Case Digest (G.R. No. 103501-03)
Facts:
Luis A. Tabuena and Adolfo M. Peralta (petitioners) filed separate petitions assailing the Sandiganbayan First Division decision of October 12, 1990 and the Sandiganbayan resolution of December 20, 1991, consolidated before the Court by an En Banc resolution, G.R. Nos. 103501-03 and 103507, promulgated February 17, 1997, the Supreme Court En Banc, Francisco, J., writing for the Court. The petitions were taken under Section 7 of P.D. 1606, Section 1, Rule XIX of the Revised Rules of the Sandiganbayan, and Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.Tabuena was then General Manager of the Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA); Peralta was Acting Manager, Financial Services Department. Three criminal informations (Criminal Cases Nos. 11758, 11759 and 11760) charged withdrawals of a total of P55,000,000.00 on three dates in January 1986 allegedly applied as partial payments to the Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC) but misappropriated. The informations alleged willful malversation (intentional appropriation) and named co-accused Gerardo Dabao (at large).
Documentary and testimonial evidence showed that then‑President Marcos orally instructed Tabuena to pay PNCC through the Office of the President; a Presidential Memorandum (January 8, 1986) reiterating the oral instruction (the “MARCOS Memorandum”) was produced. Pursuant thereto Tabuena, with help from Dabao and Peralta, caused three manager’s checks to be encashed (P25M on Jan. 10; P25M on Jan. 16; P5M on Jan. 31) and delivered the cash to Mrs. Fe Roa‑Gimenez (Marcos’s private secretary) at her Aguado Street office; a receipt dated January 30/31, 1986 signed by Gimenez was later produced. There were no PNCC receipts and the disbursements did not follow normal voucher/accounting procedures; PNCC witness testimony indicated no cash payments from MIAA to PNCC for Jan–Jun 1986.
The Sandiganbayan convicted Tabuena and Peralta of malversation (Article 217, Revised Penal Code). They raised multiple errors on appeal but chiefly argued (1) the conviction was for a mode (malversation by negligence) different from that charged (intentional malversation), violating the right to be informed; and (2) they acted in good faith — obedience to a Presidential order — or, alternatively, were on...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Sandiganbayan err in convicting petitioners of malversation by negligence when the informations charged willful (intentional) malversation?
- Did the Sandiganbayan’s extensive questioning of witnesses and the accused violate petitioners’ right to due process/impartial trial?
- Were petitioners entitled to the justifying circumstance of obedience to a superior’s lawful order or otherwise acting in good faith so as to negate criminal intent under Article 11(6) of the Revised Penal Code?
- On the merits, did the prose...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)