Title
Bayot vs. Sandiganbayan
Case
G.R. No. L-54645-76
Decision Date
Dec 18, 1986
Former auditor Reynaldo Bayot acquitted by Supreme Court due to insufficient evidence linking him to falsified checks; signatures deemed forged, no proof of conspiracy or profit.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-54645-76)

Facts:

  1. Parties Involved:

    • Petitioner: Reynaldo R. Bayot, a former Auditor of the Ministry of Education and Culture (MEC).
    • Respondents: The Sandiganbayan and the People of the Philippines.
    • Co-accused: Lorenzo Ga. Cesar, Amado Fernandez, Josephine Estanislao, and others.
  2. Charges:

    • Reynaldo Bayot and Lorenzo Ga. Cesar, along with other officials, were charged with estafa thru falsification of public documents in 32 separate Informations.
    • The charges stemmed from the alleged falsification of TCAA checks issued by the MEC, which were encashed without proper authorization or funding.
  3. Key Events:

    • The checks were prepared and falsified under the instruction of Amado Fernandez, Superintendent of the Teachers' Camp, with the assistance of Iluminada Vizco, Cashier of the MEC.
    • The checks were allegedly signed by Lorenzo Ga. Cesar and Reynaldo Bayot, even though Bayot had been out of government service since 1975.
    • The checks were encashed by Fernandez and Estanislao, who later fled abroad.
  4. Trial Court Decision:

    • The Sandiganbayan convicted Bayot and Cesar, sentencing them to a total of 577 years imprisonment.
    • The conviction was based on the alleged signatures of Bayot and Cesar on the vouchers and checks, which were deemed authentic by the court.
  5. Supreme Court's Prior Ruling in Cesar's Case:

    • In a related case (Cesar vs. Sandiganbayan), the Supreme Court acquitted Lorenzo Ga. Cesar, ruling that the evidence against him was "woefully inadequate" and "too conjectural and presumptive" to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
  6. Evidence Against Bayot:

    • The prosecution relied on testimonies from witnesses who claimed to have seen Bayot's signatures on the vouchers and checks.
    • A handwriting expert, Segundo Tabayoyong, testified that Bayot's signatures on the checks were genuine.
    • Bayot, however, presented his own handwriting expert, Eduardo Maniwang, who testified that the signatures were forged.
  7. Bayot's Defense:

    • Bayot denied signing the vouchers and checks, claiming his signatures were forged.
    • He argued that he had been out of government service since 1975 and had no authority to sign the checks in 1977.
    • He also pointed out that the original vouchers were never presented in court, and the duplicate copies did not contain his signature.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • (Unlock)

Ratio:

  1. Insufficient Evidence:

    • The Court held that the evidence against Bayot was "woefully inadequate" and "too conjectural and presumptive" to establish his guilt.
    • The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were unreliable, as none of them personally saw Bayot sign the vouchers or checks.
    • The original vouchers were never presented in court, and the duplicate copies did not contain Bayot's signature.
  2. Handwriting Expert Testimony:

    • The Court found the testimony of the prosecution's handwriting expert, Segundo Tabayoyong, unconvincing.
    • Tabayoyong used outdated standard signatures (from 1973-1975) to compare with the questioned signatures (from 1977), which the Court deemed unreliable.
    • In contrast, Bayot's handwriting expert, Eduardo Maniwang, used standard signatures from 1975-1978, which were closer in time to the questioned signatures, and concluded that the signatures were forged.
  3. Presumption of Innocence:

    • The Court emphasized the constitutional presumption of innocence and ruled that where the evidence is equally balanced between guilt and innocence, the accused must be acquitted.
    • The Court also noted that Bayot had been out of government service since 1975 and had no authority to sign the checks in 1977.
  4. Consistency with Cesar's Case:

    • The Court applied the same reasoning used in the acquittal of Lorenzo Ga. Cesar, as the evidence against Bayot was identical and equally insufficient.
  5. Absence of Conspiracy or Profit:

    • There was no evidence that Bayot conspired with the other accused or profited from the malversed funds.
    • The Court found that the presumption of innocence had not been overcome by the prosecution.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court acquitted Reynaldo R. Bayot due to the lack of sufficient evidence to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized the importance of the presumption of innocence and the need for clear, convincing evidence in criminal cases.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.