G.R. No. 211839 - Privatization and Management Office vs. Court of Tax Appeals

Petitioner Cesar P. Alpay, a high-ranking public official and then Mayor of Unisan, Quezon, was charged in thirty-nine Informations under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) for falsification.
The central allegation involved the falsification of Disbursement Voucher No. 401-2004-06-154 dated June 30, 2004, which purportedly showed that a beneficiary, Florencio Tapero, received financial assistance amounting to Php 63,830.00 under the government’s “Isang Bayan, Isang Produkto, Isang Milyong [Pisong] Programa ni GMA.”
In truth, it was alleged that instead of disbursing financial assistance, a hand tractor (or a motor engine in some cases) was provided to various beneficiaries, thus violating the program’s conditions and causing damage to the municipality.

The Informations listed a series of cases (Criminal Case Nos. SB-10-CRM-0045 to 0083) involving similar allegations with variations in details such as disbursement voucher numbers, amounts involved, beneficiaries, and the specific items (hand tractor or motor engine).
Each informational charge followed a similar narrative of alleged irregularities in the disbursement process by presenting falsified documentation to cover up the misappropriation of funds intended for SMEs under the government program.

Petitioner allegedly pre-signed vouchers and contravened established procedures by intervening in the document preparation.
Municipal Accountant Teresita Musca processed the vouchers and testified that these documents bore petitioner’s signature, certifying the transactions.
Municipal Treasurer Bernardita de Jesus noted irregularities when vouchers already carried signatures before proper verification, leading her to issue the checks directly to petitioner.

A Memorandum Receipt was later submitted by the succeeding mayor, which controversially indicated that the equipment was received by the municipal office for its own benefit rather than being distributed to the designated beneficiaries.
A Commission on Audit report remarked that the procurement of motor engines should have undergone a public bidding process, raising further questions on the regularity of the transactions.

Out of 39 alleged beneficiaries, only six testified for the prosecution, 20 testified on behalf of the defense, and 13 recanted their earlier testimonies in favor of petitioner.
Several witness-beneficiaries later denied having signed the disbursement vouchers or having received the items, which became a crucial point in the evaluation of evidentiary credibility.

The handling of recantations was given skeptical treatment by the lower court due to their inherent unreliability and the possibility of coercion or inducement in securing such affidavits.

The case is anchored on the implementation of Executive Order No. 176 issued by then-President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in 2003, which institutionalized the “Isang Bayan, Isang Produkto, Isang Milyong Piso” program.
The program was directed at providing one million pesos per city or municipality to support small and medium enterprises (SMEs), with specific conditions on the use of funds.
Petitioner’s intent, as evidenced by his discussion with department heads and the organization of a distribution event on his last day in office, was allegedly to channel part of these funds to selected farmers and fishermen for the acquisition of necessary agricultural equipment.

On June 30, 2004, petitioner convened a gathering at his residence and personally oversaw the distribution of funds or the acquisition of the equipment.
The chain of custody and the manner in which the disbursement vouchers were handled—being pre-signed and circulated contrary to normal procedural requirements—form a significant part of the factual matrix.
Despite his denial of any direct involvement in falsification, documentary and testimonial evidence pointed to petitioner’s active participation throughout the processing and distribution of the disbursement vouchers.

Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave error in convicting petitioner for 19 counts of falsification under Article 171 of the RPC.
Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in denying petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration on the ground that there was no confusion or adequate interest on his part in pursuing the motion in open court.
Whether petitioner’s contention that, as outgoing mayor, he neither made nor prepared the subject documents, absolving him from liability, is legally tenable.

Whether the recantation of the witness-beneficiaries should have been given probative weight, and if such recantations undermined the prosecution’s witness testimonies.
Whether the circumstantial evidence provided is sufficient to establish petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, as opposed to his denial of direct involvement in falsification of the documents.

Whether the irregular handling of disbursement vouchers and the deviation from standard administrative procedure constitute sufficient evidence of petitioner’s participation in falsification.
Whether the imposition of penalties, taking into account the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, is consistent with the applicable penalties under the RPC and relevant laws.