600 Phil. 186
BRION, J.:
Criminal Case No. 25861The appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges upon arraignment. The prosecution filed a motion to suspend the accused pendente lite after their arraignment.[8] The Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division) granted the motion and ordered the preventive suspension of the appellants for 90 days.[9] The appellants filed a motion for reconsideration[10] which the Sandiganbayan denied.[11] The appellants filed with this Court a petition for review on certiorari, docketed as G.R. No. 145030, assailing the Sandiganbayan Resolutions of August 16, 2000 and September 12, 2000, respectively. We denied the petition for lack of merit.[12]
That on or about 5 January 1998 and 20 February 1998, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the Municipality of Castillejos, Province of Zambales, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, both public officers, then being the Municipal Mayor and Municipal Treasurer, respectively, both of the Municipality of Castillejos, Zambales who by reason of their said respective office, are accountable for public funds or properties, committing the complex crime charged herein while in the performance of, in relation to and/or taking advantage of their official positions and functions as such, and conspiring and confederating with one another, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously appropriate, take or misappropriate public funds of the Municipality of Castillejos, Zambales under their charge and custody in the amount of P166,242,72, Philippine currency, under the check dated 20 February 1998 intended for the simulated disbursement and payment thereof in favor of La Paz Construction (LPC) relative to the fictitious contract for the upgrading of the barangay roads in Barangay Looc, Nagbayan, Magsaysay and San Pablo, Castillejos, Zambales; by means of falsifying the corresponding disbursement voucher no. 101-9803-328, certificates of inspection and acceptance, contract between LPC and the Municipality of Castillejos, Zambales, price quotation, purchase order, and LPC official receipt number 000999 dated 5 January 1998, to falsely make it appear that LPC entered into, undertook and completed the said contract and received the aforesaid amount as payment therefor from the Municipality of Castillejos, Zambales, when in truth and in fact, LPC neither entered into, undertook and completed the aforesaid contract nor received from the Municipality of Castillejos, Zambales the said sum of money or any part thereof, to the damage and prejudice of the Municipality of Castillejos, Zambales and the public interest in the aforestated amount.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[5]
Criminal Case No. 25862
That on or about 23 February 1998, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the Municipality of Castillejos, Province of Zambales, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, both public officers, then being the Municipal Mayor and Municipal Treasurer, respectively, both of the Municipality of Castillejos, Zambales who by reason of their said respective office are accountable for public funds or properties, committing the complex crime charged herein while in the performance of, in relation to and/or taking advantage of their official positions and functions as such, and conspiring and confederating with one another, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously appropriate, take or misappropriate public funds of the Municipality of Castillejos, Zambales under their charge and custody in the amount of P154,634.27 Philippine currency, under the check dated 23 February 1998 intended for the simulated disbursement and payment thereof in favor of La Paz Construction (LPC) relative to the fictitious contract for the upgrading of the barangay roads in Barangay Looc proper-Casagatan, Nagbayan proper-Angeles and San Pablo-Sitio Isidro, Castillejos, Zambales; by means of falsifying the corresponding disbursement voucher no. 101-9803-349, certificates of inspection and acceptance, contract between LPC and the Municipality of Castillejos, Zambales, purchase order, and LPC official receipt, to falsely make it appear that LPC entered into, undertook and completed the said contract and received the aforesaid amount as payment therefor from the Municipality of Castillejos, Zambales, when in truth and in fact, LPC neither entered into, undertook and completed the aforesaid contract nor received from the Municipality of Castillejos, Zambales the said sum of money or any part thereof, to the damage and prejudice of the Municipality of Castillejos, Zambales and the public interest in the aforestated amount.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[6]
Criminal Case No. 25863
That on or about 20 March 1998, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the Municipality of Castillejos, Province of Zambales, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, both public officers, then being the Municipal Mayor and Municipal Treasurer, respectively, both of the Municipality of Castillejos, Zambales who by reason of their said respective office are accountable for public funds or properties, committing the complex crime charged herein while in the performance of, in relation to and/or taking advantage of their official positions and functions as such, and conspiring and confederating with one another, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously appropriate, take or misappropriate public funds of the Municipality of Castillejos, Zambales under their charge and custody in the amount of P90,464.21, Philippine currency, under the check dated 20 March 1998 intended for the simulated disbursement and payment thereof in favor of La Paz Construction (LPC) relative to the fictitious contract for the construction of market stalls at the public market of Castillejos, Zambales, by means of falsifying the corresponding disbursement voucher no. 101-9804-415, certificates of inspection and acceptance, contract between LPC and the Municipality of Castillejos, Zambales, price quotation, purchase order, and LPC official receipt number 000995 dated 20 March 1998, to falsely make it appear that LPC entered into, undertook and completed the said contract and received the aforesaid amount as payment therefor from the Municipality of Castillejos, Zambales, when in truth and in fact, LPC neither entered into, undertook and completed the aforesaid contract nor received from the Municipality of Castillejos, Zambales the said sum of money or any part thereof, to the damage and prejudice of the Municipality of Castillejos, Zambales and the public interest in the aforestated amount.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[7]
(a) | Martin Pagaduan (Pagaduan), the present municipal accountant, signed Voucher No. 101-9803-328 (Exh. "A") above her (Nida's) name without her authority. Pagaduan was not yet the municipal accountant at the time of the issuance of the voucher; he was only designated as municipal accountant on January 1, 1999; |
(b) | Pagaduan also similarly signed some of the documents attached to Voucher No. 101-9803-328, such as the purchase orders (Exh. "A-4 to A-6") and the request for obligation allotment (Exh. "A-9"); |
(c) | Vallejos wrote the voucher number and filled up the accounting entry of Disbursement Voucher No. 101-9803-328 (Exh. "A"). She should have filled up these entries in her capacity as municipal accountant. Some of the documents attached to Disbursement Voucher No. 101-9803-328 (Exh. "A"), such as the purchase request, purchase order, and request form, were not the documents required by the rules; |
(d) | Disbursement Voucher Nos. 101-9803-349 (Exh. "B") and 101-9804-415 (Exh. "C") did not bear her (Nida's) signature. Their voucher numbers and accounting entries were written and filled up by Vallejos. In addition, the request for obligation of allotment (Exh. "B-9" and "C-5") attached to these disbursement vouchers were not signed by the municipal accountant and by the budget officer; |
(e) | The contract agreement attached to Disbursement Voucher No. 101-9803-349 (Exh. "B") was not notarized. No abstract of bids and authority to enter into a negotiated contract were attached to the voucher; and |
(f) | The certificate of acceptance (Exh. "C-7"), attached to Disbursement Voucher No. 101-9804-415 (Exh. "C"), was undated. |
WHEREFORE, the accused, TEOFILO G. PANTALEON, JR., and JAIME F. VALLEJOS, are hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS THRU FALSIFICATION, in three counts, as defined and penalized under Article 217 in relation to Articles 48 and 171 of the Revised Penal Code, and each of said acc`ed is hereby sentenced in Criminal Case Nos. 25861, 25862, and 25863, respectively, to suffer three times the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to suffer the penalty of perpetual special disqualification and to pay a fine in the amounts of P166,242.72, P154,634.27, and P90,464.21, respectively, and to pay the costs.Post-Sandiganbayan Developments
SO ORDERED.[41] [Emphasis in the original]
Art. 217. Malversation of public funds or property -- Presumption of malversation. - Any public officer who, by reason of the duties of his office, is accountable for public funds or property, shall appropriate the same, or shall take or misappropriate or shall consent, or through abandonment or negligence, shall permit any other person to take such public funds or property, wholly or partially, or shall, otherwise, be guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property, shall suffer:The essential elements common to all acts of malversation under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code are the following:
x x x x
4. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium and maximum periods, if the amount involved is more than 12,000 pesos but is less than 22,000 pesos. If the amount exceeds the latter, the penalty shall be reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua.
In all cases, persons guilty of malversation shall also suffer the penalty of perpetual special disqualification and a fine equal to the amount of the funds malversed or equal to the total value of the property embezzled.
The failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property with which he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly authorized officer, shall be prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or property to personal uses.
Appellants are public officers
(a) That the offender be a public officer. (b) That he had the custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his office. (c) That those funds or property were public funds or property for which he was accountable. (d) That he appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented or, through abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take them.
Section 340. Persons Accountable for Local Government Funds. — Any officer of the local government unit whose duty permits or requires the possession or custody of local government funds shall be accountable and responsible for the safekeeping thereof in conformity with the provisions of this title. Other local officials, though not accountable by the nature of their duties, may likewise be similarly held accountable and responsible for local government funds through their participation in the use or application thereof.In addition, municipal mayors, pursuant to the Local Government Code, are chief executives of their respective municipalities. Under Section 102 of the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines, he is responsible
Section 102. Primary and secondary responsibility. - (1) The head of any agency of the government is immediately and primarily responsible for all government funds and property pertaining to his agency.The appellants appropriated, took, misappropriated
Aurelio, a Sangguniang Bayan member, likewise testified that no construction work was undertaken on various barangay roads and in the public market of Castillejos in 1998:
PROSECUTOR JACQUELYN ONGPAUCO-CORTEL Q: Now, in your stay as acting municipal engineer in Castillejos, Zambales, what documents did you prepare? ENGR. RAMOS A: I prepared three (3) programs of works, namely: the two (2) were up-grading of barangay roads and the third one was the construction of the market stall. Q: Now, Mr. Witness, you mentioned of three (3) programs of works, now, showing to you program of work dated January 5, 1998, is this the one you were referring to? A: Yes, ma'am. x x x Q: Can you please state before this Honorable Court what is the purpose of this program of work? A: I was instructed to make that program of work but I never implemented those projects anymore. x x x Q: Now, showing to you another program of work, Mr. Witness, dated January 14, 1998, is this also a part of this program of work which you mentioned earlier? A: Yes, ma'am. x x x Q: Can you state before this Honorable Court if this project was implemented? A: Likewise, ma'am, I never did implement such project. x x x Q: Now, showing to you another program of work, Mr. Witness, dated January 5, 1998, is this the part and parcel of what you have mentioned earlier? A: Yes, ma'am. x x x Q: And can you state before this Honorable Court if the project was implemented in 1998 Mr. witness? A: No, ma'am. x x x Q: Going back to the sites of the projects Mr. Witness, did you actually see the sites of the intended projects? A: Yes, ma'am. Q: What did you see? A: They were already existing at that time. Q: What do you mean by that Mr. Witness? A: The municipal engineer did implement those projects before. Q: When were these projects actually implemented Mr. Witness? Before? A: Yes, ma'am. Q: When? A: As I've said, they were already existing before I made those programs of work. ASSOCIATE JUSTICE NARCISO S. NARIO (Chairman) Q: What were these projects that according to you were already existing? What are these projects? ENGR. RAMOS A: The upgrading of the barangay roads, Your Honor. Q: Upgrading of the barangay roads? What barangays are these? A: Barangay Looc proper, Barangay Magsaysay and Barangay San Pablo. Q: What else? A: And the construction of the market stalls located in the public market. Q: These projects were already existing? A: Yes, Your Honor. PROSECUTOR CORTEL Q: Meaning to say, Mr. Witness, that before they applied, before the preparation of the programs of works and disbursement of the amount as indicated thereon, the projects you have mentioned are already existing? ENGR. RAMOS A: Yes, ma'am. Q: And that there is no need for the preparation of this program of work and disbursement of another money for that project? A: Yes, ma'am. x x x ASSOCIATE JUSTICE NARIO Q: Now, it's on the basis of this program of work that the disbursements, issue voucher, the check and other relevant documents were paid because of this program of work that you prepared? A: Yes, Your Honor.[56] [Emphasis ours]
Alberto, the Barangay Captain of Looc, also declared on the witness stand during his September 7, 2000 testimony that no project was undertaken in his barangay during the tenure of Pantaleon. Resty, a municipal councilor, likewise testified on September 12, 2000 that there was no upgrading, compacting and leveling of roads in Barangay San Pablo in 1998.
PROSECUTOR CORTEL Q: But do you know if there is a construction of the market stall, public market done in 1998, Mr. Witness? AURELIO FASTIDIO A: None, ma'am. Q: In 1999? A: None, ma'am. Q: Going to Voucher No. 101-9803-328 Mr. Witness for the upgrading, excavation, back filling of barangay roads, Mr. Witness, do you know if there is upgrading, excavation and back filling of certain barangay roads in your area? A: None, ma'am. Q: How many barangay roads do you have in that area, Mr. Witness? A: We have many barangay roads, ma'am. Q: And do you know if in 1998 there is the upgrading, excavation and back filling of many barangay roads? A: None, ma'am. Q: Not even one, Mr. Witness. A: Yes, ma'am.[57] [Emphasis ours]
Vallejos, in his testimony of October 18, 2000, likewise admitted signing the disbursement vouchers:
ATTY. RODOLFO REYNOSO Q: Okay. An issue of pre-audit was brought when the accountant testified earlier that allegedly you did not require them or you just signed the voucher without requiring the budget officer or the accountant to affix their signatures, what can you say about that? TEOFILO PANTALEON, JR. A: I asked. When the treasurer came into my office, he asked me about the non-signatures of the accountant and the budget officer, sir. So I called up their attention and they were adamant, they were hesitant to sign. I called up again the treasurer why it is [sic] because they were asking for a commission as per the treasurer said to me, Your Honor. x x x Q: In other words, Mr. Witness, after informing the accountant and the budget officer that they have not signed the voucher, you already signed it even without their signature, did I get you right? A: Yes, sir. Q: And you allowed the treasurer to pay? A: Yes, sir. x x x ASSOCIATE JUSTICE NARIO Q: So despite the absence of the signatures of the accountant and the budget officer, you went through signing these vouchers? (sic) TEOFILO PANTALEON, JR. A: Yes, Your Honor. x x x[58] [Emphasis ours]
Significantly, the appellants did not deny that they allowed the release of the public funds, but maintained that the money went to Baquilat as representative and/or subcontractor of La Paz Construction. This was confirmed by Baquilat himself when he admitted, in his February 8, 2001 testimony, receipt of P400,00.00, more or less, from the Municipality of Castillejos for the three (3) construction projects he allegedly did in 1998. However, Ken Swan Tiu, the owner of La Paz Construction, vehemently denied that he contracted with the Municipality of Castillejos:
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE RODOLFO G. PALATTAO Q: In other words, since you considered the refusal of the accountant to sign the vouchers as accompanied by bad faith, you decided to ignore the requirement of her signature and you allowed payment? JAIME VALLEJOS A: Yes, your Honor, because the sub-contractor threatened me for not paying the vouchers, besides, that will cause injury to him. x x x Q: Mr. Witness, do you recall where were the funds coming from in paying the projects? A: Yes, sir, there were two sources of fund, under the Engineering Office maintenance and other operating expenses, roads and bridges maintenance, and 20% development funds. x x x ASSOCIATE JUSTICE NICODEMO T. FERRER: Q: A while ago, you said that this alleged sub-contractor encashed the checks issued to him, can you show the encashment made by the contractor? A: It was in the bank, ma’am. Q: Where is it now? A: It was in the Land Bank, ma’am. x x x Q: You said that in the signing of the vouchers, you are the last signatory? A: Yes, ma’am. Q: Meaning to say, all the signatories precedent to you must sign first before you sign? A: Yes, ma’am. Q: Now, in these particular cases, the accountant and the budget officer did not affix their signatures? A: Yes, ma’am. Q: And despite that fact, you signed the disbursement vouchers? A: Yes, ma’am. x x x[59] [Emphasis ours]
Ken Swan Tiu likewise testified that Baquilat was not in any way connected with the La Paz Construction. We quote his June 7, 2001 testimony:
PROSECUTOR CORTEL Q: Mr. Witness, in connection with these cases, do you remember having received payments from the municipality of Castillejos, Zambales? KEN SWAN TIU A: No, I did not receive any single centavo from the government of Castillejos. x x x Q: Now, Mr. Witness, I would like to show to you vouchers which would indicate that the claimant or the payee is La Paz Construction of San Marcelino, Zambales. Now, Mr. Witness in Exhibit "A", Disbursement Voucher No. 101803-328, do you remember having received the amount of One Hundred Sisty Six Thousand Two Hundred Forty-Two Pesos and Seventy-Two Centavos (P166,242.72)? (WITNESS GOING OVER THE VOUCHER SHOWN TO HIM BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR) A: No, ma'am. I did not receive any. Q: In Disbursement Voucher No. 1019803-349 wherein the payee is La Paz Construction also of San Marcelino, Zambales, do you remember having received the amount of One Hundred Fifty-Four Thousand Six Hundred Thirty-Four Pesos and Twenty-Seven Centavos (P154,634.27)? A: No, ma'am. x x x Q: Now, Exhibit "A" Mr. Witness I would like to point to you a portion wherein the recipient appears to be La Paz Construction, San Marcelino, Zambales in the amount of Two Hundred Forty-Two Pesos [sic]. Do you know whose signature that is appearing on top of the typewritten name of La Paz Construction? A: No, ma'am. I don't recognize this signature and I don't have any agent to collect this amount. x x x Q: Now, what about in Exhibit "B" wherein the recipient appears to be La Paz Construction, whose signature appears on top of the typewritten name of La Paz Construction? A: Yes, ma'am. The same, I don't recognize the signature and I don't have any transaction with the municipality of Castillejos. Q: Now, in connection with Exhibit "C", there also appears a signature who was a recipient of the amount of Ninety Thousand Four Hundred Sixty- Five and Twenty-One Centavos (P90,465.21), whose signature is that? A: Yes, ma'am. The same, the signature I don't recognize and I don't have any agent or collecting agent or any transaction with the officials of the municipality of Castillejos. x x x ATTY. REYNOSO Q: So in other words, in all transactions from the very beginning that you have transacted with the municipality, you are the only one who transacted with the municipality? A: I don't have any transaction with the Municipality of Castillejos. Q: Even before this alleged incident took place? A: I said I don't have any, sir. x x x Q: You said that you have not made any contract with the municipality, did I get you right? A: Yes, sir. Q: You are a witness charging the accused here of an alleged contract entered into between the accused and your company and you deny did I get you right? A: Yes, sir. Q: So insofar as you are concerned, there was no contract between you and the municipality? A: Precisely.[60] [Emphasis ours]
These testimonies lead to no other conclusion than that the appellants had deliberately consented to or permitted the taking of public funds by Baquilat despite the fact that (1) La Paz Construction never entered into a contract with the Municipality of Castillejos; (2) Baquilat was not an agent, representative or subcontractor of La Paz Construction; (3) the projects covered by the disbursement vouchers in question never existed; and (4) the disbursement vouchers lacked the requisite signatures of the municipal accountant and the local budget officer. In short, they resorted to machinations and simulation of projects to draw funds out of the municipal coffers.
PROSECUTOR CORTELQ: Mr. Witness, in his (Baquilat's) testimony in open court, he declared that you let him borrow, you lent him your license as a Contractor, is that true, Mr. Witness? KEN SWAN TIU A: No, ma'am. We don't have any agreement with that, and I am not lending my own company, my license to them because they have their own company. Q: Okay. Mr. Witness, he also declared in open court that you sub-contracted him in connection with the projects undertaken by then Mayor Pantaleon in the Municipality of Castillejos, what can you say to that? A: No, Ma'am, I don't have any construction with the government of the Municipality of Castillejos, and sub-contracting, I don't have this idea on my mind because I don't enter in this construction, Ma'am. (sic) x x x ATTY. MARK M. AVERILLA Q: Is your testimony, Mr. Witness, therefore that you have not entered into a sub-construction agreement with Mr. John Baquilat pertaining to that project in Castillejos, Zambales? A: Yes, sir. Q: Is it therefore your testimony that Mr. Witness that Mr. John Baquilat, who testified earlier declaring in open court that you authorized him to use La Paz Construction as the entity to enter into contract with the Municipality of Castillejos, that he was lying [sic]? A: Of course we don't have any agreement on that, and I don't have any contract... (interruption) Q: Yes, Sir, so you are saying that he was lying? Is that your testimony? A: I don't know, Sir, because I just encountered that there is a sub-contractor who came out. Actually, in myself, I don't have any construction here with the government of Castillejos. How come there exists a sub-Contractor? [sic]. x x x[61] [Emphasis ours]
Through the appellant's explicit admissions, the witnesses' testimonies, and the documentary evidence submitted, the prosecution duly established the fourth element of the crime of malversation. It is settled that a public officer is liable for malversation even if he does not use public property or funds under his custody for his personal benefit, if he allows another to take the funds, or through abandonment or negligence, allow such taking.[63] The felony may be committed, not only through the misappropriation or the conversion of public funds or property to one's personal use, but also by knowingly allowing others to make use of or misappropriate the funds. The felony may thus be committed by dolo or by culpa. The crime is consummated and the appropriate penalty is imposed regardless of whether the mode of commission is with intent or due to negligence.[64]
- All of the three disbursement vouchers were not signed by her;
- As to the Disbursement Voucher No. 1019802-328, the box in which she did not sign as municipal accountant, now bears the signature of Martin Pagaduan without her authority, after the voucher was disallowed and returned by the Commission on Audit; Pagaduan was not yet the Municipal Accountant as he was appointed only on January 1, 1999;
- Required documents - authority to enter into negotiated contract, plans and specifications, abstract of bids, notarized contracts - were not attached to the voucher;
- Voucher number and accounting entries were written by accused Treasurer Vallejos, not the then municipal accountant (Nida Naman);
- Also signed by Martin Pagaduan without her authority as municipal treasurer are the three purported Certificate of Canvass attached to the Disbursement Voucher No. 101-9803-328;
- Official Receipt No. 000989 that appears to have been signed by John Baquilat to acknowledge receipt of the amount covered by check no. 108952 indicated in Disbursement Voucher No. 101-9803-349 is not filled up.[62]
ART. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastic minister. - 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:Falsification under paragraph 2 is committed when (a) the offender causes it to appear in a document that a person or persons participated in an act or a proceeding; and (b) that such person or persons did not in fact so participate in the act or proceeding. In the present case, both testimonial and documentary evidence showed that Vallejos filled up the spaces for the voucher number and the accounting entry of Disbursement Voucher Nos. 101-9803-328, 101-9803-349 and 10-9804-415. These items were required to be filled up by Nida as the municipal accountant. Thus, Vallejos made it appear that the municipal accountant participated in signing the disbursement vouchers.x x x
- Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate;
x x x
- Altering true dates;
After all, secrecy and concealment are essential features of a successful conspiracy. Conspiracies are clandestine in nature. It may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime, showing that they had acted with a common purpose and design. Conspiracy may be implied if it is proved that two or more persons aimed their acts towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so that their combined acts, though apparently independent of each other, were in fact, connected and cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment. To hold an accused guilty as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy, he must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity. There must be intentional participation in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose.[68]The prosecution's evidence glaringly shows how the appellants acted in concert to facilitate the illegal release of public funds. First, the appellants ordered the preparation of the programs of work, with specific instructions to antedate the submitted programs. Second, they affixed their signatures on the antedated programs of work. Third, the appellants signed the disbursement vouchers covering the simulated projects despite knowledge of the absence of the signatures of the local budget officer and the local accountant. Vallejos even filled up entries in the vouchers that were for the municipal treasurer to fill up. Finally, the appellants affixed their signatures in the following documents attached to the three (3) disbursement vouchers:
Supporting documents attached to Disbursement Voucher Nos. 101-9803-328The appellants' combined acts therefore indubitably point to their joint purpose and design. Their concerted actions clearly showed that conspiracy existed in their illegal release of public funds.Supporting documents attached to Disbursement Voucher Nos. 101-9803-349
- Purchase Request (Exh. "A-3");
- Three Certificates of Canvass (Exh. "A-4 to A-6");
- Purchase Order showing La Paz Construction as the winning bidder/contractor (Exh. "A-7");
- Certificate of Acceptance with regard to the services rendered by La Paz Construction (Exh. "A-8"); and
- Request for Obligation Allotment with La Paz Construction as payee (Exh. "A-9").
Supporting documents attached to Disbursement Voucher Nos. 101-9804-415
- Purchase Request (Exh. "B-6");
. Purchase Order showing La Paz Construction as the contractor (Exh. "B-7");
. Request for Obligation Allotment with La Paz Construction as payee (Exh. "B-9"); and
. Certificate of Acceptance with regard to the services rendered by La Paz Construction (Exh. "B-8").
- Request for Obligation Allotment with La Paz Construction as payee (Exh. "C-8");
- Three Certificates of Canvass (Exh. "C-4 to C-5");
- Purchase Order showing La Paz Construction as the contractor (Exh. "C-6");
- Purchase Request (Exh. "C-2"); and
- Certificate of Acceptance with regard to the services rendered by La Paz Construction (Exh. "C-7").
In Rodrigo, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan, Binay vs. Sandiganbayan, and Layus vs. Sandiganbayan, we already held that municipal mayors fall under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Nor can Barangay Captain Mark Anthony Esquivel claim that since he is not a municipal mayor, he is outside the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction. R.A. 7975, as amended by R.A. No. 8249 provides that it is only in cases where "none of the accused are occupying positions corresponding to salary grade `27' or higher" that "exclusive original jurisdiction shall be vested in the proper regional trial court, metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court, and municipal circuit court, as the case may be, pursuant to their respective jurisdictions as provided in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended." Note that under the 1991 Local Government Code, Mayor Esquivel has a salary grade of 27. Since Barangay Captain Esquivel is the co-accused in Criminal Case No. 24777 of Mayor Esquivel, whose position falls under salary grade 27, the Sandiganbayan committed no grave abuse of discretion in assuming jurisdiction over said criminal case, as well as over Criminal Case No. 24778, involving both of them.[71] [Underscoring and italics in the original]Vallejos' claim that it was his ministerial function to sign the disbursement vouchers also lacks merit. Article 344 R.A. No. 7160 reads:
Sec. 344. Certification and Approval of Vouchers. - No money shall be disbursed unless the local budget officer certifies to the existence of appropriation that has been legally made for the purpose, the local accountant has obligated said appropriation, and the local treasurer certifies to the availability of funds for the purpose. Vouchers and payrolls shall be certified to and approved by the head of the department or office who has administrative control of the fund concerned, as to validity, propriety, and legality of the claim involved. Except in cases of disbursements involving regularly recurring administrative expenses such as payrolls for regular or permanent employees, expenses for light, water, telephone and telegraph services, remittances to government creditor agencies such as GSIS, SSS, LDP, DBP, National Printing Office, Procurement Service of the DBM and others, approval of the disbursement voucher by the local chief executive himself shall be required whenever local funds are disbursed.Thus, as a safeguard against unwarranted disbursements, certifications are required from: (a) the local budget officer as to the existence and validity of the appropriation; (b) the local accountant as to the legal obligation incurred by the appropriation; (c) the local treasurer as to the availability of funds; and (d) the local department head as to the validity, propriety and legality of the claim against the appropriation.[72] Therefore, Vallejos, as municipal treasurer, could not authorize the release of the funds without the requisite signatures of the municipal budget officer and the municipal accountant.
x x x x
ART. 48. Penalty for complex crimes. - When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period.The Sandiganbayan, therefore, correctly imposed on the appellants the penalties of reclusion perpetua and perpetual special disqualification for each count of malversation of public funds through falsification of public documents, and the payment of fines of P166,242.72, P154,634.27, and P90,464.21, respectively, representing the amounts malversed. The Indeterminate Sentence Law finds no application since reclusion perpetua is an indivisible penalty to which the Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply.