G.R. No. 134493 - Cruz vs. Sandiganbayan

Following the May 1992 local elections, Victor Miranda, as mayor‑elect of Bacoor, Cavite, requested an audit investigation into the municipality’s 1991‑1992 financial transactions.
Petitioner Buencamino Cruz, who served as municipal mayor from 1991 until mid‑1992, was implicated in financial irregularities uncovered during this audit.

The Commission on Audit (COA) issued COA Order No. 19‑1700, constituting a Special Audit Team to review the municipality’s financial records.
The Special Audit Team discovered several anomalous transactions, the most significant being a double payment for construction materials.
The double payment, evidenced by Sales Invoices No. 131145 and No. 131137, amounted to a total of P54,542.56 and involved two disbursement vouchers: DV No. 101‑92‑06‑1222 and DV No. 101‑92‑01‑195.
Although the vouchers indicated payment to Kelly Lumber and Construction Supply, the corresponding Philippine National Bank checks were, in fact, made payable to petitioner Buencamino Cruz, who subsequently encashed them.

The findings were documented in a 336‑page SAO Report No. 93‑28.
Based on these findings, petitioner was charged with violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019 (the Anti‑Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), which prohibits causing undue injury or giving unwarranted benefits in the discharge of official functions.

The Information, filed before the Sandiganbayan under Criminal Case No. 22830, alleged that petitioner, acting in evident bad faith while discharging his official duties, made a double payment resulting in undue injury to the government.
Petitioner, having pleaded “Not Guilty” upon arraignment, was tried and subsequently found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
The anti‑graft court convicted him and imposed a sentence ranging from a minimum of seven (7) years and one (1) month to a maximum of ten (10) years of imprisonment, with perpetual disqualification from holding public office.

Petitioner sought to set aside the Sandiganbayan’s decision (dated January 30, 1998) through a petition for review on certiorari.
His defense was anchored on four main issues:

The allegation that the Information filed against him was fatally flawed.
The applicability of what he termed the “Arias Doctrine” in his favor, which would justify reliance on his subordinates’ bona fide actions.
The assertion that there was no bad faith in his conduct.
The argument that the subsequent refund by Kelly Lumber should preclude his conviction.

Whether the Information was fatally defective for failing to allege that petitioner was an officer “charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.”
Whether the alleged variance between the details contained in the Information and the facts proven at trial invalidates the charge.

Whether petitioner’s reliance on the bona fides of his subordinates, as elaborated in the Arias doctrine, can exempt him from liability.
Whether a public officer may evade accountability for discrepancies in submitted accounting documents by merely relying on subordinate preparations.

Whether the mere signature and encashment of checks—issued to petitioner instead of the intended supplier—constitute manifest evidence of bad faith.
Whether a finding of “evident bad faith” is legally supportable in the context where reliance on subordinates might be argued.

Whether the supplier’s refund of the overpaid amount precludes the government’s injury and, consequently, the criminal liability of the public officer.
Whether the refund negates the element of undue injury, considering the funds were used without proper authority and for an extended period.