Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=82073:56117&catid=1572&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 08:45:46+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 191219, July 31, 2013 - SPO1 RAMON LIHAYLIHAY1 AND C/INSP. VIRGILIO V. VINLUAN, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
SPO1 RAMON LIHAYLIHAY1 AND C/INSP. VIRGILIO V. VINLUAN, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
thereafter, accused members of the Inspection and Acceptance Committee together with respondents Marcelo Castillo III and Ramon Lihay-Lihay certified or caused to be certified that the CCIE items covered by the aforementioned invoices were delivered, properly inspected and accepted, and subsequently distributed to the end-users, when in truth and in fact, as accused well knew, no such purchases of CCIE items were made and no items were delivered, inspected, accepted and distributed to the respective end-users; that despite the fact that no deliveries were made, respondent Alejandro claimed payment therefor, and respondent Obillos approved the disbursement vouchers therefor as well as the checks authorizing payment which was countersigned by respondent Aquino; and as a result, the government, having been caused to pay for the inexistent purchases and deliveries, suffered undue injury in the amount of EIGHT MILLION PESOS (P8,000,000.00), more or less.
On August 8, 2008, the Sandiganbayan rendered the assailed Decision,12 exonerating Domondon but finding Obillos, Vinluan, and Lihaylihay guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged.13 It found that all the essential elements of the crime of violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 were present in the case, in particular that: (a) Obillos, Vinluan, and Lihaylihay are public officers discharging administrative functions; (b) they have acted with evident bad faith in the discharge of their respective functions considering that: (1) seven of the sixteen Requisition and Invoice Vouchers (RIVs) bore erasures and/or superimposition to make it appear that the transactions were entered into in 1992 instead of 1991;14 (2) the details of the supplies purportedly received and inspected were not reflected in the Reports of Public Property Purchased, thus, indicating that no actual inspection of the items were made;15 and (3) there was a “splitting” of the subject transactions into P500,000.00 each to avoid the review of a higher authority as well as to make it fall within the signing authority of Obillos;16 and (c) they failed to refute the prosecution’s claim that the subject CCIE items were never received by Supply Accountable Officer of the GSC (GSC SAO), Dante Mateo (Mateo), nor delivered to its end-users,17 hence, leading to the conclusion that the subject transactions were indeed “ghost” purchases which resulted to an P8,000,000.00 loss to the government. In view of their conviction, Obillos, Vinluan, and Lihaylihay were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for a term of six years and one month, as minimum, to nine years and one day, as maximum, including the penalty of perpetual disqualification from public office. They were likewise ordered to jointly and severally indemnify the government the amount of P8,000,000.00.18 Aggrieved, Obillos, Vinluan, and Lihaylihay filed their separate motions for reconsideration which were all denied in a Resolution19 dated February 12, 2010. Hence, the instant petition.
The essential issue in this case is whether or not petitioners’ conviction for the crime of violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 was proper.
At the outset, it bears pointing out that in appeals from the Sandiganbayan, as in this case, only questions of law and not questions of fact may be raised. Issues brought to the Court on whether the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, whether the presumption of innocence was sufficiently debunked, whether or not conspiracy was satisfactorily established, or whether or not good faith was properly appreciated, are all, invariably, questions of fact.20 Hence, absent any of the recognized exceptions to the above-mentioned rule,21 the Sandiganbayan’s findings on the foregoing matters should be deemed as conclusive.
As to the first element, it is undisputed that both petitioners were public officers discharging administrative functions at the time material to this case.
As to the second element, records show that Vinluan, in his capacity as Chairman of the Inspection and Acceptance Committee, signed the 16 certificates of acceptance, inventory, and delivery of articles from the PNP SSS despite its incompleteness or lack of material dates, while Lihaylihay certified to the correctness of the Inspection Report Forms even if no such deliveries were made.24 Petitioners’ claim that the subject CCIE items were received by GSC SAO Mateo25 is belied by the absence of any proof as to when the said deliveries were made. Moreover, the supposed deliveries to the Narcotics Command26 were properly rejected by the Sandiganbayan considering that the said transactions pertained to a different set of end-users other than the PNP GSC. Hence, having affixed their signatures on the disputed documents despite the glaring defects found therein, petitioners were properly found to have acted with evident bad faith in approving the “ghost” purchases in the amount of P8,000,000.00.27 To note, their concerted actions, when taken together, demonstrate a common design28 which altogether justifies the finding of conspiracy.
Lastly, as to the third element, petitioners’ participation in facilitating the payment of non-existent CCIE items resulted to an P8,000,000.00 loss on the part of the government.
Thus, considering the presence of all its elements, the Court sustains the conviction of petitioners for the crime of violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019.
Unlike in Arias, however, there exists in the present case an exceptional circumstance which should have prodded petitioner, if he were out to protect the interest of the municipality he swore to serve, to be curious and go beyond what his subordinates prepared or recommended. In fine, the added reason contemplated in Arias which would have put petitioner on his guard and examine the check/s and vouchers with some degree of circumspection before signing the same was obtaining in this case.
Finally, on the matter of the admissibility of the prosecution’s evidence, suffice it to state that, except as to the checks,34 the parties had already stipulated on the subject documents’ existence and authenticity and accordingly, waived any objections thereon.35 In this respect, petitioners must bear the consequences of their admission and cannot now be heard to complain against the admissibility of the evidence against them by harking on the best evidence rule. In any event, what is sought to be established is the mere general appearance of forgery which may be readily observed through the marked alterations and superimpositions on the subject documents, even without conducting a comparison with any original document as in the case of forged signatures where the signature on the document in question must always be compared to the signature on the original document to ascertain if there was indeed a forgery.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated August 8, 2008 and Resolution dated February 12, 2010 of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 22098 are hereby AFFIRMED.
1 “Lihay-Lihay” in some parts of the records.
3 Id. at 38-74. Penned by Associate Justice Teresita V. Diaz-Baldos, with Associate Justices Ma. Cristina G. Cortez-Estrada and Roland B. Jurado, concurring.
4 Id. at 76-83. Penned by Associate Justice Roland B. Jurado, with Associate Justices Alexander G. Gesmundo and Napoleon E. Inoturan, concurring.
5 Sandiganbayan rollo, Vol. 3, pp. 110-199. Referring to Special Audit Office Report No. 92-156 on the audit of the Philippine National Police.
7 Sandiganbayan rollo, Vol. 1, pp. 1-4.
13 Id. at 69-72. While the Sandiganbayan absolved Domondon from any liability on the ground that his release of the Advises of Sub-Allotment “does not appear to be a conscious participation of whatever defects or irregularities there may have been in the CCIE purchases,” it found that Vinluan, Obillos, and Lihaylihay admittedly signed various receipts and forms and certified them correct even if some of them were tampered with and/or incomplete.
17 Id. at 66-67. In fact, the evidence the accused presented to prove delivery pertained to another set of end-users who were not members of the GSC.
20Jaca v. People, G.R. Nos. 166967, 166974, and 167167, January 28, 2013.
(e) Causing undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official, administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.
23People v. Atienza, G.R. No. 171671, June 18, 2012, 673 SCRA 470, 479-480.
A conspiracy indictment need not, of course, aver all the components of conspiracy or allege all the details thereof, like the part that each of the parties therein have performed, the evidence proving the common design or the facts connecting all the accused with one another in the web of the conspiracy. Neither is it necessary to describe conspiracy with the same degree of particularity required in describing a substantive offense. It is enough that the indictment contains a statement of the facts relied upon to be constitutive of the offense in ordinary and concise language, with as much certainty as the nature of the case will admit, in a manner that can enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended, and with such precision that the accused may plead his acquittal or conviction to a subsequent indictment based on the same facts. x x x.
30 G.R. No. 134493, August 16, 2005, 467 SCRA 52.
32 G.R. Nos. 189343, 189369, and 189553, July 10, 2013.
34 Sandiganbayan rollo, Vol. 3, pp. 218, 226, 234, 243, 251, 259, 267, 275, 283, 291, 299, 307, 315, 323, 332, and 341.
35 TSN, October 1, 2002, pp. 13-15; and TSN, February 3, 2005, pp. 16-17.

References: V. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
In fine
 V. 
 v. 
 v.