CONCHITA M. DELA CRUZ, Petitioner, – versus PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and MAXIMO A. BORJE, ET AL., Petitioners, – versus -PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
Law: Criminal Law, Remedial Law
Cited Law/Order: Rule 45 of Civil Procedure, Revised Penal Code, Section 3(e) ofR.A. No. 3019, R.A. No. 10951
Issue: Fictitious transactions in a Government Agency
FACTS:
The accused in the criminal case allegedly forged and falsified documents to cause the payment of fictitious repairs and purchases of spare parts purportedly in the amount of P6,368,364.00 from public funds covering 409 transactions for the emergency repairs of 39 DPWH service vehicles.
274 transactions were made in the name of accused Martinez, while other transaction were made in the name of petitioner Maximo A. Borje (Borje) and other co-accused.
The spare parts were supplied by J-CAP Motorshop (J-CAP) owned by accused Capuz, and DEB Repair Shop and Parts Supply (DEB) owned by petitioner Conchita Dela Cruz (Dela Cruz).
Notably, upon arraignment and summary of the prosecution, petitioner Borje was identified as Payee even though he was not necessarily the end-user, and DEB, which petitioner Dela Cruz owns, was identified as Supplier in several of the DVs presented in relation to the emergency repairs and reimbursements.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not Rule 45 of petition for review of the Supreme Court limit only to question of law
2. Whether or not accused are conspired with one another in deceiving the DPWH into paying the claims for the fictitious emergency repairs/purchases of spare parts in the name of accused Martinez
3. Whether or not the Disbursement Vouchers and Cash Invoices were falsified
4. Whether or not accused Borje, who issued Disbursement Voucher and Dela Cruz, who issues Sales Invoice, are liable
5. Whether or not the Sandiganbayan did not err founding the petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of complex crime of Estafa through Falsification of Documents, not limiting only for the crime of estafa
6. Whether or not the elements of estafa is present in this case and its instances
7. Whether or not Article 171 paragraph 4 of the RPC was committed by the accused in this case
8. Whether or not Planta case is applicable in this case
9. Whether or not principle of conclusiveness of judgment and doctrine of “law of the case” is applicable in this case
10. Whether or not contention of Borje in disowning liability is correct since he relied the approval of SIT of the emergency repair
11. Whether or not petitioner Dela Cruz is criminally liable for the issuance of falsified Cash Invoices
12. Whether or not dela cruz contention is correct that Article 171 of the RPC can only be committed by a public officer or employee
13. Whether or not Best Evidence Rule (now known as Original Document Rule) applies to this case
14. Whether or not petitioner is guilty for violation of Section 3(e) ofR.A. No. 3019
15. Whether or not evident bad faith was exercised by the accused
16. Whether or not the accused penalty be modify
RULING:
The petitions have no merit.
1. Yes
Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. It is not its function to examine, review or evaluate the evidence all over again.
Petition for review under Rule 45, the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court Court is limited only to questions of law.
Sandiganbayan’s factual findings, as a rule, are conclusive upon it.
2. Yes.
They conspired with one another in deceiving the DPWH into paying the claims for the fictitious emergency repairs/purchases of spare parts in the name of accused Martinez causing damage to the government in the total amount of 5,166,539.00. The amount were actually false claims, formed part of sinister to steal government funds.
What are the instances it says that there are false claim?
⁃ First, there was no request from the 39 officials and agencies for the emergency repairs that the vehicles assigned to them which Martinez claim reimbursements and paid in the name of accused Martinez.
⁃ Second. There was emergency repair but it is falsely label to avoid public bidding. Purchases of spare parts did not qualify DPWH regulation.
⁃ Third. Splitting of repairs and of purchases of spare parts was resorted to in order to circumvent prescribed limitations as well as the requirement ofpublic bidding.
3. Yes
The Disbursement Vouchers were also falsified to justify the release of checks for payment of the reimbursements claimed.
The Cash Invoices issued by the suppliers were also falsified because they pertain to fictitious or non-existent purchases of spare parts.
These falsified documents were all utilized in sinister schemes to steal government funds.
4. Yes because Borje, as Chief of the Motorpool Section, affixed his signature recommending approval of the falsified Equipment Pre-Inspection and Job Orders and participating in the approval of the falsified Reports of Waste Material and Abstracts of Open Canvass. dela Cruz is liable because he was the owner of the DEB Repair Shop and Parts Supply, issued the falsified Sales Invoices for the fictitious supplies of spare parts for the non-existent emergency repairs
5. Yes
Citing a jurisprudence, whenever a person commits falsification through any of the acts enumerated under Article 171 of the RPC as a necessary means to perpetrate another crime, such as estafa, a complex crime under Article 48 of the RPC is formed.
6. Yes. Elements of estafa are present in this case.
7. Yes
Estafa was committed through the falsification of public documents, under Article 171 paragraph 4 of the RPC, by the accused public officers/employees because they took an advantage of their official positions and making untruthful statements in a narration of facts.
Clearly, the falsification of the DVs and supporting documents was a necessary means to commit estafa. Without making it appear that there were emergency repairs and/or purchases of spare parts, the accused would not have been able to obtain 5,166,539.00 in reimbursements from the DPWH.
8. No.
In the Planta case, the Sandiganbayan found that while there were several violations attendant to the processing of the DVs, such did not prove that the transactions were ghost or non-existent.
In this case, The prosecution failed to establish that there were no actual purchases and no deliveries of spare parts.
9. No.
Principle of conclusiveness of judgment and doctrine of “law of the case” has no application in criminal cases.
However, the doctrine of “law of the case” relates to questions of law and not of fact such
10. No.
Head of officers cannot escape liability by claiming they relied on good faith on the submissions of their subordinates where there are circumstances that have alerted them to exercise more diligence in the performance of their duties
Borje must conduct a more cursory examination of the documents because the said documents are payable to persons, other than end-users.
11. Yes
The reason is de la Cruz is the sole proprietor of the business.
Under the law, in a sole proprietorship form of business, the sole proprietor is personally liable for all the debts and obligations of the business
A sole proprietorship does not possess any juridical personality separate and apart from the personality ofthe owner ofthe enterprise. Therefore, Dela Cruz as the sole proprietress of DEB, is criminally liable for the issuance of falsified Cash Invoices in the criminal scheme.
Even if de la cruz claim he is a treasurer in the company, it was DEB’s Cash Invoices indicating petitioner Dela Cruz as proprietress that were presented to support the claims for reimbursement in relation to the subject transactions.
12. No
Because prosecution had successfully established conspiracy among the accused including petitioners Borje and Dela Cruz.
What Borje and Dela Cruz did has a connection in the involvement of Dela Cruz conspiracy with Borje. It is the issuance of the falsified Disbursement Voucher, supporting documents and Cash Invoices had the connection in continuing the objective of conspiracy.
Without the DVs, supporting documents and Cash Invoices, the government would not have released public funds for the reimbursement of the ghost emergency repairs and/or purchase of spare parts.
13. No.
SC held that the Best Evidence Rule (now known as Original Document Rule) does not apply to proof of facts collateral to the issues or when a party uses a document to prove the existence of an independent fact
In this case, the subject of the inquiry was not the content of the documents.
The documents were presented by the prosecution to prove the falsification was a necessary means and an essential part of the criminal scheme in committing estafa.
14. Yes. All elements in the said provision are present in this case.
The elements of the above violation are:
15. Yes, this is the reason of the accused being qualified to the 2nd element of Section 3(e) ofR.A. No. 3019
The Supreme Court explained the meaning of evident bad faith
⁃ evident bad faith connotes not only bad judgment but also palpably and patently fraudulent and dishonest purpose to do moral obliquity or conscious wrongdoing for some perverse motive or ill will
16. Yes.
In light of R.A. No. 10951 which adjusted the amounts of property and damage on which penalties are based.
Since the crime committed is a complex crime, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed and the same to be applied in its maximum period.
In this case, the penalty for imprisonment, Estafa which is prision mayor in its minimum period is lighter than the penalty for Falsification of Public Documents which is prision mayor.
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum term of the penalty should be within the
⁃ range’ of the penalty next lower in degree or prision correccional, and the maximum term should be taken from the
⁃ maximum period of prision mayor in its maximum period.
indeterminate penalty of six (6) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum, is appropriate.
However, the penalty of fine of not more than P5,000 under the RPC should be imposed because this is more favorable than the penalty of fine of not more than Pl,000,000.00 under R.A. No. 10951
Lesson of this case:
In working in the government, purchases is hard because of public bidding. This case serves as a reminder to all Government Head Officers that purchasing goods for the office must comply to the rules in purchasing goods and money.
Purchasing goods that are not in reality, must be avoided. The funds are from the people. The said funds got from the hard earning and labor among all citizens, especially persons or juridical entities that are large contributors to tax.
It is a reality that the private companies depends the service of the client. Said companies must understand the procurement rules of the government. On the other hand, government shall do an extra mile of effort in fastening the released of the funds as the private company depends the said payment for their payment of wages and operating cost.
Most importantly, conscience and moral upright of every Government Heads is important. With this virtue, this case won’t appear in the next generation.
Full text of the case: https://juanbatas.files.wordpress.com/2021/03/gr_236807_2021.pdf
Cited Jurisprudence:
Domingo v. People
Marzan v. People
Fernan, Jr. v. People
Arias v. People
Escobar et al v. People
G.R. No. 236810
Cedeno v. People, et al.
Typoco, Jr. v. People
Villa v. Sandiganbayan
Sr. Insp. Leo Marzan and P03 Ramon Lihay-Lihay v. People
Excellent Quality Apparel, Inc. v. Win Multi Rich Builders, Inc.
Jariol, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan
Lee v People
Sistoza v. Desierto
Sps. Balmadridv. Sandiganbayan
Macaraigv. People
