Case Summary (G.R. No. 220378)
Key Dates and Procedural Posture
Informations filed: September 22, 2010.
Sandiganbayan decision convicting Cabarios: August 30, 2016; motion for reconsideration denied October 25, 2016.
Supreme Court disposition: Petition for certiorari under Rule 45 treated as ordinary appeal and decided by the Court’s First Division (decision referenced in the prompt). The 1987 Constitution governs the constitutional claims and protections applied.
Applicable Law
Primary criminal statutes charged: Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code (malversation of public funds) in relation to Articles 171 and 48 of the Revised Penal Code. Constitutional protections invoked and applied under the 1987 Constitution include the presumption of innocence, right to due process, and the accused’s right to confront witnesses. Procedural rules relevant to the Supreme Court’s review include Rule 45 of the Rules of Court and the 2018 Revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan as applied by the Court.
Facts and Program Implementation Background
The Sangguniang Panlalawigan reallocated savings from Personnel Services and MOOE to the Aid to the Poor Program and placed those reverted funds under the Provincial Social Welfare and Development Office (PSWDO), with certain amounts earmarked for exclusive use by individual elective officials, including Cabarios. Procedures for the Program were irregularly implemented: Board members purportedly advanced funds to beneficiaries and later sought reimbursement; PSWDO personnel, social workers’ functions, and documentation requirements were implicated in the processing of advances and reimbursements.
Charges and Specific Allegations
Ten criminal counts were filed against Cabarios (five counts under Section 3(e) RA 3019 and five counts of malversation through falsification of public documents under Article 217 RPC in relation to Articles 171 and 48). Each malversation count corresponded to specific disbursement vouchers and checks with differing amounts (e.g., P20,000.00, P21,628.00, P50,000.00, P10,000.00, P5,200.00) allegedly reimbursed to Cabarios as advances he purportedly paid to beneficiaries who, the prosecution alleged, were fictitious or non-existent.
Prosecution Evidence and COA Findings
The prosecution relied principally on a COA special audit (audit team led by Atty. Bernardo Sumicad), testimony of PSWDO officer Cherlita Garate, and confirmations from municipal local government officials. COA’s verification efforts included site inquiries and confirmation letters; the audit concluded that 29 of Cabarios’s 31 listed beneficiaries were fictitious or could not be located, and two named beneficiaries denied receipt. COA auditors also observed that Board members had purportedly assumed roles of PSWDO staff, that some signatures on RERs and COA confirmation replies were inconsistent, and recommended criminal and administrative charges.
Defense Evidence and Explanations
Cabarios denied the charges and described an informal practice in which Board Members interviewed and advanced funds to needy applicants, documented payments with Brief Social Case Study Reports (BSCSRs) and Reimbursement Expense Receipts (RERs), and sought reimbursement through standard pre-audit and approval channels. Defense witnesses (including beneficiaries’ relatives and local officials) testified to actual receipt of assistance in several instances (e.g., Baltazar, Monasterio, Baylosis, Acas, Barangay Captain Silva). An affidavit from Francisca C. Alvarez (listed as a beneficiary) stating receipt of P3,000.00 in 2001 was part of the defense record but her live testimony was excluded for procedural reasons.
Sandiganbayan Ruling and Sentencing
The Sandiganbayan convicted Cabarios on all ten counts, imposing both imprisonment and perpetual disqualification/financial penalties per count. The conviction rested mainly on COA’s audit conclusions and Garate’s testimony. The court found irregularities in disbursement procedures, that Cabarios acted in bad faith by granting assistance without PSWDO approval and by delegating social worker duties to unqualified staff, and that the number of missing beneficiaries was too substantial to attribute to relocation over a short period. The court relied on comparisons of signatures and COA confirmations to conclude falsification and malversation.
Issues Raised on Appeal to the Supreme Court
Cabarios contended that the Sandiganbayan’s findings relied on hearsay and on signature comparisons without live authentication (denying his confrontation rights), that COA’s verification was inadequate and improperly relied upon, and that he had established factual evidence of legitimate payments. The Office of the Special Prosecutor argued that a Rule 45 petition is limited to questions of law, but the Supreme Court considered whether the factual determinations warranted appellate reassessment.
Supreme Court’s Procedural Treatment of the Petition
The Supreme Court granted the petition in substance but treated it as an ordinary appeal from a Sandiganbayan conviction, invoking Rule XI, Section 1 of the 2018 Revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan and precedents permitting wider appellate review of Sandiganbayan original- jurisdiction cases. The Court recognized that procedural rules may be retroactively applied when they do not impair vested rights and that broader appellate inquiry was appropriate given the potential grave consequences for those convicted in Sandiganbayan original-jurisdiction cases.
Legal Standard Applied to Section 3(e) RA 3019
The Court reiterated the elements of Section 3(e): (1) the accused is a public officer performing official functions; (2) the act was done with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence; and (3) the accused caused undue injury to any party or gave unwarranted benefits. The prosecution must prove each element beyond reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that the primary contested factual predicate for undue injury was whether the listed beneficiaries were fictitious or non-existent.
Evaluation of the Sufficiency of COA’s Verification and Prosecution Proof
The Court analyzed COA’s verification methodology and its temporal gap (COA conducted searches about two years after the disbursements) and compared the present case to a related Sandiganbayan acquittal (People v. Ma. Bella A. Chiong-Javier) where COA’s searches were deemed inadequate. The Supreme Court found that COA’s inability to locate beneficiaries, without more, did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that beneficiaries were fictitious; relocations, deaths, and other possibilities could explain negative findings. Because the prosecut
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 220378)
Court, Citation, and Date
- Supreme Court, First Division, G.R. Nos. 228097-103 & 228139-41.
- Decision promulgated September 29, 2021.
- Decision authored by Justice Lazaro‑Javier, reversing Sandiganbayan; concurrence by Gesmundo, C.J., Caguioa, M. Lopez, and J. Lopez, JJ.
Parties and Role
- Petitioner: Eric A. Cabarios — Board Member, Province of Zamboanga Sibugay (sometimes spelled Sibugay in records).
- Respondent: People of the Philippines.
- Co-accused: Michelle B. Navalta (PSWDO employee) and James Ismael A. Revantad (Sangguniang Panlalawigan employee). Navalta and Revantad remained at large during portions of proceedings.
Nature of the Case and Relief Sought
- Criminal prosecution for alleged corruption and malversation arising from implementation of the Province of Zamboanga Sibugay’s "Aid to the Poor Program."
- Petitioner sought reversal and setting aside of Sandiganbayan Decision and Resolution via a petition under Rule 45; Supreme Court treated the petition as an ordinary appeal under Rule XI, Section 1 of the 2018 Revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan and resolved on the merits.
Charges and Informations (Overview)
- Ten (10) criminal informations filed September 22, 2010, against Cabarios, Navalta, and Revantad:
- Five (5) counts of violation of Section 3(e) (sometimes cited as 3(c) in Sandiganbayan disposition) of Republic Act (RA) No. 3019 (Anti‑Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
- Five (5) counts of malversation of public funds through falsification of public documents under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), in relation to Articles 171 and 48.
- The five pairs of Informations corresponded to distinct disbursement vouchers, checks, and amounts; each pair comprised one RA 3019 count and one malversation/falsification count.
- Specific voucher/check/amount pairs alleged in the informations (as reflected in the record):
- SB‑10‑CRM‑0186 / 0187 — Disbursement Voucher No. 101‑0201‑56; Check No. 75413; Amount: P20,000.00.
- SB‑10‑CRM‑0188 / 0189 — Disbursement Voucher No. 101‑0201‑55; Check No. 75412; Amount: P21,628.00.
- SB‑10‑CRM‑0190 / 0191 — Disbursement Voucher No. 101‑0201‑120; Check No. 75477; Amount: P50,000.00.
- SB‑10‑CRM‑0192 / 0193 — Disbursement Voucher No. 101‑0109‑477; Check No. 59577; Amount: P10,000.00.
- SB‑10‑CRM‑0194 / 0195 — Disbursement Voucher No. 101‑0110‑1624; Check No. 68424; Amount: P5,200.00.
Factual Background — Program and Fund Realignment
- In 2001 the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of newly created Zamboanga Sibugay passed resolutions to revert savings from the Province’s Personnel Services (PS) and Maintenance & Other Operating Expenses (MOOE) budgets to the "Aid to the Poor Program."
- Reverted funds were placed under the budget of the Provincial Social Welfare and Development Office (PSWDO) but earmarked for exclusive use of elective officials, including Board Members such as the petitioner.
- The Program’s implementation generated complaints and Ombudsman investigations regarding disbursement irregularities for 2001–2002 disbursements.
Investigations, COA Special Audit, and Ombudsman Action
- Complaints filed in 2003 against Vice Governor and others prompted Ombudsman‑Mindanao to request a COA special audit.
- COA Regional Office IX conducted a special audit and performed on‑site verification efforts: collected disbursement vouchers and attachments, attempted personal searches for listed beneficiaries, interviewed barangay officials and purok leaders, and sent confirmation letters to beneficiaries and MLGOOs.
- COA audit team conclusions:
- Many beneficiaries listed in petitioner’s supporting documents could not be located.
- Twenty‑nine (29) out of thirty‑one (31) beneficiaries allegedly listed under petitioner were found to be fictitious or non‑existent; two (2) others denied receipt of assistance.
- COA recommended filing appropriate criminal and administrative charges against petitioner, Navalta, and Revantad.
- Office of the Ombudsman‑Mindanao resolved (Resolution dated July 10, 2006) findings including:
- Petitioner was reimbursed P110,328.00 through six disbursement vouchers (though indicted for five).
- Navalta prepared BSCSRs and screened application forms; Revantad signed as witness in RERs.
- Discrepancies in residency certifications; many affiants were non‑residents or could not be located; inconsistencies in signatures.
Procedural History — Arrest, Arraignment, Trial
- Warrants of arrest issued; petitioner voluntarily surrendered on January 19, 2012; co‑accused Navalta and Revantad remained at large.
- Petitioner pleaded not guilty; trial commenced.
- Prosecution witnesses included: Atty. Bernardo Rubio Sumicad (COA Team Leader), PSWDO Officer Cherlita Arnad Garate, MLGOO Alicia Y. Alvarado, Atty. Samuel P. Naungayan (Ombudsman investigator).
- Defense witnesses included petitioner and several beneficiaries or community witnesses (Indang Mohamad Garrido, Perry Boy Q. Baltazar, Maria Evelyn Austero T. Monasterio, Barangay Captain Dante Silva, Ferdinand Maco Baylosis, Allan Barnido Acas).
- Alvarez (prosecution’s listed witness) was not allowed to testify for the defense because she was not included in the defense pre‑trial list; defense tendered her excluded testimony as evidence.
Prosecution’s Case and Evidence
- COA team (Atty. Sumicad) gathered vouchers, attachments, attempted to personally locate beneficiaries and found most missing or not residents at the indicated addresses; only two replies (from Alvarez and Dominado) denied receipt of assistance.
- MLGOOs certified that many of the persons named were not residents based on voter lists.
- All contested vouchers were reimbursement vouchers made payable to petitioner who attested by signature he personally paid beneficiaries.
- COA’s audit team concluded the reimbursement claims were unsupported, recommended prosecution.
- PSWDO Officer Garate testified:
- She signed most disbursement vouchers under pressure from Board Members and relied on Board Member certifications that they personally paid beneficiaries.
- Navalta, a non‑social worker, interviewed beneficiaries and processed applications.
- There were no proper governing guidelines for disbursement at the time; Garate drafted a policy that received no reply from the Sangguniang Panlalawigan.
Defense Case and Evidence
- Petitioner denied charges and explained the Program’s operative mechanics:
- Board Members interviewed prospective beneficiaries (referred by PSWDO or walk‑ins) and their staff gathered data into BSCSR forms; the Board Member signed forms.
- PSWDO validation and approval were part of the process; Board Members would advance amounts to beneficiaries and secure RERs; then RERs, BSCSRs, and attachments were forwarded for reimbursement processing.
- Petitioner advanced funds in good faith and acted to expedite assistance that otherwise was delayed by documentary requirements.
- Documentary and testimonial defense points:
- Petitioner replied to COA Audit Observation Letter (October 28, 2003) stating he was not furnished copies of RERs or BSCSRs and could not affirm identities from COA letters alone.
- Petitioner’s office located 12 or 13 beneficiaries of 31; some beneficiaries produced IDs or mayor/barangay certifications.
- Witnesses (Baltazar, Monasterio, Baylosis, Acas) testified they or relatives received actual financial assistance from petitioner in 2001 and identified signatures on RERs and forms.
- Barangay Captain Dante Silva confirmed several beneficiaries whom he personally saw receive assistance.
- Defense tendered Alvarez’s excluded testimony a