G.R. No. 171322-24 - Victoriano vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 171322-24)

Factual Background

The prosecution alleged that, through manifest partiality and evident bad faith, petitioner—together with private accused Raymond Ilustre—caused undue injury to Vicente L. Esteves, Jr., and granted unwarranted benefits to Ilustre by allowing the latter to encash PNB checks payable to Esteves Enterprises on the basis of a falsified indorsement, despite the fact that the payee allegedly had never indorsed the checks nor authorized Ilustre to encash them.

The informations in Criminal Case Nos. 18868 to 18870 were similarly worded, differing only in the alleged dates of commission, the check numbers, their dates, and the amounts misappropriated. They stated that the accused allowed Ilustre to encash PNB Check No. 076836 dated February 19, 1991 for P31,810.00 (Crim. Case No. 18868), PNB Check No. 065889 dated March 12, 1991 for P58,911.25 (Crim. Case No. 18869), and PNB Check No. 065888 dated March 12, 1991 for P12,871.00 (Crim. Case No. 18870), after which Ilustre allegedly converted the proceeds for personal use and to the damage of Esteves.

The prosecution evidence focused on Esteves’ claim that in 1991 his company had contracted with the DPWH for the supply of construction materials and that DPWH issued the three checks in Esteves’ name as payment. Esteves asserted that without his knowledge and authority, Ilustre collected the checks, then forged his signature, and encashed them at the PNB Mati branch with petitioner’s assistance.

Prosecution Evidence at Trial

Vicente L. Esteves, Jr., the private complainant and manager of V.L. Esteves Enterprises, testified that he did not authorize the encashment of the checks or the indorsement imputed to him. He claimed that Ilustre encashed the checks using a falsified indorsement, thereby appropriating funds that belonged to him. Quirino Aragon, Jr., a cashier at the PNB Mati branch, corroborated Esteves’ account. Aragon testified that he initially refused to entertain Ilustre because Ilustre did not present a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) from Esteves, the payee of the checks. Aragon stated that petitioner prevailed upon him and authorized the encashment.

Petitioner’s Defense and Admissions

Petitioner testified that he was the Manager of PNB-Mati in 1991 and that his duties included supervising banking operations and approving banking transactions such as check encashments. He explained the bank’s usual procedure: checks were verified by the bank bookkeeper for completeness, authenticity, and whether the checks were funded. He further stated that when the person cashing or indorsing the check was not the payee or drawer, the bank required additional documents—such as an SPA, registration papers, business permits, and similar documents—to establish that the indorsement belonged to the payee.

Petitioner nevertheless admitted that, in the case at bar, he dispensed with the usual requirements. He justified this by stating that the checks were released by DPWH Special Disbursing Officer Nenita C. Bijis to Ilustre and that Bijis was also present at the bank when Ilustre cashed the checks. Petitioner also claimed that he was not familiar with Esteves’ signature because Esteves had no account with PNB-Mati and asserted that, in his view, it was not his duty to verify the signatures of previous indorsers beyond what was required for the last indorser. He acknowledged that he had the discretion as bank manager to approve or disapprove the encashment of checks, although standard practice would ordinarily require documentary proof of the authenticity of earlier indorsements.

Sandiganbayan’s Ruling and Procedural Disposition

The Sandiganbayan acquitted petitioner of the charge of the complex crime of estafa through falsification of commercial documents, but found him guilty of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 in Criminal Case Nos. 18868 to 18870. It imposed, for each count, an indeterminate prison sentence of six (6) years and one (1) month as minimum up to ten (10) years as maximum, after applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and it ordered perpetual disqualification from public office. The Sandiganbayan also required petitioner to reimburse P103,592.25 to Esteves Enterprises, jointly and severally with Raymond Ilustre.

The Sandiganbayan denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on January 16, 2006, which led to the filing of the consolidated petitions for review on certiorari.

Issues Raised by Petitioner

Petitioner raised two main issues. First, he claimed he was denied due process, particularly in relation to his right to participate in the proceedings and his right to confront and cross-examine prosecution witnesses. Second, he argued that his conviction was contrary to law and prevailing jurisprudence, including his contention that the Sandiganbayan erred in denying the introduction of a later-executed Affidavit of Desistance by Esteves, which he portrayed as newly discovered evidence.

Right to Due Process and the Right to Confront Witnesses

The Court held that petitioner was properly accorded due process based on the records. It noted that during the pre-trial held on February 3, 1994, petitioner was present with counsel, but counsel waived pre-trial. Petitioner did not object to the waiver, and the Court considered his failure to question it as implied approval.

The Court also rejected the claim of procedural irregularity on the ground of petitioner’s non-appearance. It observed that a trial hearing was scheduled for June 29, 1994, petitioner received notice, and he failed to appear.

On the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, the Court recognized the right as fundamental to due process but characterized it as a personal right that could be waived, expressly or impliedly, through conduct amounting to renunciation. It ruled that where the accused had the opportunity to cross-examine a witness but failed to avail himself, he forfeited the right and the witness’s direct testimony could properly remain in the record.

Applying these principles, the Court found that petitioner’s counsel did not cross-examine prosecution witnesses because of counsel’s lack of cooperation and preparation, and the record showed that counsel had even suggested that the court cite him in contempt and cancel bail for failure to attend hearings. For this reason, petitioner could not credibly claim at that stage that he was denied the opportunity to confront witnesses.

The Court likewise dismissed petitioner’s assertion that his testimony was “hijacked” during the November 29, 1994 trial. It found that the Sandiganbayan justices’ clarificatory questions were a lawful exercise of judicial function. The Court emphasized that judges in that jurisdiction act as judges of both law and facts and that they would be negligent if they failed to inquire into material points that might develop facts upon which the judgment could turn.

Affidavit of Desistance and Motion for New Trial

The Court held that the Sandiganbayan correctly denied petitioner’s attempt to rely on the affidavit of desistance. It stated that affidavits of desistance are generally viewed with suspicion and reservation because they can be easily procured from witnesses and can be repudiated later, making criminal prosecution potentially interminable. It further reiterated the rule that a recantation or affidavit of desistance, by itself, is not a ground for dismissal once a criminal action has been instituted in court.

It noted that Esteves executed the affidavit of desistance on October 8, 1996, long after the case had been submitted for decision on November 29, 1994. Thus, petitioner’s claim that the Sandiganbayan erred in denying a new trial based on that affidavit failed.

Substantive Elements of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019

The Court then addressed whether petitioner’s conviction was consistent with the statutory elements of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. It stated that conviction under that provision requires the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt: (one) the accused is a public officer or a private person charged in conspiracy with the former; (two) the public officer committed the prohibited acts during the performance of official duties or in relation to his public position; (three) the accused caused undue injury to any party, whether the government or a private party; and (four) the accused acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence.

Application to Petitioner’s Conduct

The Court found the first element undisputed because petitioner, as Manager of PNB in 1991, held a position in a government entity, PNB being treated as a government institution at the time material to the offense.

As to the second element, the Court found no dispute that petitioner’s acts occurred in relation to his official role. The evidence established that petitioner allowed Ilustre to encash the subject checks without complying with the customary banking procedure that requires prior verification by the bookkeeper and documentary safeguards when the person cashing or indorsing is not the payee.

On the third element, the Court found that petitioner’s conduct caused undue injury to Esteves and gave unwarranted benefits

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 171322-24)

The consolidated petitions for review on certiorari assailed the Decision of the Sandiganbayan dated October 11, 2005, which found accused Marianito Victoriano and Raymond Ilustre guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, and sentenced them accordingly.
The assailed Sandiganbayan Resolution dated January 16, 2006 denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
The Court denied the petitions and affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s finding of guilt, the penalties imposed, and the order to reimburse the amount of P103,592.25.

Parties and Procedural Posture

Marianito S. Victoriano filed the petitions as petitioner challenging his conviction in Criminal Case Nos. 18868-18870.
People of the Philippines represented the Respondent, defending the Sandiganbayan’s judgment.
The Sandiganbayan disposed of Criminal Case Nos. 18868 to 18870 by finding petitioner guilty and imposing indeterminate imprisonment, perpetual disqualification, and joint and several reimbursement with Raymond Ilustre.
The Sandiganbayan acquitted petitioner of the complex crime of estafa through falsification of commercial documents, but still convicted him under Sec. 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019.
The petitions raised two issues: whether petitioner was denied due process, and whether the conviction was contrary to law and prevailing jurisprudence.

Key Factual Allegations

The informations in Criminal Case Nos. 18868, 18869, and 18870 alleged that petitioner, then Manager of the Philippine National Bank (PNB) Mati Branch, in conspiracy with private individual Raymond Ilustre, caused undue injury and gave unwarranted benefits through manifest partiality and evident bad faith.
The alleged means of commission involved petitioner allowing Ilustre to encash checks payable to Vicente L. Esteves, Jr. on the basis of a falsified indorsement that Esteves never made or authorized.
The accused were alleged to have caused damage in the specific amounts corresponding to each check, with the total reimbursement ultimately ordered by the Sandiganbayan being P103,592.25.
The informations in February 26, 1993 for the complex crime were also filed, but petitioner was acquitted of that charge by the Sandiganbayan.
The prosecution evidence established that in 1991, the DPWH Sub-District Office in Baganga issued three checks payable to Esteves Enterprises in payment for construction materials contracted by the company.
The prosecution alleged that without Esteves’ knowledge and authority, Ilustre collected the checks and later forged Esteves’ signature to encash them through assistance of petitioner.

Trial Evidence and Defense

The prosecution’s principal witnesses were Vicente L. Esteves, Jr., manager of V.L. Esteves Enterprises, and Quirino Aragon, Jr., a cashier at the PNB Mati Branch.
Esteves testified that the DPWH issued three checks totaling P103,592.25 in his name, and that his signature on the checks was falsified for encashment by Ilustre with petitioner’s assistance.
Aragon corroborated that he initially refused to entertain Ilustre because Ilustre allegedly did not present an SPA from Esteves as payee, but petitioner later prevailed upon him to allow encashment.
Petitioner testified that he was PNB Mati Branch manager in 1991 and that he supervised and approved banking transactions like check encashments.
Petitioner described the bank’s usual practice requiring verification by the bookkeeper for completeness, authenticity, and funding, and requiring additional documents when the person cashing or indorsing is not the payee or drawer.
Petitioner admitted that he dispensed with the usual requirements because the checks were released by DPWH Special Disbursing Officer Nenita C. Bijis to Ilustre, and both were present at the bank during encashment.
Petitioner claimed he was not familiar with Esteves’ signature because Esteves had no account with PNB Mati, and he asserted that his duty centered on the last indorser.
Petitioner maintained that he had the discretion to approve or disapprove the encashment of checks even when standard practice would require documentation supporting authenticity of prior indorsements.

Due Process Claims

Petitioner contended that he was denied due process in the proceedings before the Sandiganbayan.
The Office of the Special Prosecutor asserted that petitioner was not denied due process because he was accorded an opportunity to be heard, including taking the witness stand and testifying on November 29, 1994, after which he could file a memorandum.
The Office of the Special Prosecutor maintained that petitioner was not denied the right to cross-examine, because his counsel allegedly waived cross-examination due to petitioner’s purported failure to cooperate in preparing the defense.
The Court held that records showed petitioner was properly accorded due process, including his presence with counsel during the pre-trial held on February 3, 1994.
The Court noted that counsel waived pre-trial, petitioner did not question the waiver, and petitioner was deemed to have impliedly approved it.
The Court found nothing irregular in the Sandiganbayan’s holding of trial on June 29, 1994, and it emphasized that petitioner was duly