820 Phil. 575
MARTIRES, J.:
The audit included verification of pertinent records and documents of transactions pertaining to the procurement of graders' desks from January 1, 1992 to September 30, 1993. As the procured graders' desks were distributed to the different schools in Region XII including those in the Province of Lanao del Sur and the Province of Maguindanao, which is now under the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), audit verification covered the nine (9) Schools Division Offices, namely:In view; of these findings, the team executed a Joint Affidavit[7] which was filed, together with the report, before the Office of the Ombudsman, Mindanao (OMB-MIN). The joint affidavit, which was treated by the OMB-MIN as a complaint, was docketed as OMB-MIN-94-1105. The preliminary investigation thereafter proceeded against the following: Director IV Diamar P. Kadon (Dir,. Kadon); Dir. Makil U. Pundaodaya (Pundaodaya); Financial and Management Officer Jose T. Navera (Navera); Administrative Officer Alimot L. Arumpac (Arumpac); Supply Officer III Rogelio M. de los Reyes (De los Reyes); Administrative Officer V Jose P. Lopez. Jr. (Lopez); Accountant III Daud M. Adiong (Adiong); Inspector Romeo F. Agustin (Agustin); Inspector Napoleon O. Cedeño (Cedeño); Auditor Solaiman M. Domato (Damato); Accountant III Tomas P. Villanueva (Villanueva); and Luis Dy (Dy), Michael A. de los Santos (De los Santos), and Lolita Sambili (Sambili), the proprietors of AAA Services Generales (AAA), Business International Wood Products (BIWP), and Niño Wood Products (NWP), respectively.1. Cotabato City Schools Division, Cotabato City;x x x x
2. Iligan City Schools Division, Iligan City;
3. Marawi City Schools Division, Marawi City;
4. Cotabato Schools Division, Kidapawan, Cotabato;
5. Lanao del Norte Schools Division, Tubod, Lanao Norte;
6. Lanao del Sur I Schools Division, Marawi City;
7. Lanao del Sur II Schools Division, Malabang, Lanao del Sur;
8. Sultan Kudarat Schools Division, Tacurong, Sultan Kudarat;
9. Maguindanao Schools Division, Salimbao, Sultan Kudarat.
FINDING:
The Government was defrauded in the amount of P5,268,610.00 due to short delivery of 10,487 pieces of graders' desk purchased by the DECS Regional Office XII, Cotabato City, contrary to the provisions of Section 2, PD 1445 and Republic Act 3019, as amended.
x x x x
- Iligan City Schools Division - 1,823 pieces unaccounted for, with a total cost of P936,610.00.
x x x x- Marawi City Schools Division - 2,051 pieces unaccounted for, with a total cost of P1,025,500.00.
x x x x- Sultan Kudarat Schools Division - 6,613 pieces unaccounted for, with a total cost of P3,306,500.00.
The Version of the ProsecutionCRIMINAL CASE NO. 24784
That on 23 March 1992 or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the City of Cotabato, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused Diamar P. Kadon, Director IV, a high ranking official with salary grade 28, the others being low ranking officers Jose P. Lopez, Jr., Administrative Officer V; Daud M. Adiong, Accountant III; Solaiman M. Domato, Auditor; Rogelio M. de los Reyes, Supply Officer III; Napoleon O. Cedeño, Inspector/ICU; Romeo F. Agustin, Inspector/ICU; Jose T. Navera, Chief, Budget & Finance Division/Financial Management Officer; all employees of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS), Region XII, Cotabato City, while in the performance of their duties, committing the offense in connection with their official functions and taking advantage of their respective official positions, conspiring, confederating and helping one another, together with private individual Michael de los Santos, Proprietor of Business International Wood Products, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and criminally cause undue injury to the government and/or give Business International Wood Products undue advantage and unwarranted benefits when accused Rogelio M. de los Reyes, Solaiman M. Domato, Romeo F. Agustin and Napoleon O. Cedeño made it appear in the Inspection Report that four thousand (4,000) pieces of graders desks were delivered by accused Michael de los Santos to the Sultan Kudarat Schools Division and to have been received by them when the truth is none was actually delivered to and received by the recipient schools and despite knowledge of non-delivery accused Rogelio M. de los Reyes requested/directed the preparation of Disbursement Voucher No. 92031124 dated March 23, 1992 and certified therein that the items were received in good condition; Jose P. Lopez, Jr. certified that the expenses were necessary, lawful and incurred under his direct supervision; Daud M. Adiong certified to the adequacy of funds and that the same is supported by documents; Jose T. Navera recommended payment and Diamar P. Kadon approved full payment thereof in the gross amount of Two Million (P2,000,000.00) Pesos, thus, inflicting undue injury to the government in said amount.[8]CRIMINAL CASE NO. 24785
That on 22 April 1992 or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the City of Cotabato, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused Diamar P. Kadon, Director IV, a high ranking official with salary grade 28, the others being low ranking officers Jose P. Lopez, Jr., Administrative Officer V; Daud M. Adiong, Accountant III; Solaiman M. Domato, Auditor; Rogelio M. de los Reyes, Supply Officer III; Napoleon O. Cedeño, Inspector/ICU; Jose T. Navera, Chief, Budget & Finance Division/Financial Management Officer; all employees of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS), Region XII, Cotabato City, while in the performance of their duties, committing the offense in connection with their official functions and taking advantage of their respective official positions, conspiring, confederating and helping one another, together with private individual Michael de los Santos, proprietor of Business International Wood Products, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and criminally cause undue injury to the government and/or give Business International Wood Products undue advantage and unwarranted benefits when accused Rogelio M. de los Reyes, Solaiman M. Domato, and Napoleon O. Cedeño made it appear in the Inspection Report that nine hundred fourteen (914) pieces of graders desks were delivered by accused Michael de los Santos to the Sultan Kudarat Schools Division and to have been received by them when the truth is none was actually delivered to and received by the recipient schools and despite knowledge of non-delivery accused Rogelio M. de los Reyes requested/directed the preparation of Disbursement Voucher No. 92041526 dated April 22, 1992 and certified therein that the items were received in good condition; Jose P. Lopez, Jr. certified that the expenses were necessary, lawful and incurred under his direct supervision; Daud M. Adiong certified to the adequacy of funds and that the same is supported by documents; Jose T. Navera recommended payment and Diamar P. Kadon approved full payment thereof in the gross amount of Four Hundred Fifty Seven Thousand, (P457,000.00) Pesos, thus, inflicting undue injury to the government in said amount.[9]CRIMINAL CASE NO. 24786
That in September 1992 or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the City of Cotabato, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused Diamar P. Kadon, Director IV, a high ranking official with salary grade 28, the others being low ranking officers Jose P. Lopez, Jr., Administrative Officer V; Daud M. Adiong, Accountant III; Rogelio M. de los Reyes, Supply Officer III; all employees of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS), Region XII, Cotabato City, while in the performance of their duties, committing the offense in connection with their official functions and taking advantage of their respective official positions, conspiring, confederating and helping one another, together With private individual Luis Dy, Proprietor of AAA Services Generales did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and criminally cause undue injury to the government and/or give AAA Services Generales undue advantage and unwarranted benefits when accused Rogelio M. de los Reyes made it appear in the Inspection Report that two thousand fifty-one (2,051) pieces of graders desks were delivered by accused Luis Dy to the Marawi City Schools Division and to have been received by him when the truth is none was actually delivered to and received by the recipient schools and despite knowledge of non-delivery, accused Rogelio M. de los Reyes requested/directed the preparation of Disbursement Voucher No. 92093173 and certified therein that the items were received in good condition; Jose P. Lopez, Jr. certified that the expenses were necessary, lawful and incurred under his direct supervision; Daud M. Adiong certified to the adequacy of funds and that the same is supported by documents and Diamar P. Kadon approved full payment thereof in the gross amount of One Million Twenty Five Thousand Five Hundred (P1,025,500.00) Pesos, thus, inflicting undue injury to the government in said amount.[10]CRIMINAL CASE NO. 24787
That on 14 December 1992 or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the City of Cotabato, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused Makil U. Pundaodaya, Director IV, a high ranking official with salary grade 28, the others being low ranking officers Jose P. Lopez, Jr., Administrative Officer V; Daud M. Adiong, Accountant III; Solaiman M. Damato, Auditor; Rogelio M. de los Reyes, Supply Officer III and Napoleon O. Cedeño, Inspector/ICU; all employees of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS), Region XII, Cotabato City, while in the performance of their duties, committing the offense in connection with their official functions and taking advantage of their respective official positions, conspiring, confederating and helping one another, together with private individual Lolita Sambili, Proprietor of Niño Wood Products, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and criminally cause undue injury to the government and/or give ino Wood Products undue advantage and unwarranted benefits when accused Solaiman M. Domato and Napoleon O. Cedeño made it appear in the Inspection Report that three thousand one hundred fourteen (3,114) pieces of graders desks were delivered by accused Lolita Sambili to the Iligan City Schools Division and to have been received by them when the truth is only three thousand sixty six (3,066) pieces of graders desks were delivered to and received by the recipient schools and despite knowledge of short delivery of forty eight (48) pieces of graders desks, accused Rogelio M. de los Reyes requested/directed the preparation of Disbursement Voucher No. 92124698 dated December 14, 1992 and certified therein that the items were received in good condition despite the sub-standard quality; Jose P. Lopez, Jr. certified that the expenses were necessary, lawful and incurred under his direct supervision; Daud M. Adiong certified to the adequacy of funds and that the same is supported by documents; Malik U. Pundaodaya approved full payment thereof in the gross amount of One Million Five Hundred Fifty Seven Thousand (P1,557,000.00) Pesos, thus, overpaying accused Lolita P. Sambili the amount of Twenty Four Thousand (P24,000.00) Pesos and inflicting undue injury to the government in said amount.[11]CRIMINAL CASE NO. 24788
That on 14 December 1992 or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the City of Cotabato, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused Makil U. Pundaodaya, Director IV, a high ranking official with salary grade 28, the others being low ranking officers Jose P. Lopez, Jr., Administrative Officer V; Daud M. Adiong, Accountant III; Jose T. Navera, Chief, Budget & Finance Division/Financial Management Officer; Solaiman M. Domato, Auditor and Rogelio M. de los Reyes, Supply Officer III; all employees of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS), Region XII, Cotabato City, while in the performance of their duties, committing the offense in connection with their official functions and taking advantage of their respective official positions, conspiring, confederating and helping one another, together with private individual Lolita Sambili, Proprietor of Niño Wood Products, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and criminally cause undue injury to the government and/or give Niño Wood Products undue advantage and unwarranted benefits when accused Solaiman M. Domato made it appear in the Inspection Report that three thousand seven hundred seven (3,707) pieces of graders desks were delivered by accused Lolita Sambili to the Sultan Kudarat Schools Division and to have been received by him when the truth is only two thousand eight (2,008) pieces of graders desks were actually delivered to and received by the recipient schools and despite knowledge of short delivery of one thousand six hundred ninety-nine (1,699) pieces of graders desks, accused Rogelio M. de los Reyes requested/directed the preparation of Disbursement Voucher No. 92124700 dated December 14, 1992 and certified therein that the items were received in good condition despite the substandard quality; Jose P. Lopez, Jr. certified that the expenses were necessary, lawful and incurred under his direct supervision; Daud M. Adiong certified to the adequacy of funds and that the same is supported by documents; Jose T. Navera recommended payment and Makil U. Pundaodaya approved full payment thereof in the gross amount of One Million Eight Hundred Fifty Three Thousand:Five Hundred (P1,853,500.00) Pesos, thus, overpaying Lolita P. Sambili the amount of Eight Hundred Forty Nine Thousand Five Hundred (P849,500.00) Pesos and inflicting undue injury to the government in said amount.[12]CRIMINAL CASE NO. 24789
That in August 1993, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the City of Cotabato, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused Makil U. Pundaodaya, Director IV, a high ranking official with salary grade 28, the others being low ranking officers Daud M. Adiong, Accountant III; Rogelio M. de los Reyes, Supply Officer III and Napoleon O. Cedeño, Inspector/ICU; all employees of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS), Region XII, Cotabato City and Tomas P.Villanueva, COA TAS I, while in the performance of their duties, committing the offense in connection with their official functions and taking advantage of their respective official positions, conspiring, confederating and helping one another, together with private individual Luis Dy, Proprietor of AAA Services Generales, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and criminally cause undue injury to the government and/or give AAA Services Generales undue advantage and unwarranted benefits when accused Tomas P. Villanueva and Napoleon O. Cedeño made it appear in the Inspection Report that nine hundred sixty nine (969) pieces of graders desks were delivered by accused Luis Dy to the Iligan City Schools Division and to have been received by them when the truth is only three hundred thirty one (331) pieces of graders desks were actually delivered to and received by the recipient schools and despite knowledge of short delivery of six hundred thirty-eight (638) pieces of graders desks of substandard quality, accused Rogelio M. de los Reyes signed receipt of the graders desks in the delivery form attached to Disbursement Voucher No. 93082954 and accused Daud M. Adiong certified therein to the adequacy of funds and that the same is supported by documents and Makil U. Pundaodaya approved full payment thereof in the gross amount of Five Hundred Fifty Seven Thousand One Hundred Seventy Five (P557,175.00) Pesos, thus, overpaying accused Luis Dy the amount of Three Hundred Sixty Six Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty (P366,850.00) Pesos and inflicting undue injury to the government in said amount.[13]
WHEREFORE, in the light of all the foregoing, the Court hereby renders its judgment, to wit:Kadonm,[79] Dy, Pundaodaya, Adiong,[80] and Cedeño[81] moved for a reconsideration of the decision of the Sandiganbayan. On 15 July 2010, the Sandiganbayan[82] resolved the motions for reconsideration as follows:
In Criminal Case No. 24784, the Court finds the accused DIAMAR P. KADON, JOSE P. LOPEZ, JR., DAUD M. ADIONG, SOLAIMAN M. DOMATO, ROGELIO M. DELOS REYES, Napoleon O. Cedeño, JOSE T. NAVERA, and MICHAEL A. DELOS SANTOS, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, and after applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, there being no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, hereby sentences each of them to suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) years and one (1) month as minimum to ten (10) years as maximum, and to indemnify the Department of Education Culture and Sports (now Department of Education) or the government jointly or severally in the amount of Two Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00).
In Criminal Case No. 24785, the Court finds the accused DIAMAR P. KADON, JOSE P. LOPEZ, JR., DAUD M. ADIONG, SOLAIMAN M. DOMATO, ROGELIO M. DELOS REYES, Napoleon O. Cedeño, JOSE T. NAVERA, and MICHAEL A. DELOS SANTOS, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, and after applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, there being no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, hereby sentences each of them to suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) years and one (1) month as minimum to ten (10) years as maximum, and to indemnify the Department of Education Culture and Sports (now Department of Education) or the government jointly or severally in the amount of Four Hundred Fifty Seven Thousand Pesos (P457,000.00).
In Criminal Case No. 24786, the Court finds the accused DIAMAR P. KADON, JOSE P. LOPEZ, JR., DAUD M. ADIONG, ROGELIO M. DELOS REYES, and LUIS DY, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, and after applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, there being no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, hereby sentences each of them to suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) years and one (1) month as minimum to ten (10) years as maximum, and to indemnify the Department of Education Culture and Sports (now Department of Education) or the government jointly or severally in the amount of One Million Twenty Five Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P1,025,500.00).
In Criminal Case No. 24787, the Court finds the accused MAKIL U. PUNDAODAYA, JOSE P. LOPEZ, JR., DAUD M. ADIONG, SOLAIMAN M. DOMATO, ROGELIO M. DELOS REYES, Napoleon O. Cedeño, and LOLITA SAMBILI, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, and after applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, there being no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, hereby sentences each of them to suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) years and one (1) month as minimum to ten (10) years as maximum, and to indemnify the Department of Education Culture and Sports (now Department of Education) or the government jointly or severally in the amount of Twenty Four Thousand pesos (P24,000.00).
In Criminal Case No. 24788, the Court finds the accused MAKIL U. PUNDAODAYA, JOSE P. LOPEZ, JR., DAUD M. ADIONG, SOLAIMAN M. DOMATO, ROGELIO M. DELOS REYES, JOSE T. NAVERA, and LOUTA SAMBILI GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, and after applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, there being no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, hereby sentences each of them to suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) years and one (1) month as minimum to ten (10) years as maximum, and to indemnify the Department of Education Culture and Sports (now Department of Education) or the government jointly or severally in the amount of Eight Hundred Forty Nine Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P849,500.00).
In Criminal Case No. 24789, the Court finds the accused MAKIL U. PUNDAODAYA, DAUD M. ADIONG, ROGELIO M. DELOS REYES, Napoleon O. Cedeño, and LUIS DY, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, and after applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, there being no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, hereby sentences each of them to suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) years and one (1) month as minimum to ten (10) years as maximum, and to indemnify the Department of Education Culture and Sports (now Department of Education) or the government jointly or severally in the amount of Three Hundred Sixty Six Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty (P366,850.00).[78]
WHEREFORE, in light of all the foregoing, the Motions for Reconsideration each filed by the accused Diamar P. Kadon and Luis Dy are hereby GRANTED. Accused Kadon is ACQUITTED in Criminal Cases Nos. 24784, 24785 and 24786 and accused Dy is ACQUITTED in Criminal Cases Nos. 24786 and 24789 on reasonable doubt.
The Motion for Reconsideration filed by accused Napoleon Cedeño in Criminal Cases Nos. 24784, 24785, 24787, and 24789 is hereby DENIED; and the Motion for Reconsideration jointly filed through counsel by the accused Diamar Kadon in Criminal Cases Nos. 24784, 24785, and 24786; Luis Dy in Criminal Case Nos. 24786, and 24789; Makil Pundaodaya in Criminal Cases Nos. 24787, 24788, and 24789; Daud Adiong in Criminal Cases Nos. 24784-89; and Napoleon Cedeño in Criminal Cases Nos. 24784, 24785, 24787, and 24789 is likewise DENIED insofar as it concerns the accused Pundaodaya, Adiong and Cedeño for lack of merit.
The cash bonds posted by the accused Kadon and Dy for their provisional liberty are hereby CANCELLED and ordered released to the said accused, subject to the usual accounting and auditing procedures. The Hold Departure Order issued against them is hereby LIFTED and set aside.[83]
In G.R. Nos. 193349-54, Pundaodaya, Adiong, Navera, and Delos Reyes presented the following issues in support of their plea that the assailed decision of the Sandiganbayan be set aside and that they be acquitted of the charges against them, to wit:I.
THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN HOLDING THAT THE COA AUDIT REPORT AS WELL AS THE UNCONTROVERTED AND SELF-SERVING TESTIMONY OF NILO S. ROMANO ARE SUFFICIENT TO CONVICT THE PETITIONER DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF POSITIVE EVIDENCE POINTING TO HIS ACTIVE AND KNOWING PARTICIPATION IN THE TRANSACTION, CONTRARY TO THE SUPREME COURT DOCTRINE LAID DOWN IN ARIAS V. SANDIGANBAYAN.II.
THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN MISTAKENLY APPRECIATED THE FACTS WHEN IT RULED THAT PETITIONER ACCOMPLISHED FALSE INSPECTION REPORTS WHEN THE RECORDS BEAR THAT THE PURPORTED REPORTS DO NOT EVEN BEAR HIS SIGNATURE AND NO WITNESS EVER TESTIFIED ON THE DETAILS OF HIS ALLEGED PARTICIPATION IN THE PREPARATION THEREOF.[84]
I.
THE SANDIGANBAYAN MANIFESTLY ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING PETITIONERS TOGETHER WITH THEIR COACCUSED DIAMAR P. KADON AND LUIS DY CONSIDERING THAT THE FACTS UPON WHICH THE RESOLUTION IS BASED ARE THE SAME IF NOT COMMON FOR ALL ACCUSED.II.
THE SANDIGANBAYAN MANIFESTLY ERRED IN HOLDING ACCUSED LIABLE FOR ALLEGED GHOST DELIVERIES WHEREAS, IN TRUTH AND IN FACT, THE DELIVERIES WERE ACTUALLY MADE.III.
THE SANDIGANBAYAN MANIFESTLY ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING PETITIONERS TOGETHER WITH THEIR COACCUSED DIAMAR P. KADON AND LUIS DY CONSIDERING THAT THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE ON RECORD CLEARLY POINT TO THE INNOCENCE OF PETITIONERS.[85]
Section 7. Form, Finality and Enforcement of Decisions. - All decisions and final orders determining the merits of a case or finally disposing of the action or proceedings of the Sandiganbayan shall contain complete findings of the facts and the law on which they are based, on all issues properly raised before it and necessary in deciding the case.On the one hand, Sec. 2, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court reads:
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 on judgment, and such motion for reconsideration shall be decided within thirty (30) days from submission thereon.
Decisions and final orders of the Sandiganbyan 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. Whenever, in any case decided by the Sandiganbayan, the penalty of reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or death is imposed, the decision shall be appealable to the Supreme Court in the manner prescribed in the Rules of Court. (emphasis supplied)
Section 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 of 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. (emphasis supplied)The petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court relates to questions of law.
Definite from these quoted provisions is that an accused has only fifteen days from promulgation or notice of judgment within which to file before the Sandiganbayan a motion for reconsideration or to file before this Court a petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Considering that Navera and Delos Reyes did not seek a reconsideration of the Sandiganbayan's decision, their recourse would have been to file a petition for review on certiorari within fifteen days from 25 November 2009, or until 10 December 2009. Therefore, insofar as Navera and Delos Reyes are concerned, their petition, submitted to this Court only on 27 August 2010, was filed way beyond the 15-day reglementary period. Navera and Delos Reyes' right to appeal had long prescribed, thus, the decision is no longer open to an appeal.
SECTION 1. Filing of Petition with Supreme Court. A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth. (emphasis supplied)The Court has been consistent in differentiating a question of law from a question of fact, viz:
A question of law arises when there is a doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. For a question to be a question of law, it must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of facts and circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question is one of fact. Thus, the test of whether a question is one of law or of fact is not the appellation given to such question by the party raising the same; rather, it is whether the appellate court can determine the issue without examining or evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise, it is a question of fact.[92]The general rule is that the Court is not a trier of facts, and it is not its function to examine, review or evaluate the evidence all over again.[93] Issues raised before the Court on whether the prosecution's evidence proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, whether the presumption of innocence was: properly accorded the accused, whether there was sufficient evidence to support a charge of conspiracy, or whether the defense of good faith was correctly appreciated are all, in varying degrees, questions of fact.[94] A reading of the issues raised by the petitioners will readily show that these are questions of fact in which its resolution would involve a scrutiny of the evidence introduced before the Sandiganbayan.
It is rather apparent that under the Sandiganbayan's decision, a department secretary, bureau chief, commission chairman, agency head, department head or chief of office would be equally culpable for every crime arising from any transactions or held guilty of conspiracy simply because he was the last of a long line of officials or employees who acted upon or affixed his signature to a transaction. We cannot allow this because guilt must be premised on a more knowing personal, and deliberate participation of each individual who is charged with others as part of a conspiracy. There must be more convincing proof which in this case is wanting.Noteworthy, in both Magsuci and Albert, the Court reiterated its ruling in Arias v. Sandiganbayan,[102] viz:
We would be setting a bad precedent if a head of office plagued by all too common problems - dishonest or negligent subordinates, overwork, multiple assignments or positions, or plain incompetence - is suddenly swept into a conspiracy conviction simply because he did not personally examine every single detail, painstakingly trace every step from inception, and investigate the motives of every person involved in a transaction before affixing his signature as the final approving authority.It must be emphasized that Arias involved the culpability of a final approving authority on the basis of criminal conspiracy,[103] or where, in the performance of his official duties, the head of an office is being held to answer for his act of relying on the acts of his subordinate.[104] To the point of being repetitive, Cedeño was the appointed inspector of the office and was a member of the inspectorate team. The very name and function of his office render necessary his inspection of the items in these transactions. Indeed, the phrase "Inspected by" before his name in the IR confirm that, before he affixed his signature, he had personally inspected the items and had found them to be in accordance with the specification, quality, and quantity as stated in the contract. The mandate of his office undoubtedly required no less, i.e., that he should have personally inspected the items that were purchased by DECS RO XII before he affixed his signature on the IR.
x x x x
We can, in retrospect, argue that Arias should have probed records, inspected documents, received procedures and questioned persons. It is doubtful if any auditor for a fairly sized office could personally do all these things in all vouchers presented for his signature. The Court would be asking for the impossible. All heads of offices have to rely to a reasonable extent on their subordinates and on the good faith of those who prepare bids, purchase supplies, or enter into negotiations. If a department secretary entertains important visitors, the auditor is not ordinarily expected to call the restaurant about the amount of the bill, question each guest whether he was present at the luncheon, inquire whether the correct amount of food was served, and otherwise personally look into the reimbursement voucher's accuracy, propriety and sufficiency. There has to be some added reason why he should examine each voucher in such detail. Any executive head of even small government agencies or commissions can attest to the volume of papers that must be signed. There are hundreds of documents, letters, memoranda, vouchers, and supporting papers that routinely pass through his hands. The number in bigger offices or departments is even more appalling.
There should be other grounds than the mere signature or approval appearing on a voucher to sustain a conspiracy charge and conviction.
1) The accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official functions;The first element is not at issue in any of these cases. On the second and third elerrients, the Sandiganbayan held that the petitioners "displayed evident bad faith in the exercise of their functions and at the same time extended unwarranted benefits or partiality to the private persons who owned the business establishments with whom they entered into contract."[111]
2) He must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence; and
3) That his action caused undue injury to any party, including the government, or giving any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions.[110]
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy does not need to be proven by direct evidence and may be inferred from the conduct before, during, and after the commission of the crime - indicative of a joint purpose, concerted action, and concurrence of sentiments. In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. Conspiracy is present when one concurs with the criminal design of another, as shown by an overt act leading to the crime committed. It may be deduced from the mode and manner of the commission of the crime.[113]The word unwarranted means lacking adequate or official support; unjustified; unauthorized or without justification or adequate reason. Advantage means a more favorable or improved position or condition; benefit, profit or gain of any kind; benefit from some course of action.[114]
| Very truly yours, |
WILFREDO V. LAPITAN | |
Division Clerk of Court | |
By: | |
(SGD) | |
MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG III | |
Deputy Division Clerk of Court |