G.R. No. 103501-03 - Tabuena vs. Sandiganbayan

Luis A. Tabuena – General Manager of Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) in January 1986.
Adolfo M. Peralta – Acting Manager, Financial Services Department of MIAA during the same period.

Total amount of ₱55,000,000 withdrawn in cash from MIAA funds on three separate dates in January 1986.
Co-accused Gerardo G. Dabao (Assistant General Manager) remained at large.

Verbal instruction by President Ferdinand E. Marcos in early January 1986 to pay MIAA’s purported debt to the Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC) in cash.
Written Presidential Memorandum dated January 8, 1986 directing Tabuena “to pay immediately the Philippine National Construction Corporation, thru this Office, the sum of FIFTY FIVE MILLION PESOS in cash as partial payment of MIAA’s account.”
Underlying Ongpin Memorandum of January 7, 1985, which requested approval for deferment of PNCC advances and envisaged a maximum payment of ₱34.5 million, not ₱55 million.

Three managers’ checks drawn on MIAA’s PNB Savings Account No. 274-500-354-3: two for ₱25 million (January 10 and 16, 1986) and one for ₱5 million (January 29, 1986).
Checks requested at PNB Extension Office (MIA) but encashed at PNB Villamor Branch in cash.
Cash delivered in peerless boxes/duffle bags via PNB armored car to Fe Roa-Gimenez, private secretary of President Marcos, at her Aguado Street office.
No supporting vouchers, no PNCC receipts; final receipt dated January 30, 1986 (actually January 31) issued by Gimenez.

Three criminal cases (Nos. 11758–11760) filed for malversation under Article 217, Revised Penal Code.
October 12, 1990 – Sandiganbayan First Division convicts petitioners beyond reasonable doubt of malversation by negligence and sentences them to reclusion temporal and fines totaling ₱55 million, plus perpetual disqualification from public office.
February 17, 1997 – Supreme Court en banc consolidates G.R. Nos. 103501–03 and 103507 and hears petitions for review.

Whether Sandiganbayan erred in convicting petitioners of malversation by negligence when the informations charged intentional malversation.
Whether petitioners’ reliance on the President’s verbal and written orders, and their claimed good faith, justified their actions and negated criminal liability.
Whether the Sandiganbayan’s extensive questioning of defense witnesses and petitioners violated due process and impartial-judge requirements.