DEB 5 102-01-10-11183 Borje M., Jr. 1586475 10/29/01 18,300.00 DEB 6 102-01-11-12137 MARTINEZ J. 1587277 11/22/01 6,600.00 DEB 7 102-01-11-12117 MARTINEZ J. 1587292 11/22/01 11,200.00 DEB 8 102-01-12-25614 Borje M., Jr. 338738 03/12/02 5,365.00 DEB TOTAL 88,930.00
22) Mitsubishi L-200 with Plate No. SFG-292 purportedly underwent 4 emergency repairs and reimbursements for all of them were in the name of accused Martinez, to wit:
DISBURSEMENT
VOUCHER NO. PAYEE CHECK SUPPLIER NO. DATE AMOUNT 1 102-01-06-05398 MARTINEZ J. 1358483 07/03/01 21,220.00 J-CAP 2 102-01-07-06392 MARTINEZ J. 13599272 07/31/01 20,400.00 J-CAP 3 102-01-09-08682 MARTINEZ J. 1474379 09/13/01 15,580.00 J-CAP 4 102-01-09-08677 MARTINEZ J. 1474385 09/13/01 24,800.00 J-CAP GRAND TOTAL 82,000.00
23) Mitsubishi L-200 with Plate No. SFG-465 purportedly underwent 6 emergency repairs and reimbursements for one of them was in the name of accused Martinez, to wit:
DISBURSEMENT
VOUCHER NO. PAYEE CHECK SUPPLIER NO. DATE AMOUNT 1 101-01-02-00313 de Vera T. 357469 02/13/01 9,800.00 DEB 2 102-00-12-15647 de Vera T. 333186 04/19/01 3,380.00 DEB 3 102-01-08-07510 Borje M. 1360110 08/16/01 15,900.00 J-CAP 4 102-01-10-10164 Planta D. 1475581 10/09/01 14,650.00 GK & J 5 102-01-10-09940 MARTINEZ J. 1475796 10/12/01 1,800.00 DEB 6 102-01-10-09940 de Vera T. 333407 02/11/02 25,000.00 DEB TOTAL 70,530.00
24) Mitsubishi L-300 with Plate No. SFT-272 purportedly underwent 3 emergency repairs and reimbursements for all of them were in the name of accused Martinez, to wit:
DISBURSEMENT
VOUCHER NO. PAYEE CHECK SUPPLIER NO. DATE AMOUNT 1 102-01-12-13688 MARTINEZ J. 288209 12/20/01 24,900.00 DEB 2 102-01-11-12825 MARTINEZ J. 1588353 12/21/01 17,860.00 DEB 3 102-01-11-12824 MARTINEZ J. 1588350 12/21/01 15,220.00 DEB TOTAL 57,980.00
25) Mitsubishi L-200 with Plate No. SFT-282 purportedly underwent 3 emergency repairs and reimbursements for all of them were in the name of accused Martinez, to wit:
DISBURSEMENT
VOUCHER NO. PAYEE CHECK SUPPLIER NO. DATE AMOUNT 1 102-01-12-13692 MARTINEZ J. 288211 12/20/01 24,900.00 DEB 2 102-01-11-12828 MARTINEZ J. 1588355 12/21/01 17,860.00 DEB 3 102-01-12-14862 MARTINEZ J. 333494 02/12/0215,220.00 DEB TOTAL FUND 57,980.00
26) Toyota Corolla with Plate No. TEG-822 purportedly underwent 2 emergency repairs and reimbursements for both were in the name of accused Martinez, to wit:
DISBURSEMENT
VOUCHER NO. PAYEE CHECK SUPPLIER NO. DATE AMOUNT 1 102-01-03-02297 MARTINEZ J. 1267577 05/24/01 21,810.00 JCAP 2 102-01-03-02307 MARTINEZ J. 1267584 05/24/01 21,250.00 JCAP TOTAL 43,060.00
27) Mitsubishi L-200 with Plate No. SFG-527 purportedly underwent 5 emergency repairs and reimbursements for 4 of them were in the name of accused Martinez, to wit:
DISBURSEMENT
VOUCHER NO. PAYEE CHECK SUPPLIER NO. DATE AMOUNT 1 101-01-09-16652 MARTINEZ J. 384632 09/06/01 7,170.00 DEB 2 102-01-05-03627 Borje M. 1267341 05/17/01 2,700.00 DEB 3 102-01-08-07643 MARTINEZ J. 1360495 08/28/01 13,440.00 DEB 4 102-01-11-12118 MARTINEZ J. 1587266 11/22/01 8,200.00 DEB 5 102-01-11-12132 MARTINEZ J. 1587294 11/22/01 9,300.00 DEB TOTAL 40,810.00
28) Mitsubishi L-200 with Plate No. SFK-735 purportedly underwent 4 emergency repairs and reimbursements for 3 of them were in the name of accused Martinez, to wit:
DISBURSEMENT
VOUCHER NO. PAYEE CHECK SUPPLIER NO. DATE AMOUNT 1 102-01-02-01204 Borje M. 1265858 02/28/01 5,880.00 DEB 2 102-00-11-3542 MARTINEZ J. 333201 04/19/01 1,900.00 DEB 3 102-00-11-35422 MARTINEZ J. 333204 04/19/01 23,000.00 DEB 4 100-01-05-03887 MARTINEZ J. 1267553 05/24/01 3,970.00 DEB TOTAL 34,750.00
29) Mitsubishi L-200 with Plate No. SFT-715 purportedly underwent 2 emergency repairs and reimbursements for both of them were in the name of accused Martinez, to wit:
DISBURSEMENT
VOUCHER NO. PAYEE CHECK SUPPLIER NO. DATE AMOUNT 1 102-01-11-12821 MARTINEZ J. 1588358 12/21/01 17,800.00 DEB 2 102-01-11-12820 MARTINEZ J. 1588359 12/21/01 15,220.00 DEB TOTAL 33,020.00
30) Mitsubishi L-200 with Plate No. SED-732 purportedly underwent 3 emergency repairs and reimbursements for one of them was in the name of accused Martinez, to wit:
DISBURSEMENT
VOUCHER NO. PAYEE CHECK SUPPLIER NO. DATE AMOUNT 1 101-01-08-15023 Borje M. 383728 08/20/01 3,800.00 DEB 2 101-01-09-17571 Borje M. 386327 09/19/01 7,490.00 DEB 3 102-01-11-12822 MARTINEZ J. 1588357 12/21/01 15,220.00 DEB TOTAL 26,510.00
31) Nissan Pick-Up with Plate No. PME-687 purportedly underwent 3 emergency repairs and reimbursements for 2 of them were in the name of accused Martinez, to wit:
DISBURSEMENT
VOUCHER NO. PAYEE CHECK SUPPLIER NO. DATE AMOUNT 1 101-01-09-16655 MARTINEZ J. 384636 09/26/01 3,980.00 DEB 2 102-00-11-35411 Fernandez D. 333234 04/19/01 3,820.00 DEB 3 102-01-08-07653 MARTINEZ J. 1360497 08/28/01 15,220.00 DEB TOTAL 23,020.00
32) Mitsubishi L-200 with Plate No. SFT-732 purportedly underwent 1 emergency repair and reimbursement was in the name of accused Martinez, to wit:
DISBURSEMENT
VOUCHER NO. PAYEE CHECK SUPPLIER NO. DATEAMOUNT 1 102-01-12-14784 MARTINEZ J. 288761 12/21/01 17,860.00 DEB
33) Mitsubishi L-200 with Plate No. SFG-485 purportedly underwent 3 emergency repairs and reimbursements for 2 of them were in the name of accused Martinez, to wit:
DISBURSEMENT
VOUCHER NO. PAYEE CHECK SUPPLIER NO. DATE AMOUNT 1 102-01-09-08765 Borje M. Jr. 1474430 09/13/01 6,300.00 DEB 2 102-01-11-12136 MARTINEZ J. 1587268 11/22/01 1,600.00 DEB 3 102-01-11-12135 MARTINEZ J. 1587270 11/22/01 9,870.00 DEB TOTAL 17,770.00
34) Mitsubishi L-200 with Plate No. SFG-407 purportedly underwent 1 emergency repair and reimbursement was in the name of accused Martinez, to wit:
DISBURSEMENT
VOUCHER NO. PAYEE CHECK SUPPLIER NO. DATE AMOUNT 1 102-01-11-12115 MARTINEZ J. 1587290 11/22/01 17,400.00 DEB
35) Toyota Prado with Plate No. SFG-402 purportedly underwent 1 emergency repair and reimbursement was in the name of accused Martinez, to wit:
DISBURSEMENT
VOUCHER NO. PAYEE CHECK SUPPLIER NO. DATE AMOUNT 1 102-01-03-02018 MARTINEZ J. 1266307 03/23/01 4,900.00 DEB
36) Mitsubishi L-200 with Plate No. SFD-732 purportedly underwent 1 emergency repair and reimbursement was in the name of accused Martinez, to wit:
DISBURSEMENT
VOUCHER NO. PAYEE CHECK SUPPLIER NO. DATE AMOUNT 1 102-01-05-03886 MARTINEZ J. 1267559 05/24/01 4,200.00 DEB
37) Mitsubishi L-200 with Plate No. SFG-369 purportedly underwent 1 emergency repair and reimbursement was in the name of accused Martinez, to wit:
DISBURSEMENT
VOUCHER NO. PAYEE CHECK SUPPLIER NO. DATE AMOUNT 1 102-01-05-04005 MARTINEZ J. 1267739 06/01/01 4,188.00 DEB
38) Toyota Land Cruiser with Plate No. SFD-302 purportedly underwent 1 emergency repair and reimbursement was in the name of accused Martinez, to wit:
DISBURSEMENT
VOUCHER NO. PAYEE CHECK SUPPLIER NO. DATE AMOUNT 1 102-01-11-12831 MARTINEZ J. 1588333 12/20/01 3,480.00 DEB
39) Toyota Prado with Plate No. SFT-207 purportedly underwent 1 emergency repair and reimbursement was in the name of accused Martinez, to wit:
DISBURSEMENT
VOUCHER NO. PAYEE CHECK SUPPLIER NO. DATE AMOUNT 1 101-01-09-16656 MARTINEZ J. 384637 09/06/01 3,400.00 DEB
Of the 39 vehicles aforementioned, only the Mitsubishi L-200 with Plate No. SFG-361/H1-4237 was assigned to accused Martinez. The others were assigned to other agencies or officials of the DPWH.
To support the issuance of the Disbursement Vouchers (DVs) and checks for the reimbursements of the amounts claimed and paid by the DPWH, the following documents were submitted: Job Orders; Pre-Repair Inspection Reports; Requisitions for Supplies and Equipment (RSEs); Accreditation Papers; Sales Invoices or Official Receipt; Certificates of Acceptance; Post-Repair Inspection Reports; Reports of Waste Materials; Requests for Obligation of Allotment (ROAs); Certificates of Emergency Purchase; Certificates of Fair Wear and Tear; Canvas from 3 suppliers and Price Monitoring Sheets.[4] (Citations omitted.)
That during the period from March to December, 2001, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the City of Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named high-ranking public officials and employees of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), Port Area, Manila, namely: JULIO T. MARTINEZ, then the Clerk/Supply Officer, BURT FAVORITO y BARBA, Director III, Administrative and Manpower Management Services (SG 27), FLORENDO ARIAS y BUNAG, Assistant Director, Bureau of [Equipment (SG 27), VIOLETA AMAR y CASTILLO, NAPOLEON ANAS y SEBASTIAN, ROGELIO BERAY y LAGANGA, MAXIMO BORJE y AQUINO, ROLANDO CASTILLO y COMIA, JESSICA CATIBAYAN y JARDIEL, MA. LUISA CRUZ y TALAO, RICARDO JUAN, JR. y MACLANG, AGERICO PALAYPAY y CORTES, ERDITO QUARTO y QUIAOT, FELIPE A. SAN JOSE, RONALDO G. SIMBAHAN, VIOLETA TADEO y RAGASA, NORMA VILLARMINO y AGCAOILI and JOHN DOES, whose true names are not yet known, acting with unfaithfulness and abuse of confidence, committing the offense in relation to their office, and taking advantage of their official positions, and private individuals, namely: JESUS D. CAPUZ and CONCHITA M. DELA CRUZ and JOHN DOES, whose true names are not yet known, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, with intent to defraud the government, did then and there, willfully[,] unlawfully and feloniously forge and falsify or cause to be forged and falsified documents, purportedly for emergency repairs of various DPWH vehicles and/or purchase of spare parts, with a total amount of SIX MILLION THREE HUNDRED SIXTY-EIGHT THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED SIXTY-FOUR PESOS (P6,368,364.00), and thereafter, cause the payment of said fictitious repairs and/or purchase of spare parts in the said total amount from funds held in trust and for administration by the said public officers, and which payments were made by the government on the basis of and relying on said forged and falsified documents, when in truth and in fact, the accused knew fully well that there were no emergency repairs of DPWH vehicles and/or purchases of spare parts, which said amount, accused, thereafter, willfully, unlawfully and criminally take, convert and misappropriate, to the personal use and benefit of person(s) not entitled to receive said funds, to the damage and prejudice of the government and the public interest in the aforesaid sum.While in Criminal Case No. 28253, petitioner was arraigned on July 20, 2005,[7] under an Information that states the following:
CONTRARY TO LAW.[6]
That during the period from March to December, 2001, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the City of Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named high-ranking public officials and employees of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), Port Area, Manila, namely: JULIO T. MARTINEZ, then the Clerk/Supply Officer, BURT FAVORITO y BARBA, Director III, Administrative and Manpower Management Services (SG 27), FLORENDO ARIAS y BUNAG, Assistant Director, Bureau of [E]quipment (SG 27), VIOLETA AMAR y CASTILLO, NAPOLEON ANAS y SEBASTIAN, ROGELIO BERAY y LAGANGA, MAXIMO BORJE y AQUINO, ROLANDO CASTILLO y COMIA, JESSICA CATIBAYAN y JARDIEL, MA. LUISA CRUZ y TALAO, RICARDO JUAN, JR. y MACLANG, AGERICO PALAYPAY y CORTES, ERDITO QUARTO y QUIAOT, FELIPE A. SAN JOSE, RONALDO G. SIMBAHAN, VIOLETA TADEO y RAGASA, NORMA VILLARMINO y AGCAOILI, and JOHN DOES, whose true names are not yet known, committing the offense in relation to their office, and taking advantage of their official positions, and private individuals, namely: JESUS D. CAPUZ and CONCHITA M. DELA CRUZ and JOHN DOES, whose true names are not yet known, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, acting with evident bad faith, manifest partiality or at the very least gross inexcusable negligence, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously forge and falsify or cause to be forged and falsified documents purportedly for emergency repairs of various DPWH vehicles and/or purchase of spare parts, with a total amount of SIX MILLION THREE HUNDRED SIXTY EIGHT THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED SIXTY FOUR PESOS (P6,368,364.00), and which payments were made by the government on the basis of and relying on said forged and falsified documents, when in truth and in fact, as the accused fully well knew, that there were no emergency repairs of DPWH vehicles and/or purchases of spare parts, and these are ghost repairs in the total amount of SIX MILLION THREE HUNDRED SIXTY EIGHT THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED SIXTY FOUR PESOS (P6,368,364.00), thereby causing undue injury to the government in the aforesaid sum.The Sandiganbayan, on November 10, 2016, promulgated its Decision,[9] the dispositive portion of which reads, as follows:
CONTRARY TO LAW.[8]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered, as follows:On November 24, 2016, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration,[11] contending, among others, that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were self-serving. He argued that the findings of fact made by the Sandiganbayan were not proven during the trial and that its ruling was based mainly on conjectures and surmises. Petitioner maintained that in signing documents, he performed only ministerial functions and that he relied on the tasks performed by his subordinates which were done in a regular manner.
1) In Criminal Case No. 28100, the Court finds accused Florendo Arias y Bunag, Maximo Borje y Aquino, Rolando Castillo y Comia, Burt Favorito y Barba, Erdito Quarto y Quiaot, Felipe A. San Jose and Conchita M. dela Cruz guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Estafa Through Falsification Of Documents, defined and penalized under Article 315, in relation to Article 171 and Article 48, of the Revised Penal Code, as charged in the Information dated March 1, 2005. Pursuant to the Indeterminate Sentence Law, all said accused are hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment often (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, with perpetual absolute disqualification for public office. The aforementioned accused are also hereby declared solidarity liable to pay the Department of Public Works and Highways civil indemnity in the sum of P5,166,539.00.
For insufficiency of evidence, the following accused are hereby acquitted: Napoleon Anas y Sebastian, Rogelio Beray y Laganga, Jessica Catibayan y Jardial, Maria Luisa Cruz y Talao, Ricardo Juan, Jr. y Maclang, Ronaldo G. Simbahan, Violeta Tadeo y Tagasa and Norma Villarmino y Agcaoili.
By reason of their death, the case is dismissed as against accused Julio T. Martinez, Violeta Amar y Castillo, Agerico Palaypay y Cortez and Jesus N. Capuz by reason of their death.-and-
2) In Criminal Case No. 28253, the Court finds accused Florendo Arias y Bunag, Maximo Borje y Aquino, Rolando Castillo y Comia, Burt Favorito y Barba, Erdito Quarto y Quiaot, Felipe A. San Jose and Conchita dela Cruz guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, as charged in the Information dated June 8, 2005. All said accused are hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) month, as minimum, to ten (10) years, as maximum. They shall also suffer perpetual disqualification from public office.
For insufficiency of evidence, the following accused are hereby acquitted: Napoleon Anas y Sebastian, Rogelio Boray y Laganga, Jessica Catibayan y Jardiel, Maria Luisa Cruz y Talao, Ricardo Juan, Jr. y Maclang, Ronaldo G. Simbahan, Violeta Tadeo y Ragasa and Norma Villarmino y Agcaoili.
By reason of their death, the case is dismissed as against Julio T. Martinez, Violeta Amar y Castillo, Agerico Palaypay y Cortez and Jesus N. Capuz.
SO ORDERED.[10] (Emphases in the original.)
In its Resolution[12] dated January 15, 2018, the Sandiganbayan denied the motions for reconsideration filed by some of the accused, including that of the petitioner. The court stood by its earlier findings that the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the petitioner and his other co-accused. The dispositive portion of the said Resolution reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court resolves to deny the following:Hence, the present petition.
1) Motion for Reconsideration dated November 22, 2016, filed by accused Maximo A. Borje, Jr., through counsel;
2) Motion for Reconsideration dated November 24, 2016, filed by accused Florendo B. Aries (sic), through counsel;
3) Motion for Reconsideration (Of The Decision Dated November 10, 2016) dated November 24, 2016, filed by accused Conchita M. dela Cruz, through counsel;and
4) Motion for Reconsideration dated November 18, 2016, filed by accused Burt B. Favorito, through counsel.[13]
Petitioner raised the following issues for our consideration:
The petition lacks merit.I
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, FOURTH DIVISION, HAS COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT FOUND PETITIONER-APPELLANT FLORENDO B. ARIAS GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF ESTAFA AND VIOLATION OF SECTION 3(E) OF R.A. 3019, CONTRARY TO THE FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.II
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, FOURTH DIVISION, COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT GAVE DUE COURSE TO THE PROSECUTION'S EXHIBITS DESPITE FAILURE TO PRESENT THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN FALSIFIED.[14]
All the elements of the crime of Estafa through Falsification of Official/Commercial Documents were established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
Article 315, paragraph 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) reads, as follows:
Article 315. Swindling (Estafa). - Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow x x x:The elements of the above crime are the following:x x x x
2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:x x x x
(a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar deceits.
1. That there must be a false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means;Article 171, paragraph 4 of the RPC provides that:
2. That such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud;
3. That the offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means, that is, he was induced to part with his money or property because of the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means; and
4. That as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.
Article 171. x x x. - The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed 5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer, employee, or notary who, taking advantage of his official position, shall falsify a document by committing any of the following acts:In this case, certain funding requirements were set forth by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) for the payment of claims for emergency repairs of DPWH service vehicles, thus:x x x x
4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts[.]
D. FUNDING REQUIREMENTSBased on the evidence presented by the prosecution, it was proven that except for the Cash Invoices issued by the suppliers, the documents required under the DPWH Memorandum,[16] dated July 31, 1997, were prepared, accomplished and signed by all the public officials concerned, taking advantage of their official positions in making untruthful statements in the narration of facts. The said documents were made to appear that the 39 service vehicles underwent emergency repairs or required purchase of spare parts. In addition, in order to claim payment from DPWH, the Disbursement Vouchers were also falsified to justify the release of checks.
1. Documentation - No claim for payment for the emergency minor/major repair of service vehicles of this Department shall be processed by the Accounting Division, CFMS without strictly following provisions of COA Circular No. 92-389 dated November 03, 1992. The following documentary requirements shall be complied with prior to funding and/or processing of payment, to wit:
1.1 Request for Obligation of Allotment (ROA) for said claim which shall be signed by the concerned Undersecretary, Assistant Secretary, Bureau Directors, Project Director/Manager, Service Chief, or the duly designated representative of the office of the end-user;
1.2 Certification of Emergency Purchase/Repair which shall be signed by the end-user, duly approved by the Head of Office concerned (with the rank higher than Division Chief)[;]
1.3 Abstract of Open Canvass and corresponding written quotations for the purchase of spare parts and repair of vehicles duly signed by the Supply Officer, Canvasser, and supplier concerned[;]
1.4 The Requisition for Supplies or Equipment (RSE) which shall be prepared and signed by the end-user, recommended for approval and duly approved by the official concerned, in accordance with the existing delegation of authorities;
1.5 The Motor Vehicle Pre-repair/Post-repair Inspection Report which shall indicate the Control Series No. and the date of inspection, duly signed by all the members of the Special Inspectorate Team (SIT);
1.6 The Certificate of Acceptance which shall be signed by the end-user of said vehicle. All documents, under accounting and auditing rules and regulations, shall be signed by the official and/or supplier concerned over their respective printed names.[15]
Thus, as aptly ruled by the Sandiganbayan, all the elements of the crime of Estafa through Falsification of Official/Commercial Documents are present because the petitioner and his co-accused utilized false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means to make it appear that the DPWH service vehicles underwent emergency repairs or required the purchase of spare parts, and that reimbursements are due to petitioner by using falsified documents. Through those falsified documents, petitioner and his co-accused employed fraudulent means in order to defraud the government in paying the claims for the fictitious emergency repairs/purchases of spare parts. Therefore, the government suffered undue injury or damages in the amount of P5,166,539.00 through such fraudulent act.
As held by the Sandiganbayan:
The Court finds, and so holds, that all the aforementioned documents submitted were falsified. Except for the Cash Invoices issued by the suppliers, the documents were prepared, accomplished and/or executed and signed by public officers/employees taking advantage of their official positions in making untruthful statements in the narration of facts. Through these documents, it was made to appear, albeit untrue, that the 39 vehicles subject of reimbursements claimed and paid to accused Martinez in the total sum of P5,166,539.00 underwent emergency repairs that required purchases of spare parts. The Disbursement Vouchers were also falsified to justify the release of checks for payment of the reimbursements claimed. The Cash Invoices issued by the suppliers were also falsified because they pertain to fictitious or non-existent purchases of spare parts. As earlier stated, these falsified documents were all utilized in sinister schemes to steal government funds.In Tanenggee v. People,[18] this Court discussed the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public documents, thus:
The evidence on record shows that the falsified documents were accomplished and signed or initialed by the accused, as follows:x x x x
The aforementioned falsified documents, as well as the Cash Invoices issued by suppliers DEB and JCAP, were all utilized to defraud the government in a manner constituting Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the RPC. All the elements thereof were present, to wit:First. There were false pretenses, fraudulent acts or fraudulent means in that it was made to appear, through the use of the falsified documents, that the DPWH service vehicles in question underwent emergency repairs that required purchases of spare parts, and that reimbursements were due to accused Martinez;The crime committed was the complex crime of Estafa Through Falsification of Documents, as charged in the Information dated March 1, 2005.
Second. The false pretenses, fraudulent acts or fraudulent means, in the form of falsification of documents, were employed prior to the commission of the fraud; that is to deceive the government in paying the claims for the fictitious emergency repairs/purchases of spare parts;
Third. The government was induced to pay the claims relying on the false pretenses, fraudulent acts or fraudulent means employed;- and-
Fourth. The government suffered damages in the total amount of P5,166,539.00, the sum total of the false claims paid.
When the offender commits on a public, official or commercial document any of the acts of falsification enumerated in Article 171 of the RPC as a necessary means to commit another crime like Estafa under Article 315 of the RPC, the two crimes form a complex crime under Article 48 of the same law. A complex crime, as earlier defined, may refer to a single act which constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies or to an offense as a necessary means for committing another.
In a complex crime of Estafa Through Falsification of Public, Official or Commercial Document, the falsified document is actually utilized to defraud another. The falsification is already consummated and it is the defraudation which causes damage or prejudice to another that constitutes estafa.x x x x
After a careful and meticulous scrutiny of the records, the Court finds, and so holds, that the prosecution evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that the following accused are guilty of the offense charged, namely: Arias, Borja, Castillo, Favorito, Quarto, San Jose and Dela Cruz. These accused conspired with one another, and with accused Martinez whose criminal liability has been extinguished by death.
Accused Arias, an OIC Asst. Director of the Bureau of Equipment, affixed his signature approving and/or recommending approval of the falsified Disbursement Vouchers, Reports of Waste Materials, Requisitions for Supplies and/or Equipment (RSE) and Certificates of Emergency Purchase.[17]
When the offender commits on a public, official or commercial document any of the acts of falsification enumerated in Article 171 as a necessary means to commit another crime like estafa, theft or malversation, the two crimes form a complex crime. Under Article 48 of the RPC, there are two classes of a complex crime. A complex crime may refer to a single act which constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies or to an offense as a necessary means for committing another.[19]In Domingo v. People,[20] we held:
The falsification of a public, official, or commercial document may be a means of committing estafa, because before the falsified document is actually utilized to defraud another, the crime of falsification has already been consummated, damage or intent to cause damage not being an element of the crime of falsification of public, official, or commercial document. In other words, the crime of falsification has already existed. Actually utilizing that falsified public, official, or commercial document to defraud another is estafa. But the damage is caused by the commission of estafa, not by the falsification of the document. Therefore, the falsification of the public, official, or commercial document is only a necessary means to commit estafa.It must be emphasized that the falsified documents (Disbursement Vouchers, Reports of Waste Materials, Requisition for Supplies and/or Equipment and Certificates of Emergency Purchase) involved in this case are official or public documents. Public documents are: (a) the written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines or of a foreign country; (b) documents acknowledged before a notary public except last wills and testaments; and (c) public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to be entered therein.[22] A public document, by virtue of its official or sovereign character, or because it has been acknowledged before a notary public (except a notarial will) or a competent public official with the formalities required by law, or because it is a public record of a private writing authorized by law, is self-authenticating and requires no further authentication in order to be presented as evidence in court.[23] In considering whether the accused is liable for the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public documents, it would be wrong to consider the component crimes separately from each other.[24] While there may be two component crimes (estafa and falsification of public documents), both felonies are animated by and result from one and the same criminal intent for which there is only one criminal liability.[25] That is the concept of a complex crime.[26] In other words, while there are two crimes, they are treated only as one, subject to a single criminal liability.[27] While a conviction for estafa through falsification of public documents requires that the elements of both estafa and falsification exist, it does not mean that the criminal liability for estafa may be determined and considered independently of that for falsification.[28] The two crimes of estafa and falsification of public documents are not separate crimes but component crimes of the single complex crime of estafa and falsification of public documents.[29] In this case, the prosecution was able to prove the elements of the crime.
In general, the elements of estafa are: (1) that the accused defrauded another (a) by abuse of confidence or (b) by means of deceit; and (2) that damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or third person. Deceit is the false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed; and which deceives or is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it, to his legal injury.[21] (Citation omitted.)
Petitioner further seeks a review of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses for allegedly being "self-serving" and "perjured."
Findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are generally accorded great respect by an appellate court. Well-settled is the rule that findings of facts and assessment of credibility of witnesses are matters best left to the trial court because of its unique position of having observed that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witnesses' deportment on the stand while testifying, which opportunity is denied to the appellate courts. For this reason, the trial court's findings are accorded finality, unless there appears in the record some fact or circumstance of weight which the lower court may have overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated and which, if properly considered, would alter the results of the case.[30]
At any rate, the records of this case show no reversible error to warrant a reversal of the assailed decision. It appears that petitioner did not impugn his signatures appearing in the Disbursement Vouchers, Reports of Waste Materials, Requisitions for Supplies and/or Equipment and Certificates of Emergency Purchase. Furthermore, the repeated issuance and execution of these documents belies petitioner's claim that his participation was not necessary and that his function in signing documents is merely ministerial; on the contrary, these documents were necessary for the claims for payment of emergency repairs of DPWH service vehicles and/or purchases of spare parts which were found to be fictitious. Thus, petitioner's signatures on these documents were a clear manifestation of his assent and participation or complicity to the illegal transactions, and his assertion of lack of participation is without merit.
With regard to petitioner's contention as to the Best Evidence Rule, or, more specifically, to the Sandiganbayan's admission on the prosecution's exhibits despite the non-presentation of the original documents, such is misplaced. Instructive on this point is the case of Citibank, N.A. v. Sabeniano,[31] wherein this Court stated that:
As the afore-quoted provision states, the best evidence rule applies only when the subject of the inquiry is the contents of the document. The scope of the rule is more extensively explained thus -Here, petitioner's objection to the prosecution's documentary evidence, as stated in his Comment/Objections to Formal Offer of Exhibits,[33] essentially relates to the materiality, relevance or purpose for which the documents were offered which had nothing to do with the contents thereof.But even with respect to documentary evidence, the best evidence rule applies only when the content of such document is the subject of the inquiry. Where the issue is only as to whether such document was actually executed, or exists, or on the circumstances relevant to or surrounding its execution, the best evidence rule does not apply and testimonial evidence is admissible. Any other substitutionary evidence is likewise admissible without need for accounting for the original.This Court did not violate the best evidence rule when it considered and weighed in evidence the photocopies and microfilm copies of the PNs, MCs, and letters submitted by the petitioners to establish the existence of respondent's loans. The terms or contents of these documents were never the point of contention in the Petition at bar. It was respondent's position that the PNs in the first set (with the exception of PN No. 34534) never existed, while the PNs in the second set (again, excluding PN No. 34534) were merely executed to cover simulated loan transactions. As for the MCs representing the proceeds of the loans, the respondent either denied receipt of certain MCs or admitted receipt of the other MCs but for another purpose. Respondent further admitted the letters she wrote personally or through her representatives to Mr. Tan of petitioner Citibank acknowledging the loans, except that she claimed that these letters were just meant to keep up the ruse of the simulated loans. Thus, respondent questioned the documents as to their existence or execution, or when the former is admitted, as to the purpose for which the documents were executed, matters which are, undoubtedly, external to the documents, and which had nothing to do with the contents thereof.[32] (Citations omitted.)
Thus, when a document is presented to prove its existence or condition it is offered not as documentary, but as real, evidence. Parol evidence of the fact of execution of the documents is allowed.
In Estrada v. Desierto, this Court had occasion to rule that -
It is true that the Court relied not upon the original but only [a] copy of the Angara Diary as published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer on February 4-6, 2001. In doing so, the Court, did not, however, violate the best evidence rule. Wigmore, in his book on evidence, states that:
"Production of the original may be dispensed with, in the trial court's discretion, whenever in the case in hand the opponent does not bona fide dispute the contents of the document and no other useful purpose will be served by requiring production.
"xxx xxx xxx
"In several Canadian provinces, the principle of unavailability has been abandoned, for certain documents in which ordinarily no real dispute arised. This measure is a sensible and progressive one and deserves universal adoption. Its essential feature is that a copy may be used unconditionally, if the opponent has been given an opportunity to inspect it." x x x
As to petitioner's guilt for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, such has been established beyond reasonable doubt.
Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 reads, as follows:
Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. - In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:The elements of the above violation are:x x x x
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official[,] administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.
All the above elements are present in this case. The petitioner is a public officer, being then the Assistant Director of the Bureau of Equipment of DPWH, discharging administrative and official functions. Petitioner and his co-accused acted with evident bad faith by falsifying official documents to defraud the DPWH into paying the claims for fictitious emergency repairs or purchase of spare parts under the name of Julio Martinez. The act of petitioner caused undue injury or damage to the government in the total amount of P5,166,539.00.
(1) the offender is a public officer; (2) the act was done in the discharge of the public officer's official, administrative or judicial functions; (3) the act was done through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence; and (4) the public officer caused any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or gave any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference.[34]
Petitioner acted with evident bad faith when he affixed his signature to the falsified documents in order to induce the government to pay the claim for fictitious emergency repairs and purchases of spare parts of certain vehicles. Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence; it imputes a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong; a breach of sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill will; it partakes of the nature of fraud.[35]
In view, however, of R.A. No. 10951 (An Act Adjusting the Amount or the Value of Property and Damage on which a Penalty is Based, and the Fines Imposed under the Revised Penal Code, amending for the Purpose Act No. 3815, otherwise known as "The Revised Penal Code"), a modification must be made as to the penalty imposed by the Sandiganbayan. Section 85 of the said law provides the following:
SEC. 85. Article 315 of the same Act, as amended by Republic Act No. 4885, Presidential Decree No. 1689, and Presidential Decree No. 818, is hereby further amended to read as follows:Applying the above provisions, the maximum term of the penalty that must be imposed should be within the maximum period of prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum, considering that the amount defrauded is P5,166,539.00 and the crime committed is a complex crime under Article 48 of the RPC, where the penalty of the most serious of the crimes should be imposed which, in this case, is the penalty for Estafa. Hence, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum term of the penalty should be within the range of the penalty next lower in degree or prision correccional minimum to prision correccional medium and the maximum term should be taken from the maximum period of prision mayor minimum. Thus, an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional medium, as the minimum term, to eight (8) years of prision mayor minimum, as the maximum term, is appropriate.
"ART. 315. Swindling (estafa). - Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by:
"1st. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is over Two million four hundred thousand pesos (P2,400,000) but does not exceed Four million four hundred thousand pesos (P4,400,000), and if such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional Two million pesos (P2,000,000); but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed and for the purpose of the other provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed prision mayor or reclusion temporal as the case may be.x x x x
"4th. The penalty of prision mayor in its medium period, if such amount is over Forty thousand pesos (P40,000) but does not exceed One million two hundred thousand pesos (P1,200,000).
"5th. By prision mayor in its minimum period, if such amount does not exceed Forty thousand pesos (P40,000).
"3. Through any of the following fraudulent means:
"(a) By inducing another, by means of deceit, to sign any document.
"(b) By resorting to some fraudulent practice to insure success in a gambling game.
"(c) By removing, concealing or destroying, in whole or in part, any court record, office files, document or any other papers." (Emphasis ours.)
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari dated March 15, 2018 of petitioner Florendo B. Arias is DENIED for lack of merit. Consequently, the Decision of the Sandiganbayan dated November 10, 2016, in the consolidated Criminal Case No. 28100 and Criminal Case No. 28253, and its Resolution dated January 15, 2018 are AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that in Criminal Case No. 28100 for Estafa through Falsification of Official/Commercial Documents, petitioner is sentenced to suffer imprisonment of from four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional medium, as minimum, to eight (8) years of prision mayor minimum, as maximum.
SO ORDERED.
Leonen, A. Reyes, Jr., Hernando, and Inting, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 18-43.
[2] Id. at 73-133. Penned by Associate Justice Oscar C. Herrera, Jr., and concurred in by Associate Justices Jose R. Hernandez and Alex L. Quiroz.
[3] Id. at 44-50.
[4] Id. at 96-109.
[5] Id. at 77.
[6] Id. at 75.
[7] Id. at 77.
[8] Id. at 76.
[9] Supra note 2.
[10] Id. at 131-132.
[11] Rollo, pp. 51-65.
[12] Supra note 3.
[13] Id. at 49.
[14] Rollo, p. 23.
[15] Id. at 71.
[16] Id. at 67-72.
[17] Id. at 123-126.
[18] 712 Phil. 310 (2013).
[19] Id. at 334.
[20] 618 Phil. 499 (2009).
[21] Id. at 517-518.
[22] Rules of Court, Rule 132, Section 19.
[23] Patula v. People, 685 Phil. 376, 397 (2012).
[24] Intestate Estate of Manolita Gonzales Vda. De Carungcong v. People, et al., 626 Phil. 177, 206 (2010).
[25] Id.
[26] Id.
[27] Id.
[28] Id. at 208.
[29] Id.
[30] People v. Suarez, 496 Phil. 231, 242-243 (2005).
[31] 535 Phil. 384 (2006).
[32] Id. at 457-458.
[33] Rollo, pp. 219-254.
[34] Sison v. People, 628 Phil. 573, 583 (2010).
[35] Fonacier v. Sandiganbayan, 308 Phil. 661, 693 (1994).