Case Digest (G.R. No. 157399)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Jose Ting Lan Uy, Jr., Ernesto Gamus y Sotelo, Jaime Ochoa, et al., G.R. No. 157399, November 17, 2005, First Division, Ynarez‑Santiago, J., writing for the Court. The appellant is Jaime Ochoa (accused and appellant); the appellee is the People of the Philippines; co‑accused included Jose Ting Lan Uy, Jr., Ernesto Gamus y Sotelo and Raul Gutierrez (at large).In July 1990 NPC funds amounting to P183,805,291.25, originally on deposit with the Philippine National Bank (PNB), were the subject of transactions intended to buy US dollars for payment obligations to the Asian Development Bank (ADB). Two PNB manager’s/cashier’s checks (P70,000,000 and P113,805,291.25) were issued but UCPB T.M. Kalaw Branch did not remit the corresponding dollars to Credit Lyonnais, resulting in the non‑payment downstream to the Bank of Japan and the ADB. The prosecution alleged that the NPC “Application for Cashier’s/Manager’s Check” (ACC) had been falsified by intercalating an account number (A/C #111‑1212‑04) in favor of private individual Raul Gutierrez, thereby diverting the funds.
An amended information charged the accused, including Ochoa, with malversation through falsification of commercial documents (Articles 217 and 171(8), in relation to Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code). At arraignment the accused pleaded not guilty; Gutierrez remained at large. At pre‑trial the parties stipulated to the official positions of the accused (e.g., Uy as NPC Treasurer; Gamus as LOMAFED Manager; Ochoa as Senior Financial Analyst) and that the ACC forms were not accountable NPC forms; Gamus had no custody of public funds and Ochoa’s position did not require custody or control of funds.
Trial ensued before the Sandiganbayan. On May 28, 2002 the Sandiganbayan convicted Ochoa of malversation through falsification, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordered a fine equal to the amount malversed (P183,805,291.25) solidarily with Uy, imposed perpetual disqualification and costs; Uy was acquitted criminally but held civilly liable jointly with O...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does the variance between the mode of commission alleged in the information (willful malversation/falsification) and the mode proved (negligence) violate due process and preclude conviction?
- Was appellant’s sworn statement, taken during an NPC administrative inquiry while he was hospitalized and before arrest, inadmissible for violation of the constitutional right to counsel under Section 12, Article III of the 1987 Constitution?
- Were the sworn statement, the transcript of stenographic notes, and the NBI report inadmissible hearsa...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)