Title
Mendoza vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 146234
Decision Date
Jun 29, 2005
Public officials conspired to encash worthless checks, causing P440,000 loss to the government; two convicted, two acquitted due to insufficient evidence.
fraudulent scheme
commercial checks
insufficient funds
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 237352)

Factual Background

The Information alleged that, during the period covering 7 February 1989 to 17 February 1989, in the City of Manila, and within the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction, Mendoza and public officers Jose Cruz and Anita Lising—then National Cashier, COA Vault Auditor, and Cashier IV, respectively, at the Bureau of Treasury—took advantage of their official positions to conspire with private individuals, including Madamba, to cause undue injury to the government by fraudulently facilitating the encashment of four commercial checks. The Information described a scheme involving commercial checks that were later dishonored for lack of funds, purportedly connected to janitorial service contracts administered through Executive Care Services, Inc. and Triple Crown Services, Inc.

At trial, the Sandiganbayan established the following roles and transactions. In February 1989, Mendoza served as National Cashier, while Anita Lising served as paying teller (Cashier IV) at the Bureau of Treasury in Manila. Jose Cruz, who remained at large, was the COA Vault Auditor assigned to the same office. Madamba was General Manager of Executive Care Services, Inc., a private corporation rendering janitorial services to the Bureau of Treasury. Agustin was a canteen operator at the bureau.

On 7 February 1989, Horacio Alvarez of Triple Crown Services, Inc. issued RCBC Check No. 031840 in favor of Executive Care Services in the amount of P150,000.00. Madamba and Agustin signed at the dorsal portion as indorsers. Agustin brought the check to Mendoza’s office, and, after obtaining Mendoza’s approval, presented it to Lising for encashment. Lising paid P150,000.00 to Agustin. The check cleared through the usual procedure but was returned unpaid on 9 February 1989 due to insufficient funds. After Mendoza’s instructions, the clearing officer redeposited it on 10 February 1989, but it was again returned unpaid on 13 February 1989 for Account Closed.

On 9 February 1989, Alvarez issued RCBC Check No. 031845 for P140,000.00, payable to Executive Care Services. Like the first check, it was indorsed by Madamba and Agustin. Mendoza approved it for encashment, and Lising paid the amount. It was dishonored on 13 February 1989 for insufficient funds, redeposited on 16 February 1989, and again dishonored on 17 February 1989 for Account Closed.

On 17 February 1989, Executive Care Services issued a check for P150,000.00 in favor of Triple Crown Services in partial payment of an emergency loan extended by Triple Crown Services to Executive Care Services. Madamba instructed her liaison officer, Raulito Sanchez, to deliver this check to Triple Crown Services. After Agustin saw the check, she asked to receive it because she needed money for a family matter. Sanchez cleared the matter with Madamba and then delivered the check to Agustin. Agustin indorsed it, obtained Mendoza’s approval for encashment, presented it to Lising, and received P150,000.00. Later, Mendoza borrowed the encashed check from Lising but did not return it; it went missing thereafter.

The Sandiganbayan further described the replacement process. After the encashed check went missing, Cruz ordered Sanchez to replace it with two checks of P75,000.00 each, because the amount was too big. After calls and at Madamba’s instructions, Sanchez obtained two company checks and waited for Madamba’s signature, which she failed to provide. Sanchez then signed the checks using Madamba’s name as instructed by telephone and delivered the checks to Cruz. Cruz delivered them to Lising, and the checks were initialed by Cruz and Mendoza without Agustin’s endorsement. When Lising confronted them, Cruz and Mendoza assured her they would obtain Agustin’s endorsement the next day. When the two replacement checks were presented, the drawee bank PNB returned them unpaid on grounds of insufficient funds, and they were again dishonored upon re-presentment.

The Sandiganbayan found that none of the checks—Exhibits B, C, D, and E—passed through the Assistant National Treasurer, Milagros Baltazar, for approval prior to encashment, as allegedly required by a Memorandum dated May 27, 1998, addressed to Mendoza as National Cashier and noted by Treasurer of the Philippines Rosalina J. Cajucom. The clearing officer prepared debit memoranda addressed to Lising, but Mendoza did not sign any of them, so the debit memos were never served. The government made formal demands for restitution not later than 14 April 1989, and Mendoza, through counsel, admitted receipt.

The Sandiganbayan also considered audit results. In July 1989, a regular audit of Mendoza’s cash accountabilities disallowed P440,000.00, representing the total value of the four dishonored checks, with partial payments totaling P87,239.36 covered by O.R. No. 7952856L and P57,162.85 under O.R. No. 7953560L. This left an unpaid balance of P295,597.79. It also noted that an administrative investigation dismissed Mendoza from his position as National Cashier for dishonesty.

The Sandiganbayan’s Ruling

The Sandiganbayan held that all elements of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 were present as to Mendoza and Madamba. It found that Mendoza and Lising were public officers. Although Madamba and Agustin were private persons, the Sandiganbayan ruled that they were chargeable because they had conspired with Mendoza and Lising. It found that the checks bore the signatures, initials, or stamp of the accused and that the checks were encashed despite being drawn against insufficient funds. It further found Mendoza facilitated encashment without Assistant National Treasurer approval, violating the Bureau of Treasury Standard Operating Procedure 3200. It concluded that the government suffered loss in the amount of P440,000.00, and, after reimbursement of P144,402.21, the outstanding balance remained P295,597.79.

On conspiracy and knowledge, the Sandiganbayan found that Mendoza and Madamba engaged in a fraudulent scheme to withdraw government funds through the encashment of worthless commercial checks. It held that Madamba was able to encash her checks at the Bureau of Treasury because of Mendoza’s indispensable aid. It acquitted Agustin and Lising. The Sandiganbayan found that Agustin did not know the checks lacked funds and was merely financially interested in receiving the proceeds. It also found that Lising would not have encashed the checks had Mendoza not reassured her.

Accordingly, the Sandiganbayan convicted Mendoza and Madamba, sentenced each to eight years of imprisonment, ordered perpetual disqualification from public office, and ordered Mendoza and Madamba to pay jointly and severally the government P295,597.79, with legal interest from 4 April 1989, and to pay costs. It acquitted Lising and Agustin for insufficiency of evidence.

Petition and Procedural Posture at the Supreme Court

Mendoza sought review by the Supreme Court on the basis of alleged insufficiency of evidence to sustain guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Madamba’s petition was dismissed in a Resolution dated 4 April 2001 for being filed late and for failure to state material dates, which Resolution became final on 19 July 2001, with a partial entry of judgment against her.

In reviewing Mendoza’s petition, the Supreme Court treated it as a petition for review under Section 1, Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which raises only questions of law. The Court reiterated the framework for distinguishing questions of law from questions of fact, and it recognized limited exceptions when factual review is permitted.

The Parties’ Contentions

Mendoza contended that the evidence on record was insufficient to sustain the Sandiganbayan’s finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Implicit in this contention was a request for reassessment of the probative value of the evidence a

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms