Facts:

The case is a consolidated petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, sought by Rogelio Alvizo, Florito Montecillo, Pompeyo Almagro, Catalino Magno, Jr., Efren Coyoca, Oscar Belcina, Harvey Ruiz, Edgar Osmeña, Guilberto Hermosa, Aniceto Arriola, Santos Cabusas, Sofronio Mag-uyon, Rafael Rabaya, Jr., Nestor Rabaya, and Joselito Genson against the Sandiganbayan and the people of the Philippines. The decision contested was rendered on October 24, 1990, and the resolution concerning the motions for reconsideration was issued on April 15, 1991. The case centers around allegations of corruption, specifically violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019), involving public officials and private contractors collaborating to facilitate fraudulent disbursements of public funds through the use of fake allotments and supporting documents from 1976 to 1977.

In 1978, the Commission on Audit organized a team to investigate the issuance of fraudulen

...

Facts:

Parties and Allegations

• A wide group of public officials, employees, and private contractors (including project engineers, auditors, a district accountant, a property custodian, and others) were charged with violations of Republic Act No. 3019 (the Anti‐Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
• The allegations centered on the issuance and use of fraudulent documents in connection with supposed “ghost projects” undertaken by the Cebu Second Highway Engineering District (HED) in 1977.
• Some of the petitioners pleaded “not guilty” while others eventually pleaded guilty to some counts, and motions for reconsideration were denied.

The Fraudulent Scheme

• Fake Letters of Advice of Allotment (LAAs) and Sub-Advices of Cash Disbursement Ceilings (SACDCs) were fabricated.
• These documents exhibited numerous irregularities such as being undated, improperly numbered, or not recorded in the official logbooks.
• They were used to justify disbursements for projects that allegedly never materialized.
• Supporting the fraudulent scheme, there was deliberate “splitting” of related transactions—Requisition/Issue Vouchers (RIVs), Purchase Orders (POs), and General Vouchers (GVs).
• The splitting ensured that each individual transaction remained below the threshold of P50,000.00, thereby avoiding additional review or a counter-signature by higher auditors.
• Documentary evidence (including numerous GVs, checks, and irregular supporting documents) and testimonial evidence from COA auditors and state witnesses collectively exposed the methodical nature of the fraud.

Investigation and Trial

• Testimonies of key prosecution witnesses (e.g., COA Auditors Ruth Paredes and Felicitas Ona) revealed:
• The existence of the fake LAAs and SACDCs through discrepancies in appearances, dating, and record-keeping.
• The awareness by and complicity of certain high-ranking officials in the district and regional offices.
• Evidence demonstrated that the allegedly “regular” maintenance allocations had been misappropriated by supplementing them with unauthorized extra allotments based on fake documents.
• Some private contractors, who later pleaded guilty, admitted that they received payments for materials that were never delivered.

Procedural Background

• The cases, tried jointly (with the exception of one contractor who was granted a separate trial), culminated in a decision by the Sandiganbayan.
• Motions for reconsideration were filed by some petitioners but subsequently denied.
• Subsequent consolidated petitions for review were raised challenging the findings and certain aspects of the trial record.

Issue:

Conspiracy and Fraudulent Transactions

• Whether the evidence sufficiently established that:
• A conspiracy existed among the accused to issue fake LAAs and SACDCs.
• The splitting of RIVs, POs, and GVs was a deliberate scheme to defraud the government.

Evidentiary Considerations

• Whether the irregularities in the LAAs (lack of proper dating, sequencing, and record entries) and supporting documents were sufficient to infer bad faith and manifest partiality.
• Whether the judicial admissions – including the guilty pleas of certain co-accused – were admissible and could be considered confirmatory against the petitioners.

Due Process and Procedural Claims

• Whether any alleged deprivation of the right to confront witnesses or other due process violations (such as financial constraints affecting attendance at the hearings) affected the fairness of the trial.
• Whether the alleged evidence of deliveries and actual project implementation presented by some petitioners was credible enough to negate the fraud findings.

---

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)