Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-58327 March 22, 1991
JESUS C. BALMADRID and MILA C. BALMADRID, petitioners,
vs.
THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, respondent.
Emmanuel Pelaez, Jr., C.A.S. Sipin, Jr., Tomas L. Echivarre for petitioners.
PARAS, J.:
Charged with violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, were private individuals-petitioners Jesus and Mila Balmadrid and public officials Maximo Binos and Teodulo Alcantara.
The information reads:
That during the period July to November 1979, in the Municipalities of Virac, Bagamanoc, and Panganiban, all in the Province of Catanduanes, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused Maximo S. Binos and Teodulo B. Alcantara being then the Superintendent and Cashier, respectively, of the Catanduanes Agricultural and Industrial College, a Government-owned institution of learning, taking unusual and undue advantage of their respective positions as such for personal benefit and advantage for themselves in the performance of their official duties and functions with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, intent to gain, breach of trust and or with abuse of confidence, falsify documents by conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, with a common purpose and design did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously cause the preparation, issuance and encashment of four (4) checks of the CAIC payable to Mila C. Balmadrid, in payment of ghost and/or fictitious deliveries of supplies and materials purportedly for the use of said institution, when in truth and in fact no such deliveries of supplies and materials were ever made in said college, to the damage and prejudice of said college in the amount of P9,200.00 and the accused Mila C. Balmadrid, Jesus C. Balmadrid, Jose P. Concepcion and Juan G. Atencia, are private persons and in their desire to conceal and/or justify such fictitious transactions, between ECBAL ENTERPRISES and CAIC for the purchase of supplies and materials, falsified public documents which are manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the aforesaid college in the amount of NINE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED (P9,200.00).
CONTRARY TO LAW.
(pp. 270-271, Rollo)
On June 30, 1981, the respondent court rendered a decision,1 the dispositive part of which reads.
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Maximo Binos y San Andres, Teodulo B. Alcantara, Jose Concepcion y Pascua, Jesus Balmadrid y Cabrera and Mila C. Balmadrid GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 3, paragraph (e), of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and hereby sentences each of them to suffer an indeterminate imprisonment ranging from FOUR (4) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY, as minimum, to SEVEN (7) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY, as maximum, to suffer perpetual disqualification from public office, to imdemnify, jointly and severally, the Government of the Republic of the Philippines, through the Catanduanes Agricultural and Industrial College, in the amount of P9,200.00 and to pay the costs of this action proportionately.
SO ORDERED. (pp. 61-62, Rollo)
Binos and Alcantara failed to appeal and were sentenced accordingly. Petitioners, on the other hand, filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied on August 26, 1981. Hence, this petition.
The facts, as summarized by the Solicitor General, are as follows:
Maximo Binos and Teodulo Alcantara were, on the dates material to the case, Superintendent and Cashier, respectively, of the government-owned Catanduanes Agricultural and Industrial College (CAIC) located at Panganiban, Catanduanes. On the other hand, petitioners-spouses Jesus and Mila Balmadrid were suppliers of school and construction materials, whose company Ecbal Enterprises is located in Virac, Catanduanes.
Binos and Alcantara were personally indebted to Mila Balmadrid in the total amount of P9,200.1âwphi1 Admitting their impecunious condition, they told petitioners that they could pay them in the shortest possible time, only if they would cooperate in a scheme through which funds of CAIC would be withdrawn to pay the debt. So, after petitioners agreed, Binos, Alcantara, and petitioners conspired in July 1979 to defraud CAIC in the following manner:
Binos and Alcantara got four sets of blank forms of request for obligation of allotment (ROA), request and issue voucher (RIV), and general voucher (GV) and then antedated them to June 1979 (Exh. A-2 to A-4; B-2 to B4; C-2 to C4; D-2 to D-4). They filled up all the blank forms with fictitious items of school supplies and construction materials purportedly to be procured from Ecbal Enterprises which would allegedly all amounts to P9,200.00. Accordingly, Binos and Alcantara prepared four post-dated PNB checks (Exh. A to D) payable to Mila Balmadrid in the following respective amounts: P3,200.00; P2,800.00; P1,400.00 and P1,800.00. Binos and Alcantara gave them to Mila Balmadrid with the understanding that she encash the checks only on July 27, 1979, the date of the checks. The carbon copies of the checks were retained by Binos.
The petitioners, on the other hand, wrote a letter to Binos, purportedly demanding payment for alleged supplies procured from Ecbal Enterprises (Exh. G). The sales book of Ecbal Enterprises was accordingly made to reflect the fictitious transactions (Exh. 8, 8-A-1 to 8-A- 4) and the checks were eventually encashed.
On July 24, 1979, while Binos was at the lobby of the building of the Ministry of Education and Culture in Manila, he met Rudy Revelar, the resident auditor of CAIC. At that time, Binos had with him the carbon copies of the four checks and so be requested Revelar to take the checks with him to Catanduanes for purposes of audit. Upon his arrival at CAIC, Revelar noticed the absence of supporting papers to justify the issuance of the checks. Accordingly, he executed an affidavit on August 7, 1979 before the Provincial Fiscal of Catanduanes indicting Binos and Alcantara, for the fraudulent encashment. However, after further investigation, petitioners were also linked to the anomaly and were accordingly charged with Binos and Alcantara in the above-mentioned information (tsn., pp. 120-124, Oct. 6, 1980).
When Binos found that the scheme was uncovered by Revelar and that he was facing charges in the Provincial Fiscal's Office, he went to Legazpi City on August 31,1990 to buy construction materials from Hi-Tone Construction with the intention of bringing them to CAIC to prove that no fictitious transactions existed (Exh. S, S-1). Also, a week later, he and Alcantara tried to persuade Dalmacio de la Rosa, the CAIC bookkeeper, to sign the supporting documents they had earlier prepared. Upon their insistent requests, de la Rosa signed the documents on September 6, 1979 (tsn., pp. 110-112, Sept. 12, 1980). It was only on November 13, 1970 that Binos was able to bring the goods he bought in Legazpi City to the CAIC compound. However, the school officials refused to acknowledged receipt of these goods (tsn., pp. 23, 27-30, Sept. 12, 1980; pp. 26-28; Oct. 6, 1980; pp. 7-10, March 18, 1981). (pp. 272-275, Rollo)
Petitioners present the following assigned errors:
FIRST. Petitioners, being private persons, were improperly charged and convicted without authority of law and in clear violation of their constitutional right to due process.
SECOND. Petitioners were convicted of allegedly violating Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019, as amended, for having allegedly conspired with their co-accused public officers in the commission of the latter's criminal act (consisting in the use of government funds by the accused public officers to pay their personal obligation) inspite of the fact that the Information filed against petitioners does not allege conspiracy between said public officers, on the one hand, and the petitioners, on the other, to commit the criminal offense aforesaid.
THIRD. The findings of fact by respondent Sandiganbayan, insofar as they pertain to petitioners, are not based on or supported by substantial evidence but rest merely on conjectures, surmises and gratuitous assertions.
FOURTH. Respondent Sandiganbayan committed a grave abuse of its discretion when it made inferences and conclusions not borne out by the evidence on record, including inferences and unwarranted conclusions from documentary evidences of petitioners not formally offered in evidence by the prosecution.
FIFTH. Respondent Sandiganbayan further committed a grave abuse of discretion when it disregarded the evidence of petitioners which is clear, convincing and positive. (pp. 297-298, Rollo)
The first assigned error lacks merit. The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over criminal and civil cases involving graft and corrupt practices and such other offenses committed by public officers and employees, including those in government owned or controlled corporations, in relation to their office as may be determined by law. In case private individuals are charged as co-principals, accomplices or accesories with the public officers or employees, they shall be tried jointly with said public officers and employees. (Section 4, PD 1606).
Private persons may be charged together with public officers to avoid repeated and unnecessary presentation of witnesses and exhibits against conspirators in different venues, especially if the issues involved are the same. It follows therefore that if a private person may be tried jointly with public officers, he may also be convicted jointly with them, as in the case of the present petitioners.
Petitioners' contention that the information failed to show that they are charged in conspiracy with their co-accused public officers holds no water. The allegations in the information clearly show the commission of a series of acts, ranging from its inception through the issuance by Binos and Alcantara of officially-issued CAIC checks for non- existent, fictitious or ghost purchases of school supplies and construction materials from Ecbal Enterprises up to the irregular and/or improper delivery of supplies and construction materials, to CAIC from Hi-Tone Construction and the illegal and criminal acts of petitioners to give a semblance of regularity to the transaction. The crime, therefore, charged and penalized, is not the singular or individual act of issuing CAIC checks in payment of a civil obligation. Rather, it involves the entire spectrum ranging from their issuance up to and including the falsification of public documents to simulate or justify a transaction which was initially intended to give the spouses Balmadrid unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in Binos' and Alcantara's discharge of their official duties, which were committed with manifest partiality and evident bad faith, thus causing undue injury to the CAIC. From the very nature and essence of the act penalized under Section 3, paragraph (e), conspiracy necessarily enters into the picture and its commission attributable to two or more persons acting in conspiracy.
Petitioners likewise contend that assuming that the information states that they conspired with their co-accused public officers, the evidence to support their conviction is not sufficient to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Suffice it to say that settled is the rule that conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient if it shows a concerted plan, scheme or design to further a common objective, in this case, the defraudation of government funds thru the execution of falsified public and commercial documents.
It cannot be disputed or denied that the acts proved by the prosecution's evidence to have been committed by the accused private persons were in furtherance of the aforesaid common objective resulting, at the last stage thereof, in an attempt to deliver to the CAIC supplies and materials which were hurriedly purchased by Binos from Hi-Tone Construction to disprove the allegation in the information of ghost purchases. As indisputably shown by more than adequate evidence, the individual and/or concerted acts of accused-spouses Balmadrid were not merely acts of accomplices or accessories, as contemplated by the Revised Penal Code, but were acts showing active participation and indispensable cooperation, which, if they were not discovered or unearthed, would have led to illegal, improper or irregular acts being given a semblance of legality, propriety or regularity.
Since petitioners have been shown to have participated in the conspiracy, they must be held equally liable with co-accused Binos and Alcantara under section 3(e) of RA 3019. In a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all (People vs. Sendaydiego, 81 SCRA 120). The fact that petitioners are private persons is of no consequence, considering that the rule of collective criminal responsibility includes even private individuals who participate with public officers in the perpetration of offenses ordinarily particularly applicable only to the latter (United States vs. Ponte, 20 Phil. 379).
Lastly, with regard to the other mentioned alleged errors of the Sandiganbayan, the Court is bound by the facts found by the Sandiganbayan (Gabison vs. Sandiganbayan, 151 SCRA 62). Our power to review the decision of that special tribunal is the same as Our jurisdiction to review the decision of the Court of Appeals (Calubaquib vs. Sandiganbayan, 117 SCRA 493).
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The appealed decision of respondent Sandiganbayan with respect to petitioners is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado and Davide, Jr., JJ., concur.
Fernan, C.J., took no part.
Footnotes
1 Penned by Associate Justice Romeo M. Escareal and concurred in by Presiding Justice Manuel R. Pamaran and Associate Justice Conrado M. Molina, First Division of Sandiganbayan.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
