Lihaylihay vs. People

Factual Background

The Commission on Audit submitted a special audit reporting purported ghost purchases of CCIE allegedly purchased from the PNP Service Store System (SSS) and delivered to the PNP General Services Command (GSC). The audit triggered a PNP internal investigation which focused on transactions involving multiple Requisition and Invoice Vouchers (RIVs), disbursement vouchers, and sixteen checks each in the amount of P500,000.00 that together totalled P8,000,000.00, and an alleged overall CCIE scheme valuated at P133,000,000.00. The transactions reflected dates that were tampered with on several RIVs, lacked material particulars on Reports of Public Property Purchased, and showed a pattern of splitting amounts into P500,000.00 pieces.

Charging Information

An information filed before the Sandiganbayan charged ten PNP officers with violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 by conspiring to cause undue injury to the government in the amount of P8,000,000.00. The information named, among others, Gen. Cesar P. Nazareno, Gen. Guillermo T. Domondon, Sr. Supt. Bernardo Alejandro, Sr. Supt. Arnulfo Obillos, C/INSP. Virgilio V. VINLUAN, SPO1 Ramon Lihay-Lihay, Chief Supt. Jose M. Aquino, and Sr. Supt. Marcelo Castillo III. Four accused died during the pendency of the case, and Chief Supt. Jose M. Aquino was dropped from the information for lack of probable cause. After preliminary proceedings, Domondon, Obillos, Vinluan, and Lihaylihay pleaded not guilty, while Sr. Insp. Amado Guiriba, Jr. remained at large.

Sandiganbayan Proceedings

The Sandiganbayan rendered judgment on August 8, 2008. It acquitted Domondon but found Obillos, Vinluan, and Lihaylihay guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 3(e) of RA 3019. The court concluded that the prosecution proved that the convicted accused were public officers performing administrative functions, acted with evident bad faith in certifying deliveries and inspections despite material defects and tampering, and thereby caused an undue injury to the government in the amount of P8,000,000.00. The court sentenced each convicted accused to imprisonment from six years and one month, as minimum, to nine years and one day, as maximum, imposed perpetual disqualification from public office, and ordered them to indemnify the government jointly and severally for P8,000,000.00. Motions for reconsideration were denied in a February 12, 2010 resolution.

Issue Presented

The sole essential issue before the Supreme Court was whether the conviction of petitioners for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 was proper.

Standard of Review

The Court reiterated that appeals from the Sandiganbayan to the Supreme Court ordinarily involve questions of law only and not questions of fact, citing Jaca v. People. Findings of fact by the Sandiganbayan are binding and conclusive on the Supreme Court unless they fall within established exceptions, including conclusions grounded on speculation, manifestly mistaken inferences, grave abuse of discretion, misapprehension of facts, conclusions without citation of specific evidence, or findings premised on absence of evidence.

Elements of the Offense and Their Proof

The Court set out the essential elements of Section 3(e) of RA 3019: (a) the accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial, or official functions; (b) the accused must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence; and (c) the action must have caused undue injury to any party including the government or have given unwarranted benefits to a private party. The Court found the first element undisputed as both petitioners were public officers with administrative duties. The Court found the second element established by petitioners’ signatures on sixteen certificates and inspection reports despite evident defects, tampered dates on several RIVs, omission of particulars in Reports of Public Property Purchased, and the splitting of transactions into P500,000.00 amounts to avoid higher review. The Court found the third element satisfied because approval and certification of non-existent CCIE deliveries led to a government loss of P8,000,000.00.

Petitioners' Contentions and the Court's Response

Petitioners contended that the CCIE items had been received by the GSC Supply Accountable Officer, Dante Mateo, and that they acted in good faith. The Court observed that the proof of delivery proffered by petitioners did not show when deliveries occurred and that some alleged deliveries pertained to different end-users, not the GSC. The Court held that the circumstances would have reasonably aroused suspicion and required further inquiry by petitioners in the exercise of their functions.

Application of Precedent: Arias, Cruz, and Bacasmas

The Court addressed petitioners' reliance on the Arias v. Sandiganbayan doctrine that heads of offices should not be convicted solely for affixing signatures without examining every detail. The Court distinguished Arias on the factual grounds that the documents here exhibited tampering, incomplete certifications, missing particulars, and multiple contemporaneous checks payable to PNP SSS, circumstances that should have compelled greater circumspection. The Court invoked Cruz v. Sandiganbayan and Bacasmas v. Sandiganbayan as authorities recognizing the exception to Arias when unusual facts or obvious discrepancies exist that would alert a conscientious approving officer to further examine supporting documents.

Conspiracy and Concerted Action

The Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s finding of conspiracy, reasoning that petitioners’ concerted actions, considered together, demonstrated a common design or unity