602 Phil. 604
PERALTA, J.:
In sum, there is probable cause that respondents CAYETANO TEJANO, JR. and AMELIA FUFUNAN in the discharge of their official, administrative duties and DOLORES ARANCILLO conspired with each other in the realization of the treatment of subject FEBTC check as "cash" in the PNB-Casino Vault, thereby substituting its face value of P200,000.00 in cash, giving unwarranted benefit with manifest partiality to Dolores Arancillo and prejudicing the government or the PNB in terms of foregone interest; and that their conjoint acts are violative of Sec. 3(e), RA 3019.On March 25, 1998, Graft Investigation Officer II Edgemelo C. Rosales of the Office of the Ombudsman for the Visayas filed an Information for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) against petitioner and his co-accused, Amelia Fufunan and Dolores Arancillo, before respondent Sandiganbayan, stating:
Premises considered, it is recommended that an INFORMATION for violation of Section 3(e), RA 3019 be filed against respondents CAYETANO A. TEJANO, JR., AMELIA FUFUNAN and DOLORES ARANCILLO before the Sandiganbayan.
SO RESOLVED.
05 March 1998, Cebu City.
That on or about the 1st day of February 1991, in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above-named accused, public officers, having been duly appointed and qualified to such public positions above-mentioned, in such capacity and committing the offense in relation to their office, conniving and confederating together and mutually helping with each other, with deliberate intent, evident bad faith and manifest partiality, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously accommodate a personal Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC) check bearing SN-742414, dated February 1, 1991, in the amount of P200,000.00, issued by accused Dolores Arancillo, with accused Cayetano A. Tejano, Jr., endorsing the same, and directing accused Amelia Fufunan to place the said check at the PNB-Casino Vault of accused Amelia Fufunan, in lieu of the cash of P200,000.00, Philippine Currency, taken therefrom; which check remained at the said vault until the 7th day of February, 1991 and formed part of the cash therein, and treating the substituted check as part of the "operating cash" of the PNB-Casino Unit for a number of days and, thus, accused, in the discharge or performance of their official functions, had given unwarranted benefits and advantage to Dolores Arancillo, to the damage and prejudice of the government.During the arraignment of petitioner on November 12, 1999 and accused Amelia Fufunan on August 13, 2001, both entered a plea of "not guilty" to the crime charged while accused Arancillo remained at large.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Cebu City (for Manila), Philippines.
March 25, 1998.
BAIL BOND RECOMMENDED : P30,000.00 each.[5]
G. The encashment of checks whose amounts exceed the Teller's authority shall be approved by officers/supervisors, depending [on] the limit of their respective approving authorities.This document was also adopted by accused Fufunan as part of her defense.
In considering checks for approval, the Approving Officer/Personnel should be guided by the following:
- Out-of-town checks (except those issued by us) should be accepted by the Bank for deposit/collection only and not for outright encashment. The encashment of these checks is purely an act of accommodation as the Bank is not obliged to pay these checks. Approval of these checks for payment, therefore, should be done on a very selective basis depending on the merits of each case, and always on the Approving Personnel's responsibility.[8]
1) That during the material time and date alleged in the Information, herein accused are all public officers, Cayetano Tejano, Jr., being then the Vice-President of Philippine National Bank and Manager of PNB-Cebu (Casino Unit) Branch; Dolores Arancillo, being then a Central Bank Assistant Regional Administrator; and Amelia Fufunan, a cashier-reliever at the PNB Cebu (Casino Unit) Branch;On March 17, 2003, respondent Sandiganbayan rendered a Decision[14] finding the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, the dispositive portion of which reads:
2) That Cayetano Tejano, Jr., Dolores Arancillo, and Amelia Fufunan admit their identity as the same persons who are accused in this case;
3) That sometime in the early part of February, 1991, Cayetano A. Tejano, Jr. accommodated FEBTC Check No. 742414, dated February 1, 1991 in the amount of P200,000.00 of Dolores Arancillo and was kept in the PNB-Cebu (Casino Branch) vault from February 3 to 5, 1991;
4) That Amelia Fufunan was assigned as cashier-reliever at the PNB-Cebu (Casino Unit) on February 2, 1991 and prepared a Note addressed to Ms. Elvisa M. Villamor to the effect that the attached check (referring to FEBTC Check No. 742414) formed part of the cash on hand;
5) That [Douglasia] Canuel conducted a cash count and prepared a cash count sheet, dated February 5, 1991 and duly acknowledged by Ms. Elvisa Villamor;
6) That State Auditor IV Delia Monte De Ramos conducted an audit and prepared an Audit Investigation Report dated October 25, 1993;
7) That there exists PNB Manual of Policies on Cash, COCI, and Deposit Operations, 1991 edition;
8) That on or before February 7, 1991, FEBTC Check No. 74241[4] disappeared and actual P200,000.00 cash appeared in the vault;
9) That after Fufunan, there was another cashier-reliever in the name of Elvisa Villamor; and that Elvisa Villamor also treated this check of P200,000.00 as part of the cash.
The following documents were also pre-marked by the prosecution, to wit:
Exhibits "A" - Audit Investigation Report dated October 25, 1993 conducted and prepared by Ms. Delia Monte De Ramos (COA State Auditor IV), consisting of 29 pages, including attachments; "A-1" - Signature of Delia Monte De Ramos appearing on page 7 of Exh. "A"; "A-2" - SEC Reg. Certificate of Jovana Fish Farms; "A-3" - Certified xeroxed copy of FEBTC Check No. 742414 in the amount of P200,000.00, dated February 1, 1991 (back to back); "A-4" - Note of Amelia Fufunan to Ms. Elvisa Villamor; "A-5" - Cash Count Sheet dated Feb. 5, 1991, prepared by Douglasia Canuel; "B" - Reply-Affidavit & Reply to Counter-Charge dated April 24, 1997, prepared by Delia Monte De Ramos, consisting of (4) pages, including attachment; "B-1" - Signature of Delia Monte De Ramos, appearing on page 3 of Exh. "B"; "B-2" - Sworn Affidavit of Elvisa M. Villamor, dated July 27, 1993, attesting to the fact that she saw the subject check inside the vault; "C" - Counter-Affidavit of accused Amelia Fufunan, dated Feb. 18, 1997, attesting to the fact that, indeed, she found Arancillo's FEBTC Check, dated February 1, 1991 in the amount of P200,000.00 inside the PNB vault and further found out that the same was treated as cash; "D" - Further Suppletory Affidavit of Cayetano Tejano, Jr., dated October 26, 1998. "D-1" - Signature of Cayetano Tejano, Jr. appearing on page 3 of Exh. "D."
On the part of the accused Tejano, the following documents were pre-marked:
Exhibits "1" - PNB Manual of Policies on Cash, COCI, and Deposit Operations, 1991 edition; "1-A" -Item "G" found on pages 25 and 26 of said Manual of Policies;
"2" - Certification issued by the PNB Adjudication Office, dated Aug. 23, 2001; "2-A" - Signature of PNB Senior Vice-President Rosauro Macalagay; "3" - Certification issued by PNB-Cebu, dated July 25, 1995 signed by Jacinto Ovano, Assistant Department Manager I; "4" - Memorandum of Mr. Capistrano, dated August 3, 1993;
"5" - Counter-Affidavit of Cayetano Tejano, dated Feb. 26, 1997; "6" - Further Suppletory Affidavit of Cayetano Tejano, dated October 26, 1998.
While on the part of accused Fufunan, the following were the documents pre-marked:
Exhibits "1" - Counter-Affidavit of Amelia Fufunan, dated February 18, 1997; "1-A" - Signature of accused Fufunan; "2" - PNB Manual of Policies on Cash, COCI, and Deposit Operations, 1991 edition; "2-A" - Item "G" found on pages 25 and 26 of said Manual of Policies; "3" - Certification issued by the PNB Adjudication Office, dated Aug. 23, 2002; "3-A" - Signature of PNB Senior Vice-President Rosauro Macalagay; "4" - Certification issued by PNB-Cebu, dated July 25, 1995, signed by Jacinto Ovano, Asst. Department Manager I; "5" - Memorandum of Mr. Capistrano, dated August 3, 1993.
Both parties have the following common issues:WHEREFORE, as the Court considered the documents self-explanatory and considering the waiver on admissibility, as manifested by the parties during the pre-trial conference, the documentary exhibits offered both by the prosecution and the defense are hereby ordered admitted. Parties are given thirty (30) days from today within which to file their respective memoranda. After the submission of the same, this case shall be deemed submitted for decision.
- Whether or not, from the facts, stipulations, and documents, accused are guilty of the crime, as charged?
- Whether or not conspiracy was present in the commission of the crime, as charged?
SO ORDERED.[13]
WHEREFORE, finding the presence of conspiracy in the commission of the crime between the accused Tejano and Arancillo, the former is hereby declared guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act 3019 and is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of 6 years, two months and 1 day, as minimum, to 15 years, as maximum.On March 25, 2003, petitioner Tejano filed a Motion for Reconsideration[16] on the following grounds: (1) that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt; and (2) that conspiracy was not established by proof beyond reasonable doubt. In its Order[17] dated April 2, 2003, respondent Sandiganbayan denied his motion because it contained averments which were adversarial, and which required the presence of the petitioner before the same could be resolved.
The participation of accused Amelia Fufunan in the transaction is purely administrative and does not constitute as an act or omission resorted to as a means to commit a crime. In the absence of unity of purpose with the other accused in the commission of the crime, she is declared innocent of the crime charged and is therefore acquitted.
SO ORDERED.[15]
x x x [W]e reiterate what we have stated in our assailed decision that we do not question the propriety of granting accommodation to a check, if that is really the case. What we find objectionable is the manner by which the bank's policy on check accommodation was apparently utilized to cover up a prohibited transaction. For as it would appear, the check was placed inside the bank vault in substitution of the cash that was withdrawn, without the transaction being properly recorded in the books. It is immaterial that the transaction was intended to be a temporary arrangement because, in the meantime, the check was made to appear as operating cash for a number of days to the detriment of the bank and in violation of the trust reposed on it by its depositors. Indeed, accused took too much liberty of the discretionary authority granted to him under the bank's policies on cash and deposit operations as he went beyond what was allowed by the said policies. As correctly observed by the prosecution in its Comment, this is not a case of accommodation, as what movant would have it appear, but plain and simple unauthorized loan to Arancillo.On October 13, 2003, petitioner filed a Motion for New Trial[21] on the grounds that he was not properly advised of his rights in the case by his previous counsel, and that there was newly discovered evidence in view of the arrest, on April 29, 2003, of accused Arancillo, who was later arraigned on August 5, 2003.
In the case at bar, accused Tejano admits that on October 10, 2003, he received a copy of the Court's resolution denying his motion for reconsideration of the judgment of conviction. Thus, under the rules (Cf. Section 4, P.D. 1606 as amended by R.A. No. 8249 in relation to Section 2, Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure), he had fifteen (15) days therefrom, or until October 25, 2003 within which to perfect an appeal to the Supreme Court. However, instead of seasonably filing the requisite petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, accused Tejano, proceeded to file a motion for new trial and, thereafter, an amended motion for new trial.On January 29, 2004, respondent Sandiganbayan made an Entry of Judgment[26] and, thus, its Decision dated March 17, 2003 became final and executory on October 26, 2003 upon the lapse of the appeal period.
The recourse taken by accused Tejano is ill-advised. As his motion for new trial and amended motion for new trial are already barred by the rules, the same will not interrupt the running of the period to appeal his conviction before the Supreme Court. Thus, on October 26, 2003, upon the lapse of the fifteen (15)-day period of appeal, the decision of this Court convicting him of the offense charged became final and executory by operation of law.
WHEREFORE, the subject amended motion for new trial is DENIED DUE COURSE. The Division Clerk of Court shall now make the final entry of the judgment of the decision rendered in this case as against accused Cayetano A. Tejano, Jr. In the meantime, let a Bench Warrant of Arrest be issued against said accused to compel him to serve the sentence imposed by the Court. The cash bond posted by accused Cayetano A. Tejano, Jr. for his provisional liberty is rendered functus officio and said accused is given fifteen (15) days from notice within which to voluntarily surrender his person to this Court for execution of the sentence; otherwise, his cash bond shall be forfeited in favor of the government.[25]
The Office of the Ombudsman, through the Office of the Special Prosecutor, maintains that respondent Sandiganbayan correctly dismissed petitioner's motion for new trial because such remedy was no longer available to him; that petitioner was not denied due process; that the evidence finding him guilty under Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 was justified; that there was no newly discovered evidence which would warrant the reversal of the disputed ruling; and that the decision had indeed become final and executory.I
Respondent Honorable Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion when it denied due course petitioner's motion for new trial.II
Respondent Honorable Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion when it failed to appreciate the existence of grounds for new trial and that:
- The petitioner was not properly advised of his rights and/or was denied of his rights to due process;
- The evidence finding the petitioner guilty of the crime charged is insufficient to justify the decision;
- Newly discovered evidence which petitioner could not with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced during the trial and if admitted would probably change the judgment in the case.
III
Respondent Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction when it issued an entry of judgment for a decision that has become final and executory.[27]
P.D. 1606, Sec. 4. Jurisdiction - The Sandiganbayan shall exercise:Petitioner alleges that the aforequoted provisions are applicable only when pure questions of law are involved which justified his Motion for New Trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence to be presented by accused Arancillo during the trial.
(a) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving:
(1) Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the Revised Penal Code;x x x
The procedure prescribed in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as well as the implementing rules the Supreme Court has promulgated and may hereafter promulgate, relative to appeals/petitions for review to the Court of Appeals shall apply to appeals and petitions for review with the Sandiganbayan. In all cases elevated to the Sandiganbayan, the Office of the Tanodbayan shall represent the People of the Philippines.x x x
R.A. 8249, Sec. 7. x x x A petition for reconsideration of any final order or decision may be filed within fifteen (15) days from promulgation or notice of the final order or judgment, and such motion for reconsideration shall be decided within thirty (30) days from submission thereon.
Decisions and final orders of the Sandiganbayan shall be appealable to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari raising pure questions of law in accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. x x x (emphasis ours)
Rule 45, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure:
Sec. 2. Time for filing; extension. - The petition shall be filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution appealed from, or the denial of the petitioner's motion for new trial or reconsideration filed in due time after notice of the judgment. On motion duly filed and served, with full payment of the docket and other lawful fees and the deposit for costs before the expiration of the reglementary period, the Supreme Court may, for justifiable reasons, grant an extension of thirty (30) days only within which to file the petition.