Title
People vs. Uy, Jr.
Case
G.R. No. 157399
Decision Date
Nov 17, 2005
NPC funds worth P183M diverted via falsified checks; Ochoa convicted for malversation through negligence, upheld by SC despite lack of direct evidence.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 212426)

Facts:

  • Parties and Indictment
    • Accused: Jose Ting Lan Uy, Jr. (Treasurer, NPC), Ernesto Gamus (Manager, LOMAFED), Jaime Ochoa (Senior Financial Analyst, LOMAFED), and Raul Gutierrez (private individual, at large).
    • Charge: Complex crime of malversation through falsification of commercial documents (RPC Articles 217 and 171(8), in relation to Article 48). Allegation that in July 1990 they falsified NPC’s “Application for Manager’s Check” by inserting Gutierrez’s account number to divert PHP 183,805,291.25 intended for purchase of US dollars from UCPB.
  • Pre-trial Proceedings
    • Pleas: Uy, Gamus, and Ochoa pleaded not guilty; Gutierrez remained at large.
    • Stipulations:
      • Positions of Uy, Gamus, and Ochoa as charged.
      • Gamus and Ochoa did not have custody or control of public funds.
      • Application forms for cashier’s/manager’s checks were not NPC accountable forms.
  • Sandiganbayan Decision (May 28, 2002)
    • Factual Findings: NPC’s loan-to-ADB in yen required routing through UCPB and Credit Lyonnais; despite issuance of two PNB manager’s checks (P70 M and P113.805 M), UCPB failed to remit USD; prosecution theorized diversion via falsified ACC.
    • Disposition:
      • Ochoa convicted of malversation through falsification—reclusion perpetua, fine equal to amount malversed (PHP 183,805,291.25), perpetual disqualification.
      • Uy acquitted criminally for reasonable doubt but civilly liable for same sum.
      • Warrant of arrest issued for Gutierrez.
  • Appeal
    • Appellant Ochoa’s contentions: conviction based on allegations not in information; inadmissible sworn statements, stenographic transcripts, and NBI report.
    • Uncontested Antecedents: routing procedure and failure of UCPB to remit, diametrically opposed explanations by State and accused.

Issues:

  • Can malversation be sustained on negligence when the information alleges willful intent?
  • Were appellant’s constitutional rights (to counsel and silence) violated in admitting his sworn statement taken during NPC’s administrative inquiry?
  • Are the sworn statement, stenographic transcript, and NBI report admissible?
  • Is the evidence sufficient to support conviction of appellant?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.