daniel-administrative law cases 2016.docx

7/25/2019 daniel-administrative law cases 2016.docx

1/88

G.R. No. 81563 December 19, 1989

AMADO C. ARIAS, petitioner,

vs.

THE SANDIGANBAYAN, respondent.

G.R. No. 82512 December 19, 1989

CRESENCIO D. DATA, petitioner,

vs.

THE SANDIGANBAYAN, respondent.

Paredes Law Ofce or petitioner.

GTIERRE!, "R.,J.:

The facts of this case are stated in the dissenting opinion of Justice Carolina C.

Grio-Aquino which follows this majorit opinion. The dissent su!stantiall reiterates

the draft report prepared ! Justice Grio-Aquino as a wor"ing !asis for the Court#s

deli!erations when the case was !eing discussed and for the su!sequent votes of

concurrence or dissent on the action proposed ! the report.

There is no dispute over the events which transpired. The division of the Court is on

the conclusions to !e drawn from those events and the facts insofar as the two

petitioners are concerned. The majorit is of the view that $essrs. Arias and %ata

should !e acquitted on grounds of reasona!le dou!t. The Court feels that the

quantum of evidence needed to convict petitioners Arias and %ata !eond

reasona!le dou!t, as co-conspirators in the conspirac to cause undue injur to the

Government through the irregular dis!ursement and e&penditure of pu!lic funds,

has not !een satis'ed.

(n acquitting the petitioners, the Court agrees with the )olicitor-General 1who, in *+

pages of his consolidated manifestation and motion, recommended that $essrs.

Arias and %ata !e acquitted of the crime charged, with costs de o'cio. arlier,

Tanod!aan )pecial rosecutor leuterio . Guerrero had also recommended the

dropping of Arias from the information !efore it was 'led.

There is no question a!out the need to ferret out and convict pu!lic o/cers whoseacts have made the !idding out and construction of pu!lic wor"s and highwas

snonmous with graft or criminal ine/cienc in the pu!lic ee. 0owever, the

remed is not to indict and jail ever person who ma have ordered the project, who

signed a document incident to its construction, or who had a hand somewhere in its

implementation. The careless use of the conspirac theor ma sweep into jail even

innocent persons who ma have !een made unwitting tools ! the criminal minds

who engineered the defraudation.


2/88

1nder the )andigan!aan#s decision in this case, a department secretar, !ureau

chief, commission chairman, agenc head, and all chief auditors would !e equall

culpa!le for ever crime arising from dis!ursements which the have approved. The

department head or chief auditor would !e guilt of conspirac simpl !ecause he

was the last of a long line of o/cials and emploees who acted upon or a/&ed their

signatures to a transaction. Guilt must !e premised on a more "nowing, personal,

and deli!erate participation of each individual who is charged with others as part of

a conspirac.

The records show that the si& accused persons were convicted in connection with

the overpricing of land purchased ! the 2ureau of u!lic 3or"s for the $angahan

loodwa roject. The project was intended to ease the perennial 4oods in $ari"ina

and asig, $etro $anila.

The accused were prosecuted !ecause 56,++7 square meters of 8riceland8 in

9osario, asig which had !een assessed at :.++ a square meter in 56;< were sold

as residential land8 in 56;* for *+.++ a square meter. The land for the 4oodwa

was acquired through negotiated purchase,

3e agree with the )olicitor-General that the assessor#s ta& valuation of :.++ per

square meter of land in 9osario, asig, $etro $anila is completel unrealistic and

ar!itrar as the !asis for conviction.

0erein lies the 'rst error of the trial court.

(t must !e stressed that the petitioners are not charged with conspirac in the

falsi'cation of pu!lic documents or preparation of spurious supporting papers. The

charge is causing undue injur to the Government and giving a private part

unwarranted !ene'ts through manifest partialit, evident !ad faith, or ine&cusa!lenegligence.

The alleged undue injur in a nutshell is the Government purchase of land in asig,

9i=al for *+.++ a square meter instead of the :.++ value per square meter

appearing in the ta& declarations and '&ed ! the municipal assessor, not ! the

landowner.

The )andigan!aan, without an clear factual !asis for doing so has assumed that

the :.++ per square meter value '&ed ! the assessor in the ta& declarations was

the correct mar"et value of the $angahan propert and if the Government

purchased the land for *+.++ a square meter, it follows that it must have su>eredundue injur.

The )olicitor General e&plains wh this conclusion is erroneous?

5. No undue injury was caused to the Government


3/88

a. The P80.00 per square rneter acquisition cost is justair and reasona!e.

(t !ears stress that the Agleham propert was acquired through

negotiated purchase. (t was, therefor, nothing more than an ordinar

contract of sale where the purchase price had to !e arrived at !agreement !etween the parties and could never !e left to the

discretion of one of the contracting parties @Article 57;erent fromand alwas lower than the actual mar"et value @"id, pp. DD-D


4/88

the municipal assessor, whichever is lower. ther factors must !e considered. These

factors must !e determined ! a court of justice and not ! municipal emploees.

(n the instant case, the assessor#s low evaluation, in the '&ing of which the

landowner had no participation, was used for a purpose in'nitel more weight than

mere e&propriation of land. (t forms the !asis for a criminal conviction.

The Court is not prepared to sa that *+.++ to :++.++ a square meter for land in

asig in 56;* would !e a fair evaluation. The value must !e determined in eminent

domain proceedings ! a competent court. 3e are certain, however, that it cannot

!e :.++ a square meter. 0ence, the decision, insofar as it sas that the 8correct8

valuation is :.++ per square meter and on that !asis convicted that petitioners of

causing undue injur, damage, and prejudice to the Government !ecause of gross

overpricing, is grounded on sha" foundations.

There can !e no overpricing for purposes of a criminal conviction where no proof

adduced during orderl proceedings has !een presented and accepted.

The Court#s decision, however, is !ased on a more !asic reason. 0erein lies the

principal error of the respondent court.

3e would !e setting a !ad precedent if a head of o/ce plagued ! all too common

pro!lems-dishonest or negligent su!ordinates, overwor", multiple assignments or

positions, or plain incompetence is suddenl swept into a conspirac conviction

simpl !ecause he did not personall e&amine ever single detail, painsta"ingl

trace ever step from inception, and investigate the motives of ever person

involved in a transaction !efore a/&ing, his signature as the 'nal approving

authorit.

There appears to !e no question from the records that documents used in the

negotiated sale were falsi'ed. A "e ta& declaration had a tpewritten num!er

instead of !eing machine-num!ered. The registration stampmar" was antedated

and the land reclassi'ed as residential instead of rice'eld. 2ut were the petitioners

guilt of conspirac in the falsi'cation and the su!sequent charge of causing undue

in injur and damage to the Government

3e can, in retrospect, argue that Arias should have pro!ed records, inspected

documents, received procedures, and questioned persons. (t is dou!tful if an

auditor for a fairl si=ed o/ce couldpersona!!ydo all these things in all vouchers

presented for his signature. The Court would !e as"ing for the impossi!le. All headsof o/ces have to rel to a reasona!le e&tent #on their su!ordinates and on the good

faith of those prepare !ids, purchase supplies, or enter into negotiations. (f a

department secretar entertains important visitors, the auditor is not ordinaril

e&pected to call the restaurant a!out the amount of the !ill, question each guest

whether he was present at the luncheon, inquire whether the correct amount of

food was served and otherwisepersona!!yloo" into the reim!ursement voucher#saccurac, propriet, and su/cienc. There has to !e some added reason wh he


5/88

should e&amine each voucher in such detail. An e&ecutive head of

even sma!!government agencies or commissions can attest to the volume of papersthat must !e signed. There are hundreds of document , letters and supporting paper

that routinel pass through his hands. The num!er in !igger o/ces or departments

is even more appalling.

There should !e other grounds than the mere signature or approval appearing on a

voucher to sustain a conspirac charge and conviction.

3as petitioner Arias part of the planning, preparation, and perpetration of the

alleged conspirac to defraud the government

Arias joined the asig o/ce on Jul 56, 56;*. The negotiations for the purchase of

the propert started in 56;;. The deed of sale was e&ecuted on April D+, 56;*. Title

was transferred to the 9epu!lic on June *, 56;*. (n other words, the transaction had

alread !een consummated !efore his arrival. The pre-audit, incident to pament of

the purchase, was conducted in the 'rst wee" of cto!er, 56;*. Arias points out

that apart from his signature lin"ing him to the signature on the voucher, there is no

evidence transaction. n the contrar, the other co-accused testi'ed the did not

"now him personall and none approached him to follow up the pament.

)hould the !ig amount of 5,:D+,


6/88

L (n conducting the pre-audit, did ou determine the

reasona!leness of the price of the propert

A (n this case, the price has !een stated, the transaction

had !een consummated and the corresponding Transfer

Certi'cate of little had !een issued and transferred to thegovernment of the hilippines. The auditors have no more

leewa to return the papers and then question the

purchase price.

L (s it not a procedure in our o/ce that !efore pament

is given ! the government to private individuals there

should !e a pre-audit of the papers and the corresponding

chec"s issued to the vendor

A Correct, Kour 0onor, !ut it depends on the "ind of

transaction there is.

L Kes, !ut in this particular case, the papers were

transferred to the government without paing the price

%id ou not consider that rather odd or unusual @T),

page 5;, April D;,56*;B.

A o, Kour 0onor.

L 3h not

A 2ecause in the %eed of )ale as !eing noted there, there

is a condition that no paments will !e made unless thecorresponding title in the pament of the 9epu!lic is

committed is made.

L "n this case you said that the tit!e is a!ready in thename o the %overnment)

A *es+ *our ,onor. The on!y thin% we do is to determinewhether there is an appropriation set aside to cover thesaid speci-cation. 's o the price it is under the so!eauthority o the proper ofcer main% the sa!e.

L $ point is this. %id ou not consider it unusual for a

piece of propert to !e !ought ! the governmentF the

sale was consummatedF the title was issued in favor of

the government without the price !eing paid 'rst to the

seller


7/88

A No+ *our ,onor. "n a!! cases usua!!y+ payments made ythe %overnment comes !ater than the transer.

L That is usua! procedure uti!i/ed in road ri%ht o waytransaction)

A Kes, Kour 0onor. @T), p. 5*, April D;,56*;B.

L And of course as auditor, #watch-dog# of the government

there is also that function ou are also called upon !

going over the papers . . . @T), page DD, April D;,56*;B.

( ... vouchers called upon to determine whether there is

an irregularit as at all in this particular transaction, is it

not

A Kes, $a#am.

L And that was in fact the reason wh ou scrutini=ed

also, not onl the ta& declaration !ut also the certi'cation

! $r. Jose and $r. Cru=

A As what do ou mean of the certi'cation, ma#am

L Certi'cation of $r. Jose and $r. Cru= in relation to %

o. D6E, A The are not required documents that an

auditor must see. @T), page D


8/88

which determined the authenticit of the documents presented to

them for processing and on the !asis thereof prepared the

corresponding deed of saleF thereafter, the committee su!mitted the

deed of sale together with the supporting documents to petitioner %ata

for signingF on the !asis of the supporting certi'ed documents which

appeared regular and complete on their face, petitioner %ata, as head

of the o/ce and the signing authorit at that level, merel signed !ut

did not approve the deed of sale @&hi!it GB as the approval thereof

was the prerogative of the )ecretar of u!lic 3or"sF he thereafter

transmitted the signed deed of sale with its supporting documents to

%irector Anolin of the 2ureau of u!lic 3or"s who in turn

recommended approval thereof ! the )ecretar of u!lic 3or"sF the

deed of sale was approved ! the Asst. )ecretar of u!lic 3or"s after

a review and re-e&amination thereof at that levelF after the approval of

the deed of sale ! the higher authorities the covering voucher for

pament thereof was prepared which petitioner %ata signedF petitioner

%ata did not "now Gutierre= and had never met her during the

processing and pament of her claims @tsn, e!ruar DE, 56*;, pp. 5+-

57, 5E-D7,


9/88

meters to 56,++7 square meters as approved ! the and 9egistration

Commission, which resulted in the corresponding reduction in the

purchase price from 5,:7E,D7+.++ to l,:D+,


10/88

The Court is here confronted with the question of whether or not criminal

responsi!ilit ma !e incurred ! a head of o/ce who, in the discharge of his o/cial

duties, has relied on an act of his su!ordinate. There is no in4e&i!le rule.

This petition for review on certiorariassails the +:th )eptem!er 5665 decision of

respondent )andigan!aan convicting petitioner, 0ermenegildo $. $agsuci, ofestafa through falsi'cation of pu!lic documents.

n +E June 56**, an information was 'led charging petitioner $agsuci, a pu!lic

o/cer, and one Jaime 2. Ancla, a private person, with the comple& crime of estafa

through falsi'cation of pu!lic documents. The information read?

That on or a!out $arch 55, 56*< and prior sometime thereto, in

Cagaan de ro Cit and within the jurisdiction of this 0onora!le Court,

the a!ovenamed accused 0ermenegildo $. $agsuci, a pu!lic o/cer,

!eing the 9egional %irector of the 2ureau of isheries and Aquatic

9esources @2A9B, %epartment of atural 9esourcesB, @formerl

$inistr of atural 9esourcesB, 9egion N, Cagaan de ro Cit, and

accused Jaime 2. Ancla, a private person, and ngineer and General

$anager of %e&ter Construction, Cagaan de ro Cit, conspiring,

confederating, and helping one another while the former in the

discharge of his pu!lic position and committing the o>ense in relation

thereto, ta"ing advantage of his pu!lic functions, with grave a!use of

con'dence, did, then and there, wilfull, unlawfull, and feloniousl

issue and ma"e it appear in the Certi'cate of Completion, dated $arch

5+, 56*< and the undated Accomplishment 9eport, that the latter had

satisfactoril completed the 3or" rder on the fort @7+B ton ice plant

and cold storage located at $agallanes )treet, )urigao Cit, when in

truth and in fact, there were no such installation and constructionmade thereon, thus, from the aforesaid falsities thereof, ena!led the

accused to o!tain and receive the sum of 75D,;D6.D7 through a

%is!ursement Ooucher and various Treasur Chec"s and once the are

in possession of said sum, with intent to defraud, misappropriate,

misappl and convert to their own personal use and !ene't, to the

damage and prejudice of the government in the aforesaid amount.

Contrar to law. 1

n 5+ August 56**, !oth accused were ordered arrested. $agsuci voluntaril

surrendered and posted a suret !ond for his provisional li!ert. Ancla appeared tohave a!sconded. n 5D )eptem!er 56**, $agsuci pleaded 8not guilt8 to the

accusation.

The factual 'ndings of the )andigan!aan ma !e narrated thusl?

)ome time in Januar 56*+, the 2ureau of isheries and Aquatic 9esources @82A98B

and %e&ter Construction @8%NT98B, represented ! its $anager Jaime 2. Ancla,


11/88

entered into a 8Contract of )ervice8 for the construction ! the latter of a 7+-ton ice

ma"ing plant, including a 5:+-ton ice storage and ense charged, and sentenced him thusl?

3099, the Court 'nds 0ermenegildo $. $agsuci guilt !eond a

reasona!le dou!t as principal of the comple& crime of estafa de'ned in

Article


12/88

0e is ordered to pa the government ! wa of reparation the amount

of T09 01%9% (TK )O T01)A% T3 01%9%

)OT )) and )(NT CTAO) @erent rule could !ring, has aptl concluded?

3e would !e setting a !ad precedent if a head of o/ce plagued ! all

too common pro!lems Q dishonest or negligent su!ordinates,

overwor", multiple assignments or positions, or plain incompetence Q

is suddenl swept into a conspirac conviction simpl !ecause he did

not personall e&amine ever single detail, painsta"ingl trace ever

step from inception, and investigate the motives of ever person


13/88

involved in a transaction !efore a/&ing his signature as the 'nal

approving authorit.

&&& &&& &&&

. . . . All heads of o/ces have to rel to a reasona!le e&tent on theirsu!ordinates and on the good faith of those who prepare !ids,

purchase supplies, or enter into negotiations. . . . There has to !e some

added reason wh he should e&amine each voucher in such detail. An

e&ecutive head of even small government agencies or commissions

can attest to the volume of papers that must !e signed. There are

hundreds of documents, letters, memoranda, vouchers, and supporting

papers that routinel pass through his hands. The num!er in !igger

o/ces or departments is even more appalling.

3e are not unaware of an o!servation made ! this Court in Peop!e vs.7odis8tothe e>ect that a person ma !e so held lia!le as a co-principal if he, !e an act of

rec"less imprudence, has !rought a!out the commission of estafa through

falsi'cation, or malversation through falsi'cation, without which @rec"less

negligenceB the crime could not have !een accomplished. 93hen, however, that

infraction consists in the reliance in good faith, a!eitmisplaced, ! a head of o/ceon a su!ordinate upon whom the primar responsi!ilit rests, a!sent a clear case of

conspirac, the'rias doctrinemust !e held to prevail.

3099, the decision of the )andigan!aan is 9O9)% and )T A)(%, and

petitioner $agsuci is ACL1(TT% of the charges against him. Costs de o-cio.

) 9%9%.

Narvasa+ 1.2.+ Padi!!a+ 5idin+ 7e%a!ado+ (avide+ 2r.+ 7omero+ 5e!!osi!!o+ 3e!o+ uiason+Puno+ 9itu%+ :apunan and 3endo/a+ 22.+ concur.

e!iciano+ 2.+ is on !eave.

G.R. No/. 1%4119$2%. Ar-7 14, 1996

TEODORO D. AREO,petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN '( THE EO#E OTHE HI#IINES, respondents.

G.R No/. 1%8%34$38. Ar-7 14 1996


14/88

AI#INO T. #ARIN,petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN '( THE EO#E OTHE HI#IINES, respondents.

SY##ABS

5. REMEDIA# #A:; EIDENCE; INDINGS O ACT O THE SANDIGANBAYAN;R#E; CASE AT BAR AN E


15/88

AEARANCES O CONSE#

'%ustin O. 5enite/ and 1!aro 5. Par!ade for petitioner in G.9. os. 5+;556-D+.#ste!ito P. 3endo/a and #rmitao 'suncion 3an/ano ; 'ssociates for petitioner inG.9. o. 5+*+


16/88

under )ec. 5DD which is erroneous sinceJanuar 5, 56*E. )ection 5D5 is hereunderquoted?

)pirit or distilled spirits is the su!stance "nown as thl Alcohol, ethanol or spirits ofwine, including all dilutions, puri'cations and mi&tures thereof, from whateversource ! whatever process produced and shall include whis", !rand, rum, gin

and Ood"a, and other similar products or mi&tures, e&cept compounded liquorsta&ed under )ection 5DD of this Code.

3e !u alcohol from other distillers for further recti'cation. The speci'c ta& on suchalcohol is not paa!le upon removal !ecause it will undergo recti'cation pursuant to)ec 55; 1nder the same )ection, the dut of paing speci'c ta& on such alcoholremoved under !ond is shifted on the recti'er. rom hereon, our process is acontinuous one. 3e produce gin, rum, vod"a and these products that are removedfrom our place of production fall squarel under the de'nition of distilledspirit. Attached is a detailed schedule of Ad 9a!orem ta&es paid for the said periodwith supporting o/cial receipts for our read reference.

3e will appreciate ver much our immediate action on the a!ove request.

Than" ou.

Oer trul ours,

TA%1AK %()T(9K, (C.li=alde R Co., (nc.Gen. $grs.

@)G%.B A1)T 9K)9)O-Comptroller5

Acting on said letter, Aquilino. arin, Assistant Commissioner and Chief of thethen )peci'c Ta& /ce, now &cise Ta& )ervice of the 2(9, wrote a marginalnoteDon the letter instructing Teodoro areo head of the Alcohol Ta& %ivision, toprepare a request to the 9evenue Accounting %ivision @9A%B for con'rmation of

Tanduas paments.

n )eptem!er D


17/88

Attention? Chief, 9evenue Accounting %ivision

)ir?

There is forwarded to ou for veri'cation and authentication that the amountsrepresented ! the Con'rmation 9eceipts mentioned in the attached schedules inthe amount of ne 0undred ight $illion )even 0undred ne Thousand )i&0undred ight Two @5*+,;+5,E*D.++B esos, were actuall paid and received !our 2ureau as'd 9a!oremTa& aments of Tandua %istiller, (nc., o.


18/88

&&& &&& &&&5+


19/88

tested and e&amined ! the Lualit Control /ce of Tandua %istiller for thepurpose of determining if it meets the qualit standard. (t is therefore pumped intothe under!ond storage tan"s of the rectifing plant of Tandua %istiller, (nc., andundergoes recti'cation to remove tur!idit, color, odor and other impurities for thepurpose of !ringing a!out improved qualit of the alcohol for the speci'c use in themanufacture of liquors and wines. After sometime in the rectifing plant at time for

several months of storage said under!ond recti'ed alcohol are read forcompounding depending on the mar"et demands in which case the are transferredto the compounding area after the pament of the corresponding speci'c ta&. (n thecompounding tan"s essences, oils, aromatics, coloring material and otheringredients are added to attain the desired premium qualit !rand of compoundliquor to !e produced. After all the materials were thoroughl mi&ed the resultingproducts which are )L 9hum, Clu!mans %r Gin, %e u&e and Cossach Ood"a andother similar into&icating !everages are tested and e&amined again ! the LualitControl /ce and if found to possess the standard qualit strictl set ! thecompan the are stored for sometime !ottled, pac"ed and a/&ed with therequisite au&iliar la!els. All of these processes are alwas under the supervision ofrevenue enforcement o/cers assigned on-premises supervision together with the

qualit control personnel of Tandua %istiller to insure a sanitar output. Thesevarious stages of operations are done in one continuous uninterrupted integratedprocess. The !ottled liquors are pac"ed into cases which are a/&ed with 2(9 regularla!els under the supervision of our revenue enforcement o/cer assignedthereat. The corresponding o/cial ta& receipts are then accomplished showing the!rands of compound liquors produced, the total volume in gauge liters, grade, proofliters, serial num!er of regular and au&iliar la!els and the amount ofad va!orem ta&es paid thereon which is the su!ject matter of the ta& credit claim of

Tandua %istiller, (nc. The supervision and control of esta!lishments manufacturingarticles su!ject to e&cise ta&es are e&tended for revenue purposes up to thefactors warehouse for 'nished products.

Oer trul ours,

@)G%.B J1)T( . GA2A, J9.Chief, Compounders, 9epac"ers

R 9ecti'ers )ection.:

The other memorandum prepared and signed ! areo was addressed to theAssistant Commissioner for )peci'c Ta& reiterating essentiall the manufacturingprocess of Tandua and its status as a recti'er. areo recommended that the claimof Tandua for ta& credit for alleged erroneous pament of ad va!orem ta& !e givendue course. The memorandum states?

cto!er 5


20/88

the period Januar 5, 56*E to August


21/88

(n view of the foregoing, it is respectfull recommended that the request of Tandua%istiller, (nc., for ta& credit in the amount of 5*+,;+5,E*D.++ for alleged erroneouspament of ad va!orem ta& !e given due course.

Oer trul ours,

@)G%.B T%9 %. A9Chief, Alcohol Ta& %ivisionE

Thus, arin prepared a memorandum, addressed to %eput Commissionerufracio %. )antos recommending that the claim of Tandua for ta& credit there!!e granted. Together with his memorandum, arin also sent to )antos Ta& Credit$emorandum o. :5;; @TC$B !earing his initial for )antos signature. Thememorandum reads, as follows

cto!er 5


22/88

)pirits or distilled spirits is the su!stance "nown as ethl alcohol, ethanol or spiritsof wine, including all dilutions, puri'cations and mi&tures thereof from whateversource ! whatever process produced and shall include whis", !rand, rum, ginand vod"a, and other similar products or mi&tures, e&cept compounded liquorsta&ed under )ection 5DD of this Code.

rom the foregoing, the law e&plicitl considers whis", rum, gin, etc. as distilledspirits and does not qualif whether ! direct distillation or reversefa!rication. )u/ce it to sa that same ma !e produced from whatever source !whatever process produced. (n other words, the !usiness operation of Tandua%istiller, (nc., in as far as the production of into&icating liquors is concerned, ise&actl the same as that of %estileria imtuaco.

(n view of the foregoing and considering that it has alread !een ruled that%estileria imtuaco is entitled to a refund of its erroneousl paid ad va!orem ta&eson its manufactured alcoholic products @approved memorandum for theCommissioner of the Chief, Appellate %ivision and concurred ! the Chief, 9evenue)ervice, Chief, egal /ce, cop attached for read referenceB. (t is recommendedthat the claim for ta& credit erroneousl paid ! Tandua %istiller, (nc., in theamount of 5*+,;+5,E*D.++ !e also ta& credited it appearing that the saiderroneous paments have alread !een veri'ed to have !een remitted to the2ureau ! the 9evenue Accounting %ivision as per its 5st (ndorsement dated)eptem!er D:+ 56*;, hereto attached.

Oer trul ours,

@)G%.B AL1(( T. A9(Assistant Commissioner

for )peci'c Ta&;

n cto!er 5


23/88

That during the period covering )eptem!er =>+ 56*; to cto!er 5


24/88

without su/cient legal and factual !ases the all endorsed approval of the sameclaim ! preparing, signing, and su!mitting andMor causing the preparation, signingand su!mission of memoranda, certi'cation andMor o/cial communications statingtheir 'ndings thereon that the Tandua %istiller, (nc. was not lia!le to paad va!orem ta&es !ecause its products are distilled spirits on which speci'c ta&esare paid and that the amount mentioned ! said 'rm in its claim for ta& credit was

actuall paid and received ! the 2(9, said @sicB having !een made ! the accusedin order to give claimant-'rm undue !ene'ts in the form of ta& credits approved intheir favor, o/cial record of the 2(9, actuall paid the amount of 01%9%(G0TK $(( )O 01%9% T01)A% )(N 01%9% (G0TK T3)), @5*+,;+ 5,E*D.++B, hilippine Currenc, for speci'c ta&es, and onl ;


25/88

The allegations of the (nformation in the a!ove Criminal Cases not having !eenproven !eond reasona!le dou!t as to the other accused, judgment is now renderedACL1(TT(G accused J1)T( . GA2A of the charges under Criminal Cases o.57D+* and o. 57D+6, since his onl function and activit had !een the preparationof the description of the technical aspects of TA%1AK) manufacturing process as arecti'er and compounder of liquors.

Costs against the accused A9(, A9 and OAG()TA.

) 9%9%.55

n cto!er


26/88

)antos would want to distinguish his position from that of the petitionerse&plaining that the %eput Commissioners and the Commissioner do not performinvestigative functions so the have to rel on their su!ordinates. The /ce of theAssistant Commissioner, on the other hand, performs line functions and hasinvestigator powers. (t is more in the position to determine if paments wereindeed made.5ect, therefore, lia!ilit was pinpointed on arin and areo who were more inthe position to ma"e a proper determination if Tandua was indeed entitled to a ta&credit.

The second witness, 2ri"cio )antos testi'ed that he was )enior 9evenuenforcement /cer in 56**, a!out that time when the case arose. 0is dut was toconduct investigation of ta& lia!ilities of ta&paers, prepare necessar reports anddo other jo!s assigned to him.

n Jul 5*, 56**, he was assigned to loo" into the Tandua case ! virtue of aletter of authorit issued ! one 2enjamin %. arungo, Assistant Commissioner of

the )pecial perations )ervice, addressed to Tandua. Together withthis, )antos also received the entire doc"et of TC$ o. :5;;.

)antos was commissioned to e&amine the entire ta& position of Tandua. (n thecourse of his e&amination of all the documents presented to him, the 'nancialstatement of the compan was the most signi'cant. According to )antos, the'nancial statement did not re4ect an sales ta& pament which formed the !asis ofa ta& refund or ta& credit. 0is audit report contained the following 'ndings aso!served ! the )andigan!aan?

& & & After ma"ing the schedule of the ament rders and Con'rmation 9eceipts,he rendered an Audit 9eport @&hi!it GB @p. :


27/88

The prosecutions third witness, Themistocles $ontal!an who was the 9evenue&ecutive Assistant for Collection merel testi'ed that he came across TC$ o.:5;; !ut did not actuall sign all de!it memos in application of TC$ o. :5;;. 0estated that the amount of 5*+,;+5,E*D.++ was full utili=ed in pament of (nternal9evenue ta&es due from Tandua covering the period 56*; to 56**. This fullavailment was !orne out ! the records that the have compiled in the Accounts

9eceiva!le 2illing %ivision.5:

The ne&t witness to testif was Jeanet )egundo Aurelio, who was the 9evenueCler"-tpist of petitioner Teodoro areo.

)he recalled that on cto!er 5erent 4oors. )heallegedl overheard that Juliet Galan was following up the memoranda she wastping on that da particularl that of areo. &cept for that da, she never sawGalan again.

The defense, on the other hand, did not present testimonial evidence !ut onldocumentar evidence, adopting some of the e&hi!its of the prosecution.

etitioners were charged for having violated the two @DB di>erent laws, to wit?

&&& &&& &&&

@5B )ection DE*@7B of the ational (nternal 9evenue Code in Criminal Case o. 57D+*which reads as follows?

)ec. DE*. 9io!ations committed y %overnment enorcement ofcers. -ver o/cial,agent or emploee of the 2ureau of (nternal 9evenue or an other agenc of the

government charged with the enforcement of the provisions of this Code, who isguilt of an of the o>enses herein!elow speci'ed, shall, upon conviction for eachact or omission, !e 'ned in a sum of not less than 've thousand pesos !ut not morethan 'ft thousand pesos or imprisoned for a term of not less than one ear !ut notmore than ten ears, or !othF

&&& &&& &&&

7. Those who conspire or collude with another or others to defraud the revenues orotherwise violate the provisions of this CodeF

&&& &&& &&&

@DB )ection


28/88

&&& &&& &&&

e. Causing an undue injur to an part, including the Government, or giving anprivate part an unwarranted !ene't, advantage or preference in the discharge ofhis o/cial administrative or judicial functions through manifest partialit, evident!ad faith or gross ine&cusa!le negligence. &&&

)peci'call, the petitioners have !een accused of the following acts?

or the violation of )ec. DE* of the (9C @Criminal Case o. 57D+*B?

- ! having conspired and colluded with one another.

- in "nowingl preparing false memoranda and certi'cation regardingthe claim for Ta& Credits made ! the ta&paer Tandua %istiller,(nc. @TA%1AKB

- to the e>ect that the ta&paer had paid 5*+,;+5,E*D.++ in ad

va!orem ta&esF- when in fact the accused had failed to verif the truth of thealleged pament of ad va!orem ta&esF

- the truth !eing that the ta&paer TA%1AK had notpaid that amount in ad va!orem !ut in speci'c ta&es, although it hadpaid another sum @;D,E57,D*;.D+B in ad va!orem ta$es.

or the violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt ractices Act @)ec.


29/88

5*+,;+5,E*D.++, onl three @


30/88

;B 3ith the veri'cation from the 9A% and the memorandum of areo e&plaining themanufacturing process of Tandua, arin prepared a memorandum to the %eputCommissioner recommending approval of TC$ o. :5;;.

The Court does not 'nd anthing irregular or illegal with the acts committed !the petitioners. The fact that the letter of Tandua was addressed to arin

speci'call does not prove anthing at all. owhere in the rules of the 2(9 does itstate that all communications must pass through the hierarch of o/cers.

The head of the &cise Ta&5*%ivision was petitioner arin. An application forta& credit was usuall referred to arin and responded ! him and his immediatesu!ordinates.

(n the instant case, it was !ut proper for Tanduas claim for ta& credit in adva!orem ta&es to have !een referred to his o/ce. 3hether or not ta& refunds or ta&credits were to !e made and how much was to !e credited was the responsi!ilit ofarin and areo, too, as the head of the Alcohol Ta& %ivision considering that theissue referred is ta&es on liquor.

To repeat, there is nothing irregular with the fact that Tanduas letter wasdirectl sent to the /ce of the Chief of the &cise Ta& %ivision which wouldnecessaril loo" into the validit of Tanduas claim.

either do we 'nd anthing false or irregular in arins marginal note or areo smemorandum prepared ! Gal!an to the 9A%. The were merel requests forveri'cation or authentication of the Con'rmation 9eceipts for the purpose ofdetermining if paments for ad va!orem ta&es had indeed !een made ! Tandua.

areo and Gal!ans memorandum, on the other hand, merel e&plained themanufacturing process of Tandua. Considering that the 2(9 had alread ruled thatad va!orem ta&es paid ! the distillers were erroneous paments and could,therefore, !e proper su!ject of claims for ta& credit, there was legal !asis to

Tanduas claim.56

There were two things to !e veri'ed !efore Tandua s claim for ta& refund could!e granted?

irst, if Tandua is a recti'er and is, thus not entitled to pa ad va!orem ta&esFand

)econd, if Tandua has paid the ad va!orem ta&es to the 2(9.

3ith respect to the 'rst, there is no question that Tandua is a recti'er. Thememoranda of areo and Gal!an ver well e&plained the manufacturing process of

Tandua which was similar to that of imtuaco %istiller. The recommendation madein each of these documents was !ased entirel on the technical aspects of Tanduasclaim for ta& crediting - namel whether or not its products were distilled spirits andtherefore not su!ject to ad va!orem ta&. The memoranda were not questioned ordisputed. As recti'ers, the were indeed entitled to a ta& refund for an adva!orem ta&es previousl paid. The legal !asis for Tandua was inelucta!le. Thememoranda of Gal!an and areo are therefore not enough !asis for petitionersconviction.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/apr1996/107119_20.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/apr1996/107119_20.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/apr1996/107119_20.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/apr1996/107119_20.htm#_edn19


31/88

3hat was crucial was the second prerequisite which the )andigan!aansurmised as having !een falsel certi'ed ! arin.

The requested veri'cation of the Con'rmation 9eceipts from the 9A% wasforwarded to the o/ce of arin through the irst (ndorsement of otencianavangelista. otenciana vangelista !elonged to the inancial $anagement )ervice

which was a co-equal unit of the &cise Ta& )ervice in the 2(9. As testi'ed !%eput Commissioner ufracio )antos, veri'cation of the amount of ta& pamentswas the dut of the 9evenue Accounting %ivision.D+(n such a case, we can not faultarin for having relied on the irst (ndorsement of otenciana vangelista whichstated that the con'rmation receipts listed hereunder were veri'ed from the recordsof this /ce. 3ith such a veri'cation, arin presumed that Tandua has indeedpaidad va!orem ta&es.

The )andigan!aan, however, ruled that arin should have not accepted theirst (ndorsement on its face. (t was incum!ent upon arin to have gone !eond theveri'cation of the 9A%, and to personall verif the paments made. )uchcontention is a!surd, if not outrightl ludicrous. The 2(9 is a !ig government o/cetas"ed with the collection of ta&es which is considered the life!lood of thegovernment. %uties had to !e delineated to the di>erent o/ces for utmoste/cienc in the ta& collection sstem since wor"load is e&pectedl heav. ufracio)antos testi'ed that he had to rel on the certi'cations and recommendations ofthe di>erent o/cials !elow who are also presumed to rel on their respectivesu!ordinates. (n this particular case, he a/&ed his signature on TC$ o. :5;;!ecause he had the trust and con'dence not onl in arin !ut also in the sstemitselfD5 (n the same wa, arin also had the trust and con'dence in the 9A% inma"ing the requested veri'cationMcerti'cation that Tandua has paid the adva!orem ta&es. ufracio )antos even admitted that the fact that Tanduas paperspassed through the 9A%, !earing the certi'cation and signature of vangelista wassu/cient for him to consider Tanduas claim favora!l.

$oreover, the )andigan!aan maintains that a perusal of the irst (ndorsementreveals that most of the Con'rmation 9eceipts !ore TC num!ers referring tospeci'c ta&es. (t was also incum!ent upon the petitioners to "now the meaning ofthese TCs which would readil show that the paments made ! Tandua were forspeci'c ta&es and not ad va!orem ta&es.

The Ta& umeric Code @TCB for )peci'c Ta&es is contained in 9evenue$emorandum o. 5:-*E.DDThe TC sstem was adopted ! the 2(9 to facilitate thepreparation of statistical and other management reports, the improvement ofrevenue accounting and the production of ta& data so essential to the managementplanning and decision-ma"ing. 1nder this sstem, a code or num!er stands for? @aB"ind or class of ta&F and @!B the applica!le rate.D


32/88


33/88

Conspirac ma !e proved ! evidence of actual agreement !etween theparties to commit the crime, or evidence of concerted acts of the parties indicativeof a common o!jective to commit the crime.

(n the instant case, there is no proof of actual agreement !etween thepetitioners to commit the crime charged. The acts of petitioners and that of

vangelista ma !e considered concerted onl !ecause the performed interrelatedfunctions. arin from the &cise Ta& /ce received the letter of Tandua andreferred the matter to areo, as head of the Alcohol Ta& %ivision considering thatthe issue was a ta& on liquor. A certi'cation from the 9A% was requested andindorsed !ac" to arin who made a favora!le recommendation to the %eputCommissioner. There is no showing that petitioners have acted irregularl, orperformed acts outside of their o/cial functions. The testimon of Jeanet Aureliothat she saw arins secretar at their o/ce, following up the memorandum she wastping has no pro!ative value at all. (t must !e founded on facts, not on mereinferences, conjectures and presumptions.D*There is actuall no proof thatconspirac e&ists !etween the parties.

(t is rather apparent that under the )andigan!aan s decision, a departmentsecretar, !ureau chief, commission chairman, agenc head, department head orchief of o/ce would !e equall culpa!le for ever crime arising from antransactions or held guilt of conspirac simpl !ecause he was the last of a longline of o/cials or emploees who acted upon or a/&ed his signature to atransaction. 3e cannot allow this !ecause guilt must !e premised on a more"nowing personal, and deli!erate participation of each individual who is chargedwith others as part of a conspirac.D6There must !e more convincing proof which inthis case is wanting.

The )andigan!aans 'nding of guilt is merel !ased on speculations andconjectures which does not pass the test of moral certaint. 3e 'nd that theevidence on record is not su/cient to sustain a conviction.

(n this connection, the Court o!serves that there ma have !een partiesinvolved in the criminal act !ut were, however, not included in the information,which matter ma !e appropriatel acted upon ! the authorities concerned, as thefacts ma warrant.

:HEREORE, the questioned decision of the )andigan!aan insofar as itconvicts and sentences petitioners Teodoro %. areo and Aquilino T. arin is here!)T A)(%. etitioners areo and arin are ACL1(TT% on grounds of reasona!ledou!t. o costs.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa+ 1.2.+ Padi!!a+ 7e%a!ado+ (avide+ 2r.+ 7omero+ 5e!!osi!!o+ 3e!o+ Puno+9itu%+ and3endo/a+ 22.+ concur.

G.R. No. 13395&. A)>)/? 3, 2%%%

ICTORIANO B. TIRO#, "R.petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ADIT, Re>-o(III, rere/e(?e b* -?/ DIRECTOR, #e*?e Goer(me(? Ce(?er, C'('@)>,

'7o, #e*?e, respondent.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/apr1996/107119_20.htm#_edn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/apr1996/107119_20.htm#_edn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/apr1996/107119_20.htm#_edn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/apr1996/107119_20.htm#_edn29


34/88

D E C I S I O N

DAIDE, "R., C.J.

(n this petition for review on certiorariunder )ection D; of 9.A. o. E;;+, otherwise"nown as the m!udsman Act of 56*6, in relation to 9ule 7: of the 9evised 9ules ofCourt, petitioner see"s the reversal of the 9esolution H5Iof D+ $arch 566; and therderHDIof : $arch 566* of the /ce of the m!udsman which, respectivel, foundpetitioner and his co-respondents in $2-Oisaas-Crim-67-+*


35/88

D )inger )ewingmachine

;,*:+ 5:,;++ 7,7:+ *,6++ E,*++

7 5E8 0itachi M1nion Coilingan


36/88

the purchases were made without competitive pu!lic !idding and the magnitude ofthe amount involved would prevent a reasona!le mind from accepting the claimthat petitioner was merel careless or negligent in the performance of his functions.

)antiago gave credence to CAs detailed report which clearl showed an overpricedvalue of the supplies and materials purchased, to the great disadvantage of the

government. 0ad the proper !idding procedure !een o!served, no such damagewould have occurred. $oreover, petitioners co-respondents did not dispute thecharge of overpricing. Their main defense was that the purchase was emergenc innature. The /ce of the m!udsman-Oisaas, however, ruled that emergencpurchases could onl refer to those which were urgent such that failure to ma"ethem would endanger the lives of the students. (t held that the dou!tful purchasedid not qualif as an emergenc purchase.

Accordingl, )antiago recommended that petitioner and his co-respondents !eindicted for violation of )ection ense in relation too/ce, conniving and confederating together and mutuall helping with eachother, with deli!erate intent, did then and there willfull, unlawfull andfeloniousl enter into a transaction or contract for and in !ehalf of alawiganational 0igh )chool, alawigan, 2orongan, astern )amar, for the purchaseof the following?

D pcs. )inger )ewing $achine 5:,;++.++

7 pcs. 5E8 0itachi 1nion Ceiling an 5:,D++.++

< pcs. $eodione 55,+D:.++
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/aug2000/133954.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/aug2000/133954.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/aug2000/133954.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/aug2000/133954.htm#_ftn9


37/88

D pcs. Nlophone


38/88

for certiorariunder 9ule E: of the 9ules of Court claiming that the )andigan!aangravel a!used its discretion in dening his motions. That action, entitled Tiro! v.6andi%anayan and doc"eted as G.9. o. 5


39/88

constitutionall mandated to investigate and prosecute matters falling within hisjurisdiction.

(n his 9epl petitioner states that the nature of the petition does not involve areview of the factual 'nding of the /ce of the m!udsman !ut rather itsconclusion !ased on undisputed facts. The issue is a question of law and ma,

therefore, !e reviewed ! this Court.

A meticulous review and re-evaluation of the pleadings in this case, as well as G.9.o. 5


40/88

(n'riasthis Court set aside the judgment against the petitioner !ecause there wasno evidence that the Government su>ered undue injur. As stated ! the )olicitorGeneral which recommended Arias acquittal, @aB the 8*+.++ per square meteracquisition cost is just, fair and reasona!le,8 and @!B 8the prosecution li"ewise hasnot shown an positive and convincing evidence of conspirac !etween thepetitioners and their co-accused.8

(n 3a%suci, the reversal ! this Court of the judgment of conviction was !ased on a'nding that $agsuci acted in good faith and that 8there has !een no intimation atall that he had fore"nowledge of an irregularit committed ! either or !oth ngr.nrique= and Acla.8

(n !oth'riasand 3a%suci, there was paucit of evidence on conspirac.

(n this case, there is onl the claim of petitioner that he had acted in good faith andthat there was no conspirac. The m!udsman !elieves otherwise. (t is settled thatthis Court ordinaril does not interfere with the discretion of the m!udsman todetermine whether there e&ists reasona!le ground to !elieve that a crime has !eencommitted and that the accused is pro!a!l guilt thereof and, thereafter, to 'le thecorresponding information with the appropriate courts. H56IThis rule is !ased not onlupon respect for the investigator and prosecutor powers granted ! theConstitution to the /ce of the m!udsman !ut upon practicalit as well.therwise the functions of the courts will !e grievousl hampered ! immeasura!lepetitions assailing the dismissal of investigator proceedings conducted ! the/ce of the of the m!udsman with regard to complaints 'led !efore it, in as muchthe same wa that the courts would !e e&tremel swamped if the would !ecompelled to review the e&ercise of discretion on the part of the 'scals orprosecuting attornes each time the decide to 'le an information in court ordismiss a complaint ! a private complainant.HD+I

etitioner has not convinced this Court that his case falls within an of thee&emptions, enumerated in 5roca v. #nri!e,HD5Ito the rule that criminal prosecutionma not !e restrained either through a preliminar or 'nal injunction or a writ ofprohi!ition.

There is et another !asic reason for dismissing the instant petition. This is anappeal under )ection D; of the m!udsman Act of 56*6 in relation to 9ule 7: of the566; 9ules of Civil rocedure. 3e have declared )ection D; to !e unconstitutional ina!ian v. %esiertoHDDIfor increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the )upreme Courtas provided in the Constitution without its advice and consent. $oreover, even ifsaid provision had not !een declared unconstitutional, it still does not grant a right

of appeal to parties aggrieved ! orders and decisions of the m!udsman incriminal casesHDer from a failure to denominate the proper part. A petition for certiorariunder
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/aug2000/133954.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/aug2000/133954.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/aug2000/133954.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/aug2000/133954.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/aug2000/133954.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/aug2000/133954.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/aug2000/133954.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/aug2000/133954.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/aug2000/133954.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/aug2000/133954.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/aug2000/133954.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/aug2000/133954.htm#_ftn24


41/88

9ule E: has for its o!ject the review of an action of a tri!unal, !oard or o/cere&ercising quasi-judicial functions made without or in e&cess of its or his jurisdiction,or with grave a!use of discretion amounting to lac" or e&cess of jurisdiction. (n theinstant petition, the tri!unal whose action is sought to !e reviewed is the /ce ofthe m!udsman et, petitioner impleaded the Commission on Audit as respondent,and not the /ce of the m!udsman.

Additionall, the totalit of petitioners and his counsels acts, including that in theother case he 'led with us in G.9. o. 5


42/88

- versus -

THE SANDIGANBAYAN$ORTH DIISION'( EO#E O THEHI#IINES,

9espondents.

KA9)-)AT(AG,2.+1hairperson+

C0(C-AA9(,OA)C, J9.,AC019A, and

9ATA,22.

romulgated?

)eptem!er D, D++6

&------------------------------------------------------------------------------------&

DECISION

NACHRA,J.

At !ar are consolidated petitions for review on certiorariunder 9ule 7: of the 9ules

of Court which assail the %ecision H5Idated August , /ce of the $aor @)G DEB, acting
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/181999_182001-04.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/181999_182001-04.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/181999_182001-04.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/181999_182001-04.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/181999_182001-04.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/181999_182001-04.htm#_ftn3


43/88


44/88

as the actual cost per piece of the walis ting-ting was onl 55.++ asfound ! the Commission on Audit @CAB in its %ecision o. D++


45/88

DEB, #OCERIDA M. BABIDA,the Cit 2udget o/cer @)GDEB, OE#IA C. CANAN, the (C General )ervices o/ce @)G DEBand AI#YN ROMEA, the 0ead )ta>, /ce of the $aor @)G DEB, actingas such and committing the o>ense in relation to their o/cial dutiesand ta"ing advance of their o/cial positions, conspiring, confederatingand mutuall helping one another and with accused private

individual ANTONIO RA!O, the owner and proprietor of A9HITrading, a !usiness entit registered with the 2ureau of %omestic Tradeand (ndustr, with evident !ad faith and manifest partialit @or at thever least, with gross ine&cusa!le negligenceB, did then and therewillfull, unlawfull and criminall enter into manifestl and grossldisadvantageous transactions, through personal canvass, with A9HI

Trading for the purchase of 5+,5++ pieces of walis ting-ting on severaloccasions at D:.++ per piece without compling with the Commissionon Audit @CAB 9ules and 9egulations and other requirements onprocurement and u!lic 2idding and which purchases are hereunderenumerated as follows?

%ate of Transaction

Ooucher o.

Amount

Luantit

e!ruar D+,566;

5+5-6;-+7-5;::

, /ce of the $aor @)G DEB, actingas such and committing the o>ense in relation to their o/cial duties


46/88

and ta"ing advantage of their o/cial positions, conspiring,confederating and mutuall helping one another and with accusedprivate individual ANTONIO RA!O, the owner and proprietor ofA9HI Trading, a !usiness entit registered with the 2ureau of%omestic Trade and (ndustr, with evident !ad faith and manifestpartialit @or at the ver least, with gross ine&cusa!le negligenceB, did

then and there willfull, unlawfull and criminall enter into manifestland grossl disadvantageous transactions, through personal canvass,with A9HI Trading for the purchase of *,+++ pieces of walis ting-tingon several occasions at D:.++ per piece without compling with theCommission on Audit @CAB 9ules and 9egulations and otherrequirements on procurement and u!lic 2idding and which purchasesare hereunder enumerated as follows?

%ate of Transaction

Ooucherum!er

Amount Luantit

cto!er 5:, 566E 5+5-6E-55-

;E+7

5++,+++.

++

7,+++

pcs.cto!er 5*, 566E 5+5-6E-55-

;E+: 5++,+++.++

7,+++pcs.

in the total amount of T3 01%9% T01)A% ))@D++,+++.++B, and which transactions were clearl grossl overpricedas the actual cost per piece of the walis ting-ting was onl55.++ asfound ! the Commission on Audit @CAB in its %ecision o. D++


47/88

D. )ample wa!is tin%tin% with handle li"ewise su!mitted ! the /ce of the Cit

$aor of araaque CitF


48/88


49/88


50/88


51/88

A% )(G% T0 O1C09),


52/88

5. irst and foremost, whether the )andigan!aan erred in 'nding petitioners

guilt of violation of )ection


53/88


54/88

ota!l, however, and this the petitioners have consistentl pointed out, the

evidence of the prosecution did not include a signed price quotation from the wa!is

tin%tin% suppliers of araaque Cit. (n fact, even the wa!is tin%tin%furnished the

audit team ! petitioners and the other accused was di>erent from the wa!is

tin%tin%actuall utili=ed ! thearaaque Cit street sweepers at the time of ocular

inspection ! the audit team. At the !arest minimum, the evidence presented !

the prosecution, in order to su!stantiate the allegation of overpricing, should have

!een identical to the wa!is tin%tin%purchased in 566E-566*. nl then could it !e

concluded that the wa!is tin%tin%purchases were disadvantageous to the

government !ecause onl then could a determination have !een made to show that

the disadvantage was so manifest and gross as to ma"e a pu!lic o/cial lia!le under

)ection tangent. The audit team

reached a conclusion of gross overpricing !ased on documents which, at !est,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/181999_182001-04.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/181999_182001-04.htm#_ftn21


55/88


56/88


57/88

memoranda, vouchers, and supporting papers thatroutinel pass through his hands. The num!er in !iggero/ces or department is even more appalling.HD


58/88


59/88


60/88


61/88


62/88


63/88


64/88


65/88


66/88


67/88


68/88

) 9%9%.

SECOND DIISION

OICE O THE OMBDSMAN,etitioner,

- versus -

#DARICO . ANDTAN, "R.,9espondent.

G.R. No. 16&649

resent?

CA9(,2.+1hairperson+

A9%-% CA)T9,V

29(,9ATA,VVand

9,22.

romulgated?

Jul D;, D+55

&------------------------------------------------------------------------------------&

DECISIONBRION,J.

Through a petition for review on certiorari,H5Ithe petitioner /ce of the

m!udsman @OmudsmanB see"s the reversal of the decisionHDIof the Court of

Appeals @1'B, dated Jul D*, D++7, in B!darico P. 'ndutan+ 2r. v. Ofce o the

Omudsman and act indin% and "nte!!i%ence 5ureau @"5B, etc., doc"eted as CA-

G.9. ) o. E**6


69/88


70/88


71/88


72/88


73/88


74/88

9espondents insist that )ection D+ @:B of 9.A. o. E;;+, to wit?

)C. D+. #$ceptions. The /ce of the m!udsman m'* notconduct the necessar investigation of an administrative act oromission complained of if it !elieves that?

& & & &@:B The complaint was 'led after one ear from the occurrenceof the act or omission complained of. @mphasis suppliedB

proscri!es the investigation of an administrative act or omission if thecomplaint was 'led after one ear from the occurrence of thecomplained act or omission.(n 3e!chor v. Girone!!a HG.9. o. 5:55ense !ut to the

discretion given to the Omudsmanon whether it would investigate aparticular administrative o>ense. The use of the word 8ma8 in theprovision is construed as permissive and operating to confer discretionH3e!chor v. Girone!!a, G.9. o. 5:55


75/88


76/88


77/88


78/88


79/88


80/88


81/88


82/88


83/88


84/88


85/88


86/88


87/88


88/88

daniel-administrative law cases 2016.docx

Documents

Transcript of daniel-administrative law cases 2016.docx