Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=52225:gr-158694-2009&catid=1516&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 11:52:21+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 158694-96 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. TEOFILO G. PANTALEON, JR., ET AL.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TEOFILO G. PANTALEON, JR. and JAIME F. VALLEJOS, Accused-Appellants.
We review in this appeal the February 4, 2003 decision of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case Nos. 25861-631 finding the appellants Teofilo G. Pantaleon, Jr. (Pantaleon) and Jaime F. Vallejos (Vallejos), former Municipal Mayor and Municipal Treasurer, respectively, of the Municipality of Castillejos, Zambales, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three (3) counts of malversation of public funds through falsification of public documents, defined and penalized under Article 217, in relation with Articles 48 and 171 of the Revised Penal Code. The Sandiganbayan sentenced the appellants to suffer the penalties of reclusion perpetua and perpetual special disqualification for each count, and ordered them to pay a fine in the amounts of P166,242.72, P154,634.27, and P90,464.21, respectively, and to pay the costs.
This case originated from the joint affidavit-complaints filed by Vice Mayor Wilma D. Billman (Vice Mayor Billman); Councilors Reynaldo V. Misa (Reynaldo), Dionisio F. Abinsay (Dionisio), Resty D. Viloria (Resty), Ramon J. Tamoria (Ramon), Aurelio M. Fastidio (Aurelio), Enrique C. Clarin (Enrique), and Raymundo V. Navarro (Raymundo), dated December 18, 1998; and Rodolfo J. Navalta (Rodolfo) dated December 22, 1998, before the Office of the Special Prosecutor of Zambales, for malversation of public funds through falsification of public documents, against the appellants, Ken Swan Tiu, and Engineer Rainier J. Ramos (Engr. Ramos).
The joint affidavit-complaints alleged that the appellants, Ken Swan Tiu, and Engr. Ramos conspired to illegally disburse and misappropriate the public funds of the Municipality of Castillejos, Zambales in the amounts of P166,242.72 (under Disbursement Voucher No. 101-9803-328), P154,634.27 (under Disbursement Voucher No. 101-9803-349), and P90,464.21 (under Disbursement Voucher No. 101-9804-415), by falsifying the supporting documents relating to three (3) fictitious or "ghost" construction projects, namely: (a) the upgrading of barangay roads in Barangays Looc, Nagbayan, Magsaysay, and San Pablo; (b) the upgrading of barangay roads in Barangays Looc proper-Casagatan, Nagbayan proper-Angeles, and San Pablo-Sitio San Isidro; and (c) the construction of market stalls at the public market of Castillejos.
The affidavit-complaints further alleged that the disbursement vouchers were not signed by the municipal accountant and budget officer; that the Sangguniang Bayan did not adopt a resolution authorizing Pantaleon to enter into a contract with La Paz Construction and/or Ken Swan Tiu; and that no projects were actually undertaken by the Municipality of Castillejos.
That on or about 5 January 1998 and 20 February 1998, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the Municipality of Castillejos, Province of Zambales, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, both public officers, then being the Municipal Mayor and Municipal Treasurer, respectively, both of the Municipality of Castillejos, Zambales who by reason of their said respective office, are accountable for public funds or properties, committing the complex crime charged herein while in the performance of, in relation to and/or taking advantage of their official positions and functions as such, and conspiring and confederating with one another, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously appropriate, take or misappropriate public funds of the Municipality of Castillejos, Zambales under their charge and custody in the amount of P166,242,72, Philippine currency, under the check dated 20 February 1998 intended for the simulated disbursement and payment thereof in favor of La Paz Construction (LPC) relative to the fictitious contract for the upgrading of the barangay roads in Barangay Looc, Nagbayan, Magsaysay and San Pablo, Castillejos, Zambales; by means of falsifying the corresponding disbursement voucher no. 101-9803-328, certificates of inspection and acceptance, contract between LPC and the Municipality of Castillejos, Zambales, price quotation, purchase order, and LPC official receipt number 000999 dated 5 January 1998, to falsely make it appear that LPC entered into, undertook and completed the said contract and received the aforesaid amount as payment therefor from the Municipality of Castillejos, Zambales, when in truth and in fact, LPC neither entered into, undertook and completed the aforesaid contract nor received from the Municipality of Castillejos, Zambales the said sum of money or any part thereof, to the damage and prejudice of the Municipality of Castillejos, Zambales and the public interest in the aforestated amount.
That on or about 23 February 1998, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the Municipality of Castillejos, Province of Zambales, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, both public officers, then being the Municipal Mayor and Municipal Treasurer, respectively, both of the Municipality of Castillejos, Zambales who by reason of their said respective office are accountable for public funds or properties, committing the complex crime charged herein while in the performance of, in relation to and/or taking advantage of their official positions and functions as such, and conspiring and confederating with one another, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously appropriate, take or misappropriate public funds of the Municipality of Castillejos, Zambales under their charge and custody in the amount of P154,634.27 Philippine currency, under the check dated 23 February 1998 intended for the simulated disbursement and payment thereof in favor of La Paz Construction (LPC) relative to the fictitious contract for the upgrading of the barangay roads in Barangay Looc proper-Casagatan, Nagbayan proper-Angeles and San Pablo-Sitio Isidro, Castillejos, Zambales; by means of falsifying the corresponding disbursement voucher no. 101-9803-349, certificates of inspection and acceptance, contract between LPC and the Municipality of Castillejos, Zambales, purchase order, and LPC official receipt, to falsely make it appear that LPC entered into, undertook and completed the said contract and received the aforesaid amount as payment therefor from the Municipality of Castillejos, Zambales, when in truth and in fact, LPC neither entered into, undertook and completed the aforesaid contract nor received from the Municipality of Castillejos, Zambales the said sum of money or any part thereof, to the damage and prejudice of the Municipality of Castillejos, Zambales and the public interest in the aforestated amount.
That on or about 20 March 1998, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the Municipality of Castillejos, Province of Zambales, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, both public officers, then being the Municipal Mayor and Municipal Treasurer, respectively, both of the Municipality of Castillejos, Zambales who by reason of their said respective office are accountable for public funds or properties, committing the complex crime charged herein while in the performance of, in relation to and/or taking advantage of their official positions and functions as such, and conspiring and confederating with one another, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously appropriate, take or misappropriate public funds of the Municipality of Castillejos, Zambales under their charge and custody in the amount of P90,464.21, Philippine currency, under the check dated 20 March 1998 intended for the simulated disbursement and payment thereof in favor of La Paz Construction (LPC) relative to the fictitious contract for the construction of market stalls at the public market of Castillejos, Zambales, by means of falsifying the corresponding disbursement voucher no. 101-9804-415, certificates of inspection and acceptance, contract between LPC and the Municipality of Castillejos, Zambales, price quotation, purchase order, and LPC official receipt number 000995 dated 20 March 1998, to falsely make it appear that LPC entered into, undertook and completed the said contract and received the aforesaid amount as payment therefor from the Municipality of Castillejos, Zambales, when in truth and in fact, LPC neither entered into, undertook and completed the aforesaid contract nor received from the Municipality of Castillejos, Zambales the said sum of money or any part thereof, to the damage and prejudice of the Municipality of Castillejos, Zambales and the public interest in the aforestated amount.
In the trial on the merits of Criminal Cases Nos. 25861-63 that followed, the prosecution presented the following witnesses: Engr. Ramos, Aurelio, Nida Naman (Nida), Alberto Domingo (Alberto), Engineer Eduardo Soliven (Engr. Soliven), Simeon Amor Viloria (Simeon), Ken Swan Tiu, Resty, Vice Mayor Billman, Enrique, and Reynaldo. The appellants, Quirino Adolfo (Quirino), Ricardo Abaya (Ricardo), Crisanta Ancheta (Crisanta), and John Baquilat (Baquilat) took the witness stand for the defense.
Nida, the senior bookkeeper of Castillejos, testified that Pantaleon designated her as municipal accountant in 1993, and that she occupied the position until July 1998; as a municipal accountant, she reviewed documents for the preparation of vouchers. She recalled that she reviewed Voucher Nos. 101-9804-415, 101-9803-328 and 101-9803-349 only after the indicated amounts had been paid.
(f) The certificate of acceptance (Exh. "C-7"), attached to Disbursement Voucher No. 101-9804-415 (Exh. "C"), was undated.
Vallejos, testifying in his defense, narrated that he had been the municipal treasurer of Castillejos since 1987; and that his principal duties were to collect taxes and disburse funds. He explained that a disbursement voucher should first pass through the accounting office, then to the office of the budget officer, and from there, to the office of the municipal mayor, before going to his office. He confirmed that he is the last person to sign the voucher.
He clarified that after his office has prepared checks based on the forwarded vouchers, these vouchers are returned to the accounting office for the creation of an accounting entry and for the posting of the entry in the general and subsidiary ledgers. The accounting office then issues an advice that the checks are ready for encashment.
He refuted the statement of Nida that the disbursement vouchers did not go through the accounting office for pre-audit. He stated that the signature of the accountant did not appear in the three (3) vouchers because Nida simply refused to sign it. He also insisted that the budget officer's signature likewise did not appear in the vouchers because she was always out of her office. He explained that he paid the vouchers despite the absence of the accountant's signature because the projects were already completed and the sub-contractor was already demanding payment and was threatening to sue him if he would not pay.
Ricardo declared on the witness stand that he was the barangay captain of Nagbayan from 1971 to 1986 and subsequently served as councilor for three (3) terms; that from 1996 to 1998, he saw that there were back filling, grading, compacting and widening of roads in his area; and that it was Pantaleon and Baquilat - as mayor and contractor, respectively - who caused the repair of these roads.
Pantaleon, mayor of Castillejos, Zambales, testified that he had served as mayor for eight and a half years before he was preventively suspended. He explained that a voucher originates from the accounting office and then goes to the budget office; from there, it goes to him for his signature, and, finally, to the treasurer for signature; he signed the vouchers and allowed the treasurer to pay the amounts stated because the accountant and the budget officer were reluctant to sign; the signatures of the accountant and budget officer were not important. He added that he approved the release of the money because the treasurer told him that there was an appropriation in the approved annual budget. He also insisted that the owner of La Paz Construction entered into a contact with the municipality.
On cross-examination, he admitted that the Sanggunian did not adopt a resolution authorizing him to enter into a negotiated contract with La Paz Construction in the municipality's behalf. He also stated that the treasurer told him that the municipal accountant and budget officer asked for a commission before signing the vouchers, but he did not confront them about the demanded commission because he did not want to embarrass them. He admitted that he signed the vouchers despite the absence of the signatures of the accountant and budget officer.
He also admitted that he entered into a contract with Baquilat without inquiring if Baquilat was authorized by the La Paz Construction to enter into a contract with the municipality. He explained that he gave more importance to the implementation of a project than to its documentation. Since the compacting and leveling of the road were finished, he believed the municipal accountant and budget officer would later sign the vouchers.
The prosecution presented Vice Mayor Billman, Engr. Clarin, Reynaldo and Ken Swan Tiu as rebuttal witnesses.
After trial, the Sandiganbayan set the case for promulgation of decision on July 4, 2002, but later moved the promulgation to August 1, 2002.
The appellants filed an omnibus motion seeking the reconsideration of the December 14, 2002 Resolution, but the Sandiganbayan denied this motion in its Resolution dated January 20, 2003. The appellants later on questioned these resolutions through a Petition for Certiorari and prohibition filed with this Court, docketed as G.R. NOS. 156778-80. This Court, in our resolution dated February 17, 2003, dismissed the petition.
WHEREFORE, the accused, TEOFILO G. PANTALEON, JR., and JAIME F. VALLEJOS, are hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS THRU FALSIFICATION, in three counts, as defined and penalized under Article 217 in relation to Articles 48 and 171 of the Revised Penal Code, and each of said accused is hereby sentenced in Criminal Case Nos. 25861, 25862, and 25863, respectively, to suffer three times the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to suffer the penalty of perpetual special disqualification and to pay a fine in the amounts of P166,242.72, P154,634.27, and P90,464.21, respectively, and to pay the costs.
Pantaleon filed with this Court on November 19, 2007 an urgent motion to withdraw his appeal.52 We granted this motion in our Resolution of December 5, 2007,53 and issued the corresponding entry of judgment on February 8, 2008.54 Thus, this Decision at this point relates solely to appellant Vallejos. In the discussions that follow, however, we shall still refer to the parties as "appellants" because of the linkages that exist between them as common perpetrators of the offenses charged.
4. in finding that a conspiracy existed between him and Pantaleon.
We DENY the appeal for lack of merit.
4. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium and maximum periods, if the amount involved is more than 12,000 pesos but is less than 22,000 pesos. If the amount exceeds the latter, the penalty shall be reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua.
In all cases, persons guilty of malversation shall also suffer the penalty of perpetual special disqualification and a fine equal to the amount of the funds malversed or equal to the total value of the property embezzled.
The failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property with which he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly authorized officer, shall be prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or property to personal uses.
(a) That the offender be a public officer.
(b) That he had the custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his office.
(c) That those funds or property were public funds or property for which he was accountable.
(d) That he appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented or, through abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take them.
A public officer is defined in the Revised Penal Code as "any person who, by direct provision of the law, popular election or appointment by competent authority, shall take part in the performance of public functions in the Government of the Philippine Islands, or shall perform in said Government or in any of its branches public duties as an employee, agent, or subordinate official, of any rank or class."55 Pantaleon and Vallejos were the municipal mayor and municipal treasurer, respectively, of the Municipality of Castillejos at the time of the crimes charged. In short, they were public officers within the meaning of the term as defined above.
As a required standard procedure, the signatures of the mayor and the treasurer are needed before any disbursement of public funds can be made. No checks can be prepared and no payment can be effected without their signatures on a disbursement voucher and the corresponding check. In other words, any disbursement and release of public funds require their approval. The appellants, therefore, in their capacities as mayor and treasurer, had control and responsibility over the funds of the Municipality of Castillejos.
The funds for which malversation the appellants stand charged were sourced from the development fund of the municipality. They were funds belonging to the municipality, for use by the municipality, and were under the collective custody of the municipality's officials who had to act together to disburse the funds for their intended municipal use. The funds were therefore public funds for which the appellants as mayor and municipal treasurer were accountable.
Vallejos, as municipal treasurer, was an accountable officer pursuant to Section 101(1) of P.D. No. 1445 which defines an accountable officer to be "every officer of any government agency whose duties permit or require the possession or custody of government funds or property shall be accountable therefor and for the safekeeping thereof in conformity with law." Among the duties of Vallejos as treasurer under Section 470(d)(2) of Republic Act No. 7160 is "to take custody and exercise proper management of the funds of the local government unit concerned."
Section 340. Persons Accountable for Local Government Funds. - Any officer of the local government unit whose duty permits or requires the possession or custody of local government funds shall be accountable and responsible for the safekeeping thereof in conformity with the provisions of this title. Other local officials, though not accountable by the nature of their duties, may likewise be similarly held accountable and responsible for local government funds through their participation in the use or application thereof.
Section 102. Primary and secondary responsibility. - (1) The head of any agency of the government is immediately and primarily responsible for all government funds and property pertaining to his agency.
We note at the outset that no less than the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Zambales, in its decision of April 3, 2000, already made a finding that the projects subject of Disbursement Voucher Nos. 101-9803-328, 101-9803-349, and 101-9804-415 were never implemented in 1998.
A: I prepared three (3) programs of works, namely: the two (2) were up-grading of barangay roads and the third one was the construction of the market stall.
A: I was instructed to make that program of work but I never implemented those projects anymore.
A: Likewise, ma'am, I never did implement such project.
A: They were already existing at that time.
A: The municipal engineer did implement those projects before.
A: As I ve said, they were already existing before I made those programs of work.
A: The upgrading of the barangay roads, Your Honor.
A: Barangay Looc proper, Barangay Magsaysay and Barangay San Pablo.
A: And the construction of the market stalls located in the public market.
A: We have many barangay roads, ma'am.
Q: Not even one, Mr. Witness.
Alberto, the Barangay Captain of Looc, also declared on the witness stand during his September 7, 2000 testimony that no project was undertaken in his barangay during the tenure of Pantaleon. Resty, a municipal councilor, likewise testified on September 12, 2000 that there was no upgrading, compacting and leveling of roads in Barangay San Pablo in 1998.
A: I asked. When the treasurer came into my office, he asked me about the non-signatures of the accountant and the budget officer, sir. So I called up their attention and they were adamant, they were hesitant to sign. I called up again the treasurer why it is [sic] because they were asking for a commission as per the treasurer said to me, Your Honor.
A: Yes, your Honor, because the sub-contractor threatened me for not paying the vouchers, besides, that will cause injury to him.
A: Yes, sir, there were two sources of fund, under the Engineering Office maintenance and other operating expenses, roads and bridges maintenance, and 20% development funds.
A: It was in the bank, ma'am.
A: It was in the Land Bank, ma'am.
A: No, I did not receive any single centavo from the government of Castillejos.
A: No, ma'am. I did not receive any.
A: No, ma'am. I don't recognize this signature and I don't have any agent to collect this amount.
A: Yes, ma'am. The same, I don't recognize the signature and I don't have any transaction with the municipality of Castillejos.
A: Yes, ma'am. The same, the signature I don't recognize and I don't have any agent or collecting agent or any transaction with the officials of the municipality of Castillejos.
A: I don't have any transaction with the Municipality of Castillejos.
A: I said I don't have any, sir.
A: No, ma'am. We don't have any agreement with that, and I am not lending my own company, my license to them because they have their own company.
A: I don't know, Sir, because I just encountered that there is a sub-contractor who came out. Actually, in myself, I don't have any construction here with the government of Castillejos. How come there exists a sub-Contractor? [sic].
These testimonies lead to no other conclusion than that the appellants had deliberately consented to or permitted the taking of public funds by Baquilat despite the fact that (1) La Paz Construction never entered into a contract with the Municipality of Castillejos; (2) Baquilat was not an agent, representative or subcontractor of La Paz Construction; (3) the projects covered by the disbursement vouchers in question never existed; and (4) the disbursement vouchers lacked the requisite signatures of the municipal accountant and the local budget officer. In short, they resorted to machinations and simulation of projects to draw funds out of the municipal coffers.
The circumstances established during trial and outlined below likewise show the anomalous circumstances that attended the disbursement of the public funds.
Falsification under paragraph 2 is committed when (a) the offender causes it to appear in a document that a person or persons participated in an act or a proceeding; and (b) that such person or persons did not in fact so participate in the act or proceeding. In the present case, both testimonial and documentary evidence showed that Vallejos filled up the spaces for the voucher number and the accounting entry of Disbursement Voucher Nos. 101-9803-328, 101-9803-349 and 10-9804-415. These items were required to be filled up by Nida as the municipal accountant. Thus, Vallejos made it appear that the municipal accountant participated in signing the disbursement vouchers.
The appellants were likewise guilty of falsification under paragraph 5 of Article 171. Engr. Ramos testified that Pantaleon and Vallejos instructed him to place the dates January 5, 1998 on the first and third programs of work, and January 14, 1998 on the second program of work, although he prepared the programs only in March 1998. Thereafter, the appellants affixed their signatures on these programs of work. The projects covered by these programs of work served as basis for the issuance of the disbursement vouchers.
e. Request for Obligation Allotment with La Paz Construction as payee (Exh. "A-9").
d. Certificate of Acceptance with regard to the services rendered by La Paz Construction (Exh. "B-8").
e. Certificate of Acceptance with regard to the services rendered by La Paz Construction (Exh. "C-7").
The appellants' combined acts therefore indubitably point to their joint purpose and design. Their concerted actions clearly showed that conspiracy existed in their illegal release of public funds.
Vallejos' contention that the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over him because he only occupies a Salary Grade (SG) 24 position cannot shield him from the Sandiganbayan's reach. The critical factor in determining the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction is the position of his co-accused, the municipal mayor, who occupies an SG 27 position. Under Section 4 of Republic Act No. 8249,69 if the position of one or more of the accused is classified as SG 27, the Sandiganbayan has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the offense.
Sec. 344. Certification and Approval of Vouchers. - No money shall be disbursed unless the local budget officer certifies to the existence of appropriation that has been legally made for the purpose, the local accountant has obligated said appropriation, and the local treasurer certifies to the availability of funds for the purpose. Vouchers and payrolls shall be certified to and approved by the head of the department or office who has administrative control of the fund concerned, as to validity, propriety, and legality of the claim involved. Except in cases of disbursements involving regularly recurring administrative expenses such as payrolls for regular or permanent employees, expenses for light, water, telephone and telegraph services, remittances to government creditor agencies such as GSIS, SSS, LDP, DBP, National Printing Office, Procurement Service of the DBM and others, approval of the disbursement voucher by the local chief executive himself shall be required whenever local funds are disbursed.
Thus, as a safeguard against unwarranted disbursements, certifications are required from: (a) the local budget officer as to the existence and validity of the appropriation; (b) the local accountant as to the legal obligation incurred by the appropriation; (c) the local treasurer as to the availability of funds; and (d) the local department head as to the validity, propriety and legality of the claim against the appropriation.72 Therefore, Vallejos, as municipal treasurer, could not authorize the release of the funds without the requisite signatures of the municipal budget officer and the municipal accountant.
Vallejos also harps on the fact that the Provincial Auditor of Zambales did not issue a notice to restitute the funds. We find this contention misleading. Pantaleon testified that the Provincial Auditor issued a notice stating that the disbursement of the public funds was irregular. Thereafter, the three (3) disbursement vouchers were suspended by the COA for deficiency in their supporting papers. Under Section 15.2 of the Manual on Certificate of Settlement and Balances, "a suspension which is not settled within 90 days from receipt of the Notice of Suspension, or within such extended period as may be authorized by the auditor concerned, shall become a disallowance."
According to Pantaleon, he instructed Vallejos to rectify the deficiencies in the vouchers and its supporting documents; however, he admitted not knowing whether Vallejos complied with this instruction. Vallejos, for his part, did not testify on whether or not he corrected and completed the supporting documents. No proof exists in the record showing that the deficiencies were ever rectified.
Article 217, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code imposes the penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua when the amount malversed is greater than P22,000.00. This Article also imposes the penalty of perpetual special disqualification and a fine equal to the amount of the funds malversed or equal to the total value of the property embezzled. Falsification by a public officer or employee under Article 171, on the other hand, is punished by prision mayor and a fine not to exceed P5,000.00.
ART. 48. Penalty for complex crimes. - When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period.
The Sandiganbayan, therefore, correctly imposed on the appellants the penalties of reclusion perpetua and perpetual special disqualification for each count of malversation of public funds through falsification of public documents, and the payment of fines of P166,242.72, P154,634.27, and P90,464.21, respectively, representing the amounts malversed. The Indeterminate Sentence Law finds no application since reclusion perpetua is an indivisible penalty to which the Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply.
WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, we AFFIRM the February 4, 2003 Decision of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case Nos. 25861-63, insofar as it found appellant Jaime F. Vallejos guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three (3) counts of the complex crime of malversation of public funds through falsification of public documents, as defined and penalized under Article 217 in relation with Articles 48 and 171 of the Revised Penal Code.
We make no pronouncement with respect to appellant Teofilo Pantaleon, Jr. whose withdrawal of appeal has been previously granted by this Court.
1 Penned by Sandiganbayan Associate Justice Rodolfo G. Palattao, and concurred in by Associate Justice Gregory S. Ong and Associate Justice Ma. Cristina G. Cortez-Estrada; CA rollo, pp. 29-58.
2 Joint Resolution of February 22, 1999; records, Vol. II, pp. 393-395.
3 Review Action dated January 12, 2000; records, Vol. I, pp. 8-12.
4 Memorandum of February 8, 2000; records, Vol. I, pp. 5-7.
5 CA rollo, pp. 7-8.
8 Records, Vol. I, pp. 104-106.
9 Resolution dated August 16, 2000; id., pp. 139-144.
11 Resolution of September 12, 2000.
12 Resolution of December 11, 2000; id., pp. 340-346.
13 TSN, August 22, 2000, pp. 5-17.
18 TSN, August 29, 2000, pp. 3-43.
19 TSN, September 7, 2000, pp. 4 - 26.
22 TSN, September 12, 2000, pp. 9-22.
24 TSN, October 18, 2000, pp. 4-22.
26 TSN, October 19, 2000, pp. 4-22.
27 TSN, January 31, 2001, pp. 3-22.
30 TSN, February 5, 2001, pp. 3-9.
31 TSN, February 8, 2001, pp. 3-12.
33 TSN, June 5, 2001, pp. 3-14.
36 TSN, June 7, 2001, pp. 3-7.
39 Resolution dated December 14, 2002; records, Vol. II, pp. 182-193.
40 Resolution of January 20, 2003.
41 CA rollo, p. 56.
42 Records, Vol. II, pp. 319-323.
44 Resolution of May 20, 2003; CA rollo, pp. 59-65.
46 G.R. NOS. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640.
47 CA rollo, p. 359.
50 Letter by CA Associate Justice Arcangelita M. Romilla-Lontok; CA rollo, pp. 349-350.
51 CA rollo, p. 353.
55 REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 203.
56 TSN, August 22, 2000, pp. 7-23.
58 TSN, January 31, 2001, pp. 29-48.
59 TSN, October 18, 2000, pp. 16-27.
60 TSN, September 12, 2000, pp. 11-22.
61 TSN, June 7, 2001, pp. 6-13.
62 CA rollo, pp. 45-46.
63 Pondevida v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. NOS. 160929-31, August 16, 2005, 467 SCRA 219.
64 Sarigumba v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. NOS. 154239-41, February 16, 2005, 451 SCRA 533.
65 People v. Pajaro, G.R. NOS. 167860-65, June 17, 2008.
66 Fernan, Jr., v. People, G.R. No. 145927, August 24, 2007, 531 SCRA 1.
67 G.R. NOS. 131926 & 138991, June 18, 2003, 404 SCRA 275, 291.
69 Entitled "An Act Further Defining the Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, Amending for the Purpose Presidential Decree No. 1606, As Amended, Providing Funds therefor, and for Other Purposes."
70 G.R. No. 137237, September 17, 2002, 389 SCRA 143.
71 Id., p. 152 (citations omitted).
72 Lucman v. Malawi, G.R. NOS. 159794, December 19, 2006, 511 SCRA 268.
73 Nizurtado v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 107383, December 7, 1994; see also Pondevida v. Sandiganbayan, supra note 63.

References: v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 V. 

ART. 48
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.