Title
Tabuena vs. Sandiganbayan
Case
G.R. No. 103501-03
Decision Date
Feb 17, 1997
Two MIAA officials misappropriated P55M in public funds under presidential orders; Supreme Court upheld their malversation conviction, rejecting good faith defense.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 103501-03)

Key Individuals and Context
Petitioner Luis A. Tabuena was General Manager of the Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA); co-accused Adolfo M. Peralta was Acting Finance Services Manager. They were charged alongside a third unapprehended co-accused for withdrawing P55 million from MIAA funds in January 1986 and delivering it in cash to the private secretary of President Ferdinand E. Marcos purportedly for payment of MIAA’s obligations to the Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC).

Petitioner
Luis A. Tabuena (General Manager, MIAA)

Co-Petitioner
Adolfo M. Peralta (Acting Manager, Financial Services Department, MIAA)

Respondents
Sandiganbayan (First Division)
People of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Special Prosecutor

Key Dates
January 10, 1986 – First withdrawal of P25 million
January 16, 1986 – Second withdrawal of P25 million
January 29–31, 1986 – Third withdrawal of P5 million
October 12, 1990 – Sandiganbayan decision convicting petitioners
December 20, 1991 – Sandiganbayan resolution denying reconsideration
February 17, 1997 – Supreme Court en banc decision

Applicable Law
1987 Philippine Constitution (Article 11(6), on obedience to superior’s lawful order)
Revised Penal Code, Article 217 (malversation of public funds)
Presidential Decree No. 1445, “State Auditing Code” (disbursement voucher requirements)
Commission on Audit guidelines and the Administrative Code (internal control and accountability)

Facts of the Case
• President Marcos directed Tabuena, first orally and then by a January 8, 1986 Presidential Memorandum, to pay “through this Office” P55 million in cash as partial settlement of MIAA’s account with PNCC.
• Tabuena, aided by Dabao and Peralta, applied for three manager’s checks on January 10 and 16 (P25 million each) and January 29 (P5 million) against MIAA’s PNB savings account.
• All three checks were encashed at a PNB branch and delivered to the President’s private secretary, who issued a single receipt only after the third delivery. No PNCC receipt was ever obtained.
• The entire transaction disregarded normal procedures: no disbursement vouchers, no COA certification of available funds, payments above the authorized cash ceiling, and no supporting bills or official obligation to PNCC.

Issues Presented

  1. Whether petitioners’ conviction for malversation by negligence could stand despite informations charging intentional malversation (variance in the mode of perpetration).
  2. Whether petitioners acted in “good faith” or were justified in obedience to a presidential order, thus negating their criminal liability under Article 11(6) of the Revised Penal Code.

Supreme Court Ruling
• Variance between charged and proved mode of malversation (intentional vs. negligent) was immaterial—malversation is a single offense punishable whether by deceit or by negligence. Conviction under the proven mode was proper.
• Good-faith defense and obedience to a superior’s order were recognized justifying/exempting circumstances when an order is lawful and reasonably believed lawful (RPC Article 11(6), Article 12). The petitioners’ compliance with the Presidential Memorandum, bearing the President’s signature and presumed regularity, negated criminal intent.
• Although Sandiganbayan Justices extensively questioned witnesses and petitioners—exceeding the parties’ queries—this did not warrant reversal once the trial tribunal’s findings were supported by evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

  1. Criminal liability for malversation exis



...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

About Privacy Terms