tr lri':.,] E
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES SANDIGANBAYAN Quezon City THIRD DIVISION
PDOPLE OI. THE PIIILIPPINES, Criminal Case Nos. Plaintiff, sB-16-CRM-1242-43 For: Violation of Section 3(e) of Rephlic Act No. 3019, as amended
sB-16-CRM-1244-6:g. -versus- For: Maluersation of Public Filnds tttrough Falsification of Public/ Olftcial Document s (Art. 217 in relation to Art. 171 of the Reuised Penal Code)
RODRI@ MIAGA WENCF,SLAO, Present: EFLIDA. I}UAI,LO OLITGUER, CabotaJe-Tang, A.M., P.J., JOSEPIIIIIE MIAGA MOPON, Chairperson NENITA GOTITE,Z CE,NIZ.II, Fernaadez, B.R., J. and ROSALIEDA WEI| CESLI\O CASTRO, Moreno, R.8., J. Accttsed. PROMULGATED: U0\rF -x DECISION Moreno, J.:
Accused Rodrigo Miaga Wenceslao (Wenceslao), Eflida t Duallo Olaguer (Olaguer), Josephine Miaga Mopon (Mopon| Nenita Gomez Ceniza (Ceniza), and RosalindaWenceslao Castro (Castro)are charged before this Court with violation of Section ; 3(e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019, as amended, and Malversation of Public Funds through Falsification of Public I Docume[ts defined and penalized under Article 217 in relation to.Article l7l of tJ e Revised Penal Code (RPC). The Informations
read as follows: .i
Crirninal Case No. SB-16-CRM-1242 I
1 That from January 2004 to June 2004, and for : som.etime prior or subsequent thereto, in the Municipalitg of Merida, Prouince of Legte, Philippines, and uithin tle jurisdidion of this Honorable Court, accttsed RODRICIO DECtStON Crininol @e No. SB-16-CRM-1242-63 People v. Wencesloo, et o!.
MIAGA WENCESLAO, a high-ranking public oJficer being tte Municipal Magor, conspiring and. confederating uith co-acansed namelg:
1. EFLIDA DUALLO OLAGUER, Municipal Geneml Seruices Olficer and Municipal Awuntant Designate, 2. JOSEPHINE MIAGA MOPON, Municipat Budget Offtcer, 3. NENITA GOMEZ CENIZA, Municipal Tfeasurer, and 4. ROSALINDA WENCESLAO CASTRq Utilitg Worker and Accounting Clerk,
did hen and there uiLfullg, unlaufullA, criminallg and utith abuse of their respectiue positions, illegattg disburse the amount of THREE MILLION EIGHTY FIJ/E THOUSAND PESOS (Php3,085,O00.00) Philippine C\urencE, to accused Magor RODRIGO MIAGA WENCESLAO, bg making it appear that he is entitled to reimbursement claims on proanrement of PE PIPES with a unit cost of Tilto Tttousand Fiue Hundred Pesos (PdpZ,SOO.0O) per roll, wlen tte yru:rported proanrement wa.s made withnut an approued appropriation and that no atpporting doatments that the items were actually ptrclrased and accepted bg the intended beneficiaries/ recipients of the tuerutg hao barangays of the muniapalitg of Merida a"s claim.ed, thus, bg euident bad faith or gross inexcusable regligene of tlre accused, the Municipalitg of Merida, Legte, suffered undue injury in the said amount and gaue unuarcanted benefits to accused Magor RODRIGO MIAGA WENCESLAO, when the acansed kneut that said expenditure i.s false and attended bg irreguhrtties and. fraud and was euen disaUouted bg tlw Commission on Audil under Notice of Dballouane No. O5-O94-1O1 datedJune 24,2005.
CONTRARYTO LAW.
Crlmtnal Case No. SB- 16-CRM- 12r+il
Tlnt from March 2004 to June 2004, and for som.etime prior or subsequent th.ereto, in the Muruicipalitg of Merida, Prouince of Legte, Phitippines, and uithilt the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, aratsed RODRIGO MIAGA WENCESLAO, a high-rankirug p.blic officer being tte Municipal Magor, conspiing and anfederating uith co-acansed namelg:
1. EFLIDA DUALLO OLAGWR, Municipat General Seruices Offier and Municipal Accountant Designate,
2 DECtStO Criminol Eose No. SB-26-CRM- 1242-69 People v. Wencesloo, et dl-
2. JOSEPHINE MIAGA MOPON, Municipal Budget Offtcer, 3. NENITA GOMEZ CENIZA, Municipal Tfeasurer, and 4. ROSALINDA WENCESLAO CASTRq Utilitg Worker and Accounting Clerk,
did then and there utilfully, unlawfullg, criminallg and uith afuise of their respectiue posiiions, illegallg disburse the amount of SX HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (Php6O0,OOO.OO) Philippine Currencg, to acansed Magor RODRIGO MIAGA WENCESLAO, bg making it appear that lte is ertitled to reimbursement claims on a purported financial assistance giuen to seueral barangags of the municipalitg of Merida, Legte, when said finarucial assistance tuas wittnut an approued appropiatian nor supporttng doanments that a specific project or program utas held for tle utilization of ttte said financiat assistance to uarious barangags of the municipalitg of Meida, Legte, thus, bg eui.dent bad faith and/ or gross inexcusable negligence of all accused, the Municipality of Merido, Legte, suffered undue injury in the said amount and lend unwarranted benefits to ang and or of the all the accused to the said amount uhert tlreg heut all along that said expendihtre is false and atteruded bg irregulaities and. fraud and. was euen disallotaed bg the Commission on Audit under Notice of Dballowane No. O5-094-101 dated June 24, 2005. .:i CONTRARYTO LAW.
Crioinal Case No. SB-16-CRM-1244
That on or about tlrc 7tt, of January 2004, or i1 sometime prior or subseEt ent thereto, in tle Municipalifu of Meida, Prouince of Legte, Philippines, and within the jurisdidion of thi.s Honorable Court, accttsed RODRIGO MIAGA WENCESLAO, o high-ranking public oJficer being ttw Mttnicipal Magor, conspiring and confederating u.tith co-accused namelg:
L. EFLIDA DUALLO OLAGUER, Municipal General Seruices Olfier and Municipal Accountant Designate, 2. JOSEPHINE, MIAGA MOPON, Municipal Budget Offtcer, 3. NENITA GOMEZ CENEA, Municipal Tfeasurer, and .! 4. ROSALINDA WENCESIAO CASTRq I Utilitg Worker and Accounting Clerlg ,j did then anA there uillfullg, unlaufullA, feloniouslg and I tuith abuse of their respectiue positions, misappropriate, .:1 'I {1 l .,t 3 'i DECtStON Criminol fuse No. SB-16-CRM-1242-63 People v. Wenceslao, et ol.
misapplg, embezzle, conuert, can sent, or through negligene permit ang other person or arug of them or all of tlem to take public funds in their atstodg in the amnunt of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (Ph7100,OOO.O0) Philippine Curencg, bg making it appear that acansed maAor RODRIGO MIAGA WENCESLAO is entitled to reimbursement claim on a trrurported proqtrement of Forfu (40) roll"s of pE pIpES with a unit cost of Ttuo Thousand Fiue Hundred pesos (Ph72,5OO.OO) per roll orintLte amount of ONE HIINDRED THOUSAND PESos (Php100,000.00) phitippine Cutrenq, and muered bg a Cleck No. 2S2BS2, bg falstfuins Disbursement Voucher under JEV No. lOO-04- O4-12O-A, through an untruthful nanratton of fact of proa)rement of Forty (40) rolls of PE pIpES made in behnlf of tle Municipalitg of Merid.a bg accused Magor RODRIGO MIAGA WENCESLAO, when in truth and in fact said proatrement is false and tle same is known to them to be fal-se rendeing said tra nsactinn to be disatlowed bg the Commission on Audit under Notice of Disallowance No. 05-094-101 dated June 24, 2OOS, resulting in damage and prejudice of the gouernment, partiatlarlg to the Municipalitg of Merida, Legte.
CONTRARYTO I,AW.
Crlulnal Case No. SB-16-CRM-1245
That on or about the 7t of January 2004, or ,l sometime pior or subsequent tLereto, in the Municipatitg
of Merida, Prouince of Legte, Philippines, and within the : jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, acansed RODE/GO i MIAGA WENCESLAO, a high-ranking gtblic officer being tLe lWunicipal Magor, conspiring and confederating with co-acqtsed namelg:
1. EFLIDA DUALLO OLAGUER, Itlunicipal General Services Olfier and Municipal ::1 Accountant Designate, 2. JOSEPHINE MIAGA MOPON, Municipal .'i Budget Officer, ..: -] 3. NENITA GOMEZ CENEA, Municipal Tfeasurer, and 4. ROSALINDA WENCESLAO CASTRO, Utilitg Worker and Accounting Clerk, '$
did then and there wiUfuIlg, unlaufullg, feloruiouslg and with abtse of tlrcir respectiue positions, misappropriate, ) misapplA, embezzle, conuert, consent, or through .l negligence permit ang other person or ang of them or all of them to take public funds in tLreir anstodg in the ,I amount of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (PW1O0,OO0.OO) Philippine C\trencg, bg making it
,.1 4 .!
'-: DECTSTO Crimlnsl f,ose No. SB-16-CRM-1242-6I People v, Wencesldo, et al.
appar that accused Mayor RODRIGO MIAGA WENCESLAO i,s entitled to reimbursement claim on a pu:rported proanement of Fortg (40) rolls of pE pIpES uith a unit cost of Two Thousand. Rue Hunlred pesos (Php2,5OO.OO) perroll or intLe amount of ONE HTJNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (Ph7LOO,OO0.OO) philippirue Atrrency, and couered bg a Ch.eck No. 2S2B3S, bg falstfgirts Disbursement Voucher urud.er JEV No. lOO-04- 03-123, through an untruthful nanration of fact of proqffement of Fortg ftO) rolls of PE pIpES made in behalf of the fufunicipalitg of Mertda bg acansed Magor RODRIGO MIAGA WENCESLAO, luhen in truth and in fact said procurement is fal,se and tle same is knoun to ttem to be false rendering said transaction to be disalloued bg the Commission on Audit under Notice of Disallor,ltance No. O5-094-1Ol dated Jurue 24, 2OOS, resulttn4 irt damage and prejudie of the gouemment, partianlarlg to the Municipolitg of Merida, Leyte.
CONTRARYTO LAW.
Crlnlnal Case No. SB-16-CRM-1246
That on or about the gn of January 20O4, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the Municipalitg of Merida, Prouince of Legte, Philipphes, and wtthin ttre jurisdidion of this Honorable Court, acansed RODRIGO MIAGA WENCESLAO, a high-ranking public olficer being the Municipal Magor, con-spiring and confederating uith co-auused namelA:
1. EFLIDA DUALLO OIA,GWR, Municipal General Seruices Officer and Municipal Auountant Designate, 2. JOSEPHINE MIAGA MOPON, Municipal Budget Offtcer, 3. NENITA C,OMEZ CENEA, Municipal : Tleasurer, and
4. ROSALINDA WENCESIA,O CASTRq : Utilitg Worker and Accounting Clerk,
did then and there uiUfuUg, unlausfully, feloniauslg and with abuse of tleir respectiue positions, misappropiate, misapplg, embezzle, conuert, consent, or through '': negligence permit ang other person or ang of them or all of them to take public funds in their ustodA in *Le amount of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS '..,1 (PhpIOO,OOO.OO) Philippine Cunencg, bg making it appear that acansed Magor RODRIGO MIAGA WENCESLAO is entitled to reimbursement claim on a purported proa,ffement of Fortg PIPES ft1) rolls of PE ,:l ttith q unit cost of Tuto Thousand Fiue Hundred Pesos (Php2,5OO.OO) per roll or an amount of ONE HUNDRED i
5 DECtStO!t Criminal cJ,se No. t242-63 People v Wencesloo,'B-IGCRM- et ol.
THOUSAND PESoS (Pilp10O,OO0.OO) phitippine Atrencg, and couered bg a Check No. S52TSS, bg falsifuirug Disbursement Vouclrcr uith JEV No. 100-04- 04-142, tlvough an untruthful narration of fact of proanremEnt of Forfu (40) rolls of pE pIpES ma.de t lehalf of the Municipalifu of Merida bg accused Mayor RODRIGO MIAGA WENCESLAO, uten in truth and in fact said. proanrement is false and the same is known to tlem to be false, rendeing said transaction to be disalloued bg Commission on Audit under Notie of Disallouance No. 05-094-101 d.ated June 24, 2OOS, restlting damage and prejudice to the gouernment, partiatlarlg to t?te Municipalitg of Merida. Legte.
CONTRARYTO LAW.
Crlmlnal Case No. SB-16-CRM-1247
Tlutt on or about the l3th of January 2OO4, or som.etim.e prior or subsequent thereto, in the Municipalitg of Merida, Prouince of Legte, Philippines, and uithin thp jurisdtdion of this Honorable Court, acarced RODRIGO MIAGA WENCESLAO, a high-ranking pubtic olficer being the Muricipal Magor, conspiring and mnfederating uith co-accused namelg:
1. EFLIDA DUALLO OLAGWR, Municipal General Seruices OJficer and Municipal Auountant Designate, 2. JOSEPHINE MIAGA MOPON, Municipat Budget Offrcer, 3. NENITA CAMEZ CENIZA, Municipal Tfeasure4 and 4. ROSALINDA WENCESLAO CASTRq Utilitg Worker and Accwnting Clerk,
did then and there uillfullg, unlawfullg, felonioustg and utith abuse of their respectiue positions, mbappropiate, misapplg, embezzle, conuert, consent, or thrangh negligene permit ang other person or ang of tlwm or all of them to take public funds in their anstodg in ttte amount of SEI/ENTY FNE THOUSAND PESOS . t,:'. (Php75,OOO.O0) Philippine Curenq, by making it appear
that acansed Magor RODRIGO MIAGA WENCESLAO is j entitled to reimbursement claim on a Wrported proanrement of thirtg (3O) rolls oJ PE PIpES utith a unit ,.i cost ofTloo Thousand Fiue Hundred pesos (php2,5OO.OO) :l per roll or in tlw amount of SEWNTy FNE THOUSAND PESOS (Php75,000.0O) Philipphte Atnerucg, and couered rl'l by a Check No. 232849, bg falstfuing Disbursement Voucher # 03-091 , through an untruthful nanation of fact of proanrement of thirtg (30) rolls of PE pIpES made in behalf of the Municipalitg of Merida by acatsed Magor
6
. .- i:.rl DECTSTOSt Criminol Co,se No. SB-16-CRM-1242-63 People $, Wencesldo, et ol.
RODRIGO MIAGA WENCESLAO, uthen in truth and in fact said proatrement is false and knoun to them to be false rendering satd transaction to be disattotted bg the Commission on Audit under Notie of Disallouane No. O5-094-1Oi dated June 24, 2OO5, resulting in damage and" prejudie of tlrc gouernment, partianlarlg to the Municipalitg of Merid.a, Legte.
CONTRARYTO LAW.
Criulnal Case No. SB-16-CRM-1248
Thnt on or about the 19h of January 2OO4, or sometime prior or subsequent tlwreto, in ttte Municipatitg of Merida, Prouince of Leyte, Philippines, and within the jurisdictton of thj.s Honorable Court, acansed RODRIGO MIAGA WENCESLAO, a high-ranking public officer behg the Municipal Magor, conspiring and confederating uith co-acansed. namelg:
1. EFLIDA DUALLO OLAGUER, Municipal General Seruices Olficer and Municipal Accountant Designate, 2. JOSEPHINE MIAGA MOPON, Municipal BudSet Offi.cer, 3. NENITA GOMEZ CENEA, Municipal Tleasurer, and 4. ROSALINDA WENCESLAO CAS?Rq il Utilitg Worker and Accounting Clerlg
did. then antd there tuillfully, unlaufully, feloniouslg and with abuse of thair respectiue positions, misappropiate, ,r" j misapply, embezzle, conuert, consent, or through ' negligene permit ang other person or ang of them or all of ttem to take public fund-s in their atstodg in the amnunt of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (Pbp3OO,OOO.00) Philipptne Cunencg, bg making it appar thnt acansed Magor RODRIGO MIAGA WENCESLAO b entitled to reimbursement claim on a purported ,il proq.trement of one lundred haentg (12O) rolls l of PE PIPES toith a unit cost of Tluo Thousand Fiue Hundred Pesos (Php2,5O0.OO) per roll or in the amount of THREE IruNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P6p3OO,0OO.0O) Philippine Aurencg, and couered bg a Check No. 352757, by fabifuing Disbursement Voucher under JEV No. LOO-O4-O3-718, through an untruthful narration of ,., of proanrem.ent of one fact hundred twentg (12O) rolls of .,i PE PIPES mqde in behalf of the Municipalitg of Merida ,:,:i bg acansedMagor RODRIGO MIAGAWENCESLAO, when ,1 in truth and in foct said procurement i-s faLse and tlte .', same is knoun to tlrcm to be false, rendering said. trarsaction to be disallotued bg tle Commission on Audit under Notie of Disallotuance No. 05-094-707 dated Jun fi) 7 ______ai.4
DECTSTOBt Criminat Cose No. SB-1GCRM-1242-63 People v, Wencesloo, et dl.
24, 2005, restlting in damage and prejudice of the gouemmerfi, partiaiarlg to tle Municipalttg of Merid.a, Legte.
CONTRARY TO I-AW.
Crimlaal Case No. SB-16-CRM-1249
Thnt during the period of the 29th of January 2OO4 and. h tle l of Febntary 2OO4, or sometime prior or .: $' subsequent tlereto, in tle Municipalitg of Merida, houine of Legte, Philippines, and usithin the jurisdiction .li of this Honorable Court, acc:Ltsed RODRIGO MIAGA WENCESLAO, a high-ranking prublic offier being tle Municipal Magor, conspiring and confederating with m- acansed namelg:
1. EFLIDA DUALLO OIA,GUER, Municipal General Seruices Offier and Municipal Aeountant Designate, 2. JOSEPHINE MIAGA MOPON, Municipat &tdget Officer, 3. NENITA GOMEZ CENZA, Municipat Trea.stlrer, and 4. ROSALINDA WENCESLAO CASTRq Utilifu Worker and Accumting Clerk,
did then and there uillfullg, unlawfuIlg, felonianstg and. uith abuse of their respectiue positions, misappropriate, misapplg, embezzle, conuert, cortsent, or through Itl negligene permit ang otlrcr person or ang of them or all of them to take public funds in tleir custodg in th.e anwunt of ONE HUNDRED SDffY THOUSAIVD PESOS (Php16O,OO0.OO) Philippine CurrerucA, bg making it apgar that accused Magor RODRIGO MIAGA WENCESLAO is entitled to reimbursement claim on a putported proanrement of sixtg (6O) rolls of pE pIpES with a unit cost of Two Thousand Fiue Hundred pesos (Php2,500.00) per roll or the amount of ONE HUNDRED SD{TY THOUSA1VD PESOS (P4q16O,O00.OO) philippine Atrrencg, and auered by Clwck Nos. 2S2BB2 and 232866, bg falstfuing Disbursement Voucher under JEV No. 100-04-03-73O, through an untruthful narration of faA of procurement of sirtg 6O) rolls of PE pIpES made in behalf of the Municipalitg of Meida bg acansed Magor RODRIGO MIAGA WENCESLAO, wlen in truth and in fad said proatrement is false and ttw same rs Isrcum to them to be false thereby making said transaction to be disallotaed bg Commission on Audit under Notice of Disallowane No. O5-O94-1O1 dated June 24, 2OOS, to the damage and prejudice of the gouemment, partiailarlA tle Municipalitg of Merida, Legte.
I DECrSrOlt Criminol C.ose No. SB-16-CRM-1242-G3 People v. Wenceslao, et dl.
CONTRARYTO LAW.
Crimlnal Case No. SB-16-CRM-12SO
That on or about the 1gh of February 20O4, or sometime prtor or subsequent thereto, in the Municipalitg of Merid.a, Prouince of Legte, Philippines, and utithin tlte jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, acansed RODRIGO MIAGA WENCESLAO, a high-ranking ptblic olfiecr bein4 tLe Municipal Magor, conspiring and anfederating taith co-acansed namely:
1. EFUDA DUALLO OLAGUER, Municipal General Seruices Olficer and lulunicipal Accountant Designate, 2. JOSEPHINE MIAGA MOPON, Municipal Bttdget Offi.cer, 3. NENITA GOMEZ CENEA, Municipal Treasurer, and 4. ROSALINDA WENCESLAO CAS?Rq Utilitg Worker and Accountirtg Clerk,
did then and tLrere willfully, unlawfuUg, feloniouslg and utith abuse of tleir respectiue positions, misappropriate, misapplg, embezzle, conuert, consent, or through negligene permit any other person or ang of them or all of them to take public funds in their custodg in tte amount of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (Php30O,0OO.O0) Philippine Currerucg, bg making it appear that accused Magor RODRIGO MIAGA WENCESLAO is entitled to reimbursement claim on a Wrported proafiement of one lrundred twentA (120) rolls of PE PIPES with a unit cost of Tuto Tlwusand Fiue Hundred Pesos (Php2,500.O0) per roll or an amount of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (Php3OO,OOO.OO) Philippine Currencg, and couered bg a Check No. 232884, by falstfging Disbursement Voucler utth JEV No. 100-04-05-195, through an untruthful narratinn of faA of proatrement of one hundred ttaentg (IDO) rolls of PEPIPES madeinbehalf of tLte Municipalitg of Meidabg acansed Magor RODRIGO MIAGA WENCESLAO, uhen in truth and. in fact soid prostrement is /alse ond. tlw same is known to them to be false, rendering said transaction to be disallowed bg Commission on Audit under Notice of Disallowane No. O5-094-1O1 dated June 24, 2OOS, resultiq damage and prejudie to the gouernment, partiatlarlg to ttre Municipalitg of Merid.a, Legte.
CONTRARYTOLAW.
Cdntnal Case No. SB-16-CRI[-1251
9 DECTStO[t Criminol &se No. SB-16-CRM-1242-63 People v. Wencesldo, et dl.
Thnt on or about the lgh of February 2O04, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in ttre Municipalitg of Meridq Prouince of Legte, Philippines, and uithin the jurisdidion of this Honorabte Court, accltsed RODRIGO MIAGA WENCESLAO, a high-ranking public olficer being the Municipal Magor, conspiing and. confederatin4 uifh co-a.crused nam.elg:
1. EFLIDA DUALLO OLAGUER, Municipal General Seruices Officer and Wnicipal Aeountant Designate, 2. JOSEPHINE MIAGA MOPON, Municipal Budget Officer, 3. NENITA GOMEZ CENEA, Municipal Trea.strer, and ,,i i 4. ROSALINDA WENCESLAO CASTRO, Utilitg Worker and Accounting Clerk,
did tten and there uillfully, unlau;fullg, feloniouslg and uith abuse of their respectiue positions, misappropiate, misapplg, embezzle, conuert, consent, or through negligeruce permit ang otLrcr person or ang of them or all of them to take public funds in tlwir custodg in the a;mount of THREE HUJVDRED ?HOUSAIiD PESOS (PLp3O0,OOO.OO) Philippine Currency, bg making it appear that accused Magor RODRIGO MIAGA WENCESLAO is entitled to reimbursement claim on a pwported procurement of one hundred fiaentg (120) rolls of PE PIPES utith a unit cost of Ttuo Thousand Fiue Hundred Pesos (Php2,500.0O) per roII or an amount of THREE HUNDRED TH)USAND PESos (Php3OO,ooo.OO) Philippine Curencg, and couered bg a Check No. 352776, W faisifuing Disbursement Voucher utith JEV No. 1OO-04-O5-228, and supporting doanments such as Purch.ase Order, Purchnse Request, and Inspection and Acceptane Report, through an untruthful narration of fact of procurement of one hundred hlentg (IZO) roll"s of PE PIPES made in belnlf of the Municipalitg of Merida by acansed Magor RODRIGO MIAGA WENCESLAO, when in truth and in fact said procurement k faLse and the same i.s knaun to tlem to be false, rendering said tra n saction to be disallowed by the Commission on Audit under Notie of Disallowance No. 05-O94-1O7 dated June 24, 2O05, resulting damage and prejudice to the gouemment, particularfu to the Municipalitg of Merida, Legte. .i CONTRARYTOIAW.
Crlmlnal Case No. SB-16-CRM-1252 "*
That on or about the 17th dag of March ZOO4, or som.etim.e priDr or subsequent tfrcreto, in th.e Municipality of Merida, Prouince of Legte, Pfilippines, and within the fl 10
'..1 - 'irrJt DECtSTOFt Crimino{ Cose No. SB-76-CRM-1242-6i People v. Wencesldo, et ol-
jurisdirtion of this Honorabte Court, acatsed RODRIGO l MIAGA WENCESLAO, a high-ranking public officer being the Municipal Magor, anspiing and. confederating with co-a.eused namelg: .:
1. EFLIDA DUALLO OLAGUER, Municipal =l General Seraices Offier and Municipal A@untant Designate, 2. JOSEPHINE MIAGA MO?ON, Muntcipal Budget Offtce1 3. NENITA GOMEZ CENZA, Municipat Tfeasurer, and 4. ROSALINDA WENCESLAO CAS"Rq Utilitg Worker and Accounting Clerk,
did then and. there willfullg, unlaufullg, feloniauslg anl with abuse of their respectiue positior*, misappropiate, misapplg, embezzle, conuert, ansent, or tlrough negligenre permit ang other person or ang of ttem or all of ttem to talee public funds in tlwir anstodg in the amount of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (Php30O,OOO.00) Philippine Atnencg, bg makirry it aPpar th.at accused Magor RODRIGO MIAGA IIIEMESI"{O is entitled to reimbursement claim for a purported procurement of one latndred tuentg (120) rolls of PE PIPES uith a unit cost of Two Thausand Fiue Hundred Pesos (Php2,500.00) per roll or in tlp amount of THREE HUNDRED TH)USAND PESOS (php3OO,OO0.OO) Philipptne Currency, and couered by a Ctreck No. 232905, bg falstfuing unnumbered Disbursement Vottcher under JEV No. 100-04-O5-278, through an untruthful naration of fact relating to prostrem.ent of one lrundred tuentA (12O) rolls of PE PDES made in behalf of the fuIunicipalitg of Meri.da bg acansed Magor RODRIGO MIAGA WENCESLAO, ulen in truth and in fact said procurement is false and tle sam.e is knou.m to tlem to be false, rendeing said. transaction to be disallotted. bg Commission on Audit under Notice of Dballoutance No. 05-094-101 dated June 24, 2005, resiltirq to the damage and prejudice of tle gouemment, partianlarlg the Municipalitg of Merida, Leyte.
.ri, CONTRARYTO LAW.
Crinlnal Case No. SB-16-CRM-1253
That on or about he sAh day of March 2O04, or 't,i sometime prior or subsequent tlereto, in the Municipalitg of Merida, Prouince of Leyte, Philippines, and within tLre jurisdictioru of this Honorable Court, accused RODRIGO MIAGA WENCESLAO, a high-ranking public offiw being .:, the Municipal Magor, conspiring and confederating with a-accused namelg: ,.:
11 DECtSrq!{ & i mind co,se No. 5B-|6CRM- 7242-6 3 People v, Wencesloo, et al.
1. EFLIDA DUALLO OLAGWR, Municipal General Seruices OJficer and Municipal Accountant Designate, 2. JOSEPHINE MIAGA MOPON, Municipal Budget Officer, 3. NENITA GOMEZ CENIZA, Municipal Tfeasurer, and 4. ROSAI,INDA WENCESLAO CASTRq Uttlitg Worker and Accounting Clerk,
did t?En antd there uillfullg, unlatufullg, feloninuslg and with abuse of tteir respectiue positiors, misappropriate, misapplg, embezzle, conuert, con sent, or tltough negligene pennit anA other person or ang of ttem or all of them to take public funds in their atstodg in tle amount of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (Phq1OO,OOO.O0) Philippine AtrencE, bg making it dppear that acansed Magor RODRIC,O MIAGA WENCESLAO b entitled to reimbursement claim on a pwported proanrement of forry Hq roll"s of PE PIPES utith a unit cost of Tulo Thousand. Fiue Hundred Pesos (Php2,5OO.OO) per roll or an amount of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (Php1O0,OO0.00) Philippine C\rrency, and couered bg a Check No, 3528O3, bg falstfUitts Disbursement Voucher uith JEV No. 10O-04- 03-136, tlvough an untruthful nanation of fact relating to proanrement of fortg (40) rolls of PE PIPES made in behalf of tlre Municipalitg of Merida bg acansed Magor RODRIC,O MIAGA WENCESLAO, utlten in truth and in fact said proanrement is false dnd *E same is knoun to tham to be false, rendeing said transactioru to be disallowed bg Commission on Audit under Notice of Disalloutance No. 05-094-10L dated June 24, 2005, reailting to t?re damage and prejudice of ttre gouernment, particularfu the Municipalitg of Merida, Legte.
COITTRARYTOLAW.
Crluiaal Case No. SB-16-CRM-1254
That on or about thE s$h dag of March 2004, or sometime pior or subsequent thereto, in tle Municipalitg of Merid.a, Prouince of Legte, Philippines, and uithin the jurisdidinn of thi.s Honorable Court, acansed RODRIC,O MIAGA I,IZEIVCESLAQ a high-ranking public officer being the Municipal Magor, conspiring and confederating with co-accused namelg:
1. EFI,IDA DUALLO OLAGUER, Municipal General Seruices Olfier and Municipal Accountant Designate,
L2 DECtSTOH Criminol case No. SB-15-CRM-1242-63 People v, Wencesloo, et dl.
2. JOSEPHINE MIAGA MOPON, Iulunicipat Budget Officer, 3. NENITA C,OMEZ CENEA, Municipat T?easure4 and 4, ROSALINDA WENCESLAO CASTRO, Utilifu Worker and Acnunting Clerk,
did then and tltere willfully, unlawfullg, feloniouslg and with abuse of their respectiue positions, misappropiate, misapplg, embezzle, conuert, consent, or tlvough negligene permit ang other person or ang of them or all of them to take public in their arctod.g in tlte funds ,i.'; amount of TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (Php2OO,OOO.0O) Philippine Currency, bg making it apgar that acansed Magor RODRICO MIAGA WENCESLAO is entitled to reimbursement claim on a purported proanrement of erghtg (80) rolb of PE pIpES ttith a unit cost of T .to Thousand Fiue Hundred Pesos (Pbp2,5OO.OO) per roll or an amount of TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND PES2S (Php20O,O0o.OO) pttitippine Atrrencg, and. couered bg a Clwck No. 352804, bg falsifuing Disbursement Vouch.er under JEV No. iOO-04- 03-139, through an untruthful narration of fact of proanrem.ent of eightg (80) rolls of PE PIPES made in behalf of the Municipalitg of Merida by acansed Magor RODRIGO MIAGA WENCESIAO, wLren in truth and in fad sail procurement is false and thE same is knotun to tlem to be fal,se, rendering said transaction to be disallawed bg Commi.ssion on Audit under Nottce of Disallotaaruce No. O5-094-101 dated Jurue 24, 2OOS, resultihg to the damage and prejudice of the gouemment, partianlarfu tlre Municipalitg of Merid.a, Legte.
CONTRARYTOLAW.
Cdminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-1255
TLnt on or about the 3Ah dag of March 2004, or sometime pior or subsequent thereto, in the Municipalitg of Merida, Prouince of Legte, Philipph.es, and utithin the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, acansed RODRIGO MIAGA WENCESLAO, a high-ranking public offirer being tle Munictpal Mayor, conspiing and confederating with co-aea"sed namelA:
..i_i 1. EFLIDA DUALLO OLAGUER, Municipal General Seruices Offier and Municipal Amuntant Designate, 2. JOSEPHINE MIAGA MOPON, Municipal Budget Officer, 3. NENITA CAMEZ CENIZA, Municipal Tfeaxtrer, and ,L1
13 DECtStO6t Ciminal Cose No. 5B-16-CRM- 1242-63 People v" Wenceslqo, et ol.
4. ROSALINDA WENCESLAO CASTRO, Uttlitg Worker and Accountbq Clerk,
did then and there uiLfuUg, unlawfullg, feloniouslg and. utith abuse of their respectiue positions, misappropriate, misapplg, embezzle, conuert, consent, or ttvough i negligene pennit ang other person or ang of them or all of them to take public fun-ds in their anstodg in the amount of EIGHTY THOUSAND PESOS (Phg8O,OO0.OO) Philippine Curencg, bg making it appear that acansed Magor RODHIGO MIAGA WENCESLAO is entitled to reimbursem.ent claim on a purported proanrement of thit'tg hao (32) rolls of PE PIPES utith a unit cast of Tuo Thausand Fiue Hundred Pesos (Php2,5OO.OO) per roll or an amount of EIGHTY THOUSAND PESOS (PIW8O,OOO.OO) Philippine Currencq, and couered bg a Check No. 352801, bg falstfualg Disbursement Vottcher under JEV No. 10O-O4-03-135, through an untruthful narration of fact of proatrement of thirtg tuto (32) rolls of PE PIPES made in behalf of the Municipality of Merida bg acansed Magor RODRIGO MIAGA WENCESLAO, tulen in truth and in fact said procurement is false and the sam.e is knoun to them to be false, therebg making said transactiort to be disallotaed bg Commission on Audit under Notice of Disalloutance No. O5-094- 1O 1 dated June 24, 2005, resulting to the damage and. prejudire of ttte gouernment, partianlarlg the Municipalitg of Meida, IcAte.
COI{TRARYTO LAW.
Crioinal Case No. SB-16-CRM-1256
That on or about the 3Ah dag of March 20O4, or sometime priar or subsequent thereto, in tte Municipalitg of Meida, houince of Leyte, Philippines, and utithin the ! jurisdictton of thb Honorable Court, acansed RODRIGO MIAGA WENCESLAO, a high-ranking public officer beirq the Mwicipal Magor, conspiirug and confedemting uith co-acansed namelA:
1. EFLIDA DUALLO OLAGUER, Municipal General Seraices Officer and lulunicipal Accottntant D e s ig n ate, 2. JOSEPHINE MIAGA MOPON, Municipal l. Budget Officer, 3. NENITA GOMEZ CENIZA, Iulunicipal Tfeasurer, and 4. ROSALINDA WENCESLAO CASTRq Utilitg Worker and Accounting Clerl<.
did then and tlrere uillfullg, unlaufullg, feloniouslg and uith abuse of their respectiue positions, misappropiate,
74 DECtStOI Oimindl{dse No. SB-16-CRM-7242-69 People v, Wencesloo, et al.
mi,sapplg, embezzle, conuert, @nsent, or tlwough negl@en@ Wrmit ang otlrcr person or ang of them or all of them to talce public fund.s in their custodg in tle amutnt o/ OM HUNDRED NINETY THOUSAND PESOS (Ph919O,OOO.O0) Philippine CurrencE, bg making it appear that accused Magor RODRIGO MIAGA WENCESLAO is entitled to reimbursem.ent claim oru a purported proarrement of seuentA six (76) rolls of PE PIPES with a unit cost of Tuo Thousand Fiue Hundred Pesos (Php2,5OO.O0) per roll or an amount of ONE g HUN DRED NIN ETY THOU SAJVD PESOS (Php 1 O, O O 0. O O) Philippine Currency, and couered bg a Check No. 232948, bg fal"sifging Disbursement Voucher under JEV No. 100-04-O3-733, through an untruthful narration of fad of proatrement of seuentg six (76) rolb of PE PDES made inbehalf of tte Municipalitg of Merid.abg acatsed Magor RODRIGO MIAGA WENCESLAO, uthen in truth and in fact said procurement is false and the same is krwwn to them to be faLse, tlterebg makiq said transadion to be disallouted bg Commission on Audit und.er Notire of Disallouance No. 05-O94- 1 01 dated June 24, 2005, reailting to the damage and prejudie of the gouemfiient, partianlarlg ttrc Municipalitg of Merid.a, Legte,
CONTRARYTOLAW.
Crlminal Case No. SB-16-CRIU-1257
Ttnt on or about the 3Ah dag of March 2OO4, or sometime prior or subsequent ttereto, in the Municipalitg of Merid.a, houince of Leyte, Philippines, and within the jurisdictton of this Honorable Court, amtsed RODRIGO MIAGA WENCESLAO, a high-ranking public offirer being the fuIunicipal Magor, conspirin4 and confederating with co-acansed ndnTelA:
1. EFLIDA DUALLO OLAGUER, Iulunicipal General Seruices Officer and. Municipal Acauntant Designate, 2. JOSEPHINE MIAGA MOPON, Municipal Budget Offtcer, 3. NENITA GOMEZ CENIZA, Municipal Treasurer, and 4. ROSALINDA WENCESLAO CASTRq Utilitg Worker and Acaunting Clerlq
did then and ttwre willfully, unlawfullg, feloniouslg and utth afurce of their respectiue positions, misappropriate, misapplg, embezzle, conuert, con sent, or through negligence permit ang other person or ang of them or all of them to take public funds in their a$todg in the amount of TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS
15 DECtStON criminol {,Ese No. 5B-16-aRM- 1242-63 People v. wencesloo, et ol.
(Php2OO,0O0.OO) Philippine Currencg, bg making it appear that acansed Magor RODRIGO MIAGA WENCESLAO is entitled to reimbursement claim on a pnpofied proaffement of eightg (80) rolls of PE PIPES with a unit cost of Tllo Thousand Fiue Hundred Pesos (Php2,5OO.OO) per roll or an amount of TWO HUNDRED THAUSAND PESOS (Php2O0,0O0.0O) Phitippine CWrerrcg, and couered bg a CLwck No. 232g46, bg falsifuing Disbursement Voucher under JEV LOO-O4-03- L31, tlvough an untruthful narration of fact of proatrelnent of eightg (80) rolls of PE PIPES made in behalf of the Municipalitg of Merida bg acatsed Magor RODRIGO MIAGA WENCESLAO, when in truth and in fad said. proanrement is false and the same rs known to ttwm to be false therebg making said. trantsaction to be disalloued bg Commbsion on Audit und.er Notie of Disallouane No. 05-094-101 dated June 24, 2O05, to tle damage and prejudice of the gouemment, particularlg to the Municipatitg of Meida, Legte.
COIVTRARY TO LAW.
Crimtnal Case No. SB-16-CRIU-1258
That ort or about thp 3Uh dag of March 2O04, or sometime prior or subsequent tlereto, in the Municipalitg of Merida, Prownce of Legte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accttsed RODRIGO MIAGA WENCESLAO, a high-ranking public officer being the Municipal Magor, conspiring and onfederating with '+: a-acansed namely: j
1. EFLIDA DUALLO OLAGUER, Municipal General Seruices Offirer arud Wnicipal Accountant Designate, 2. JOSEPHINE MIAGA MOPON, Municipal Budget Offtcer, 3. NENITA GOMEZ CENIZA, Wnicipal Tfeasurer, and 4. ROSALINDA WENCESLAO CAS?Rq Wilifu Worker and Accounting Clerlg
did tteru and there uillfullg, unlawfullg, feloniouslg and ruith abuse of their respectiue positiorrc, misappropriate, : misapplg, embezzle, conuert, colsent, or through negligene permit anA ottrcr person or ang of ttem or all of tlem to talee public funds in tleir anstodg in the amount of ONE HUNDRED TEN THOUSAJVD PESOS (Php11O,0OO.OO) Philippine Cunency, bg making it appear thnt accused Magor RODRICTO MIAGA I WENCESLAO is entitled to reimbursement claim on a ,'] purporied proanrement of fortg four (44) rolls of PE PIPES utith r a unit cost of Ttuo Thousand Fiue Hundred Pesos rl
16 DECTSTOE Criminal tese No. SB-\6-CRM-1242-65 People v. Wencesloo, et dl.
(PIW2,5OO.OO) per roll or inthe amount of ONE HUNDRED TEN THOUSAIVD PESOS (Pdp11O,OOO.0O) Philippine Curencg, and couered by a Check No. 232947, bg falsifuing Dbbursement Vouch.er under JEV No. 1OO-04- 06-260, through an untruthful narration of fact of procurement of fortg four (44) rolls of PE PIPES mad.e in behalf of tle Municipalitg of Merida bg aca-ned Magor RODRIGO MIAGA WENCESLAO, ulwn in tntth and in fafr, said proanrement is false and the same is knou_n to ttwm to be false, rendering said transaction to be disailoued bg the Commission on Audit under Notie of I Disallousane No. 05-094-101 dated June 24, 2005, resultirlg in damage and prejudire of tLe gouentment, partianlarlg to tte Municipalitg of Merid.a, Legte.
COIrTRARYTO I,AW.
Criainal Case No. SB-16-CRM-1259
That on or about the 3Uh dag of March 2004, or sometime pior or subsequent ttrereto, iru the Municipalitg of Merid,a, Prouince of Leyte, Philippines, and uithin tle jurisdictian of this Honorable Court, accused RODRICTO MIAGA WENCESLAO, a high-ranking public officer being the lulunicipal Magor, cot'Lspiing and confederating uith co-acansed namelg:
1. EFLIDA DUALLO OLAGWR, Municipal General Seruices Officer and Municipal Accotmtant Designdte, 2. JOSEPHINE MIAGA MOPON, Municipal Ehtdget Officer, 3. NENITA GOMEZ CENIZA, Municipal Treasurer, and 4, ROSALINDA WENCESLAO CASTRq Uttlitg Worker and Accountirq Clerlg
did hen and tlnre uillfullg, unlawfully, felonianslg and taith abuse of their respectiue positions, misappropriate, mi.sapplg, embe le, conuert, consent, or ttvough negligene permit ang other person or ang of tlwm or all of th.em to take public funds in their anstodg in ttre aftwunt of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P|W30O,OOO.OO) Philippine Currencg, bg making it apryar that accused Magor RODRICA MIAGA WENCESLAO b entitled to a reimbursement claim on a pltrported finmtcial assistance to tlw twentA two barangags of the Municipalitg of Merida, Legte, cowring a Check No. 232936, tahen no budget appropriationfor tte subject expenditures nor specific program/ project fiom whidt said financial assistance is allocated thlts, fatsifunS Disbursement Vouclrer with JEV Na. 1OO-04- 03-128, bg falselg narrating therein the financial 17 r7 DECTStOfl Cri m ino I Eoj€ No. SB-\6CRM-1 242 -63 People v;wenceslao, et ol.
assisfance subject of the claim of acansed Magor RODRI0,O MIAGA WENCESLAO, uh.en in truth and. in fact accused knew that said financial assistanrr- is false ttrus, di,sallowed bg the Commission on Audit under Notire of Disallowance No. O5-O94-1O1 dated June 24, 2OO5, therebg causing damage and prejudice to tle gouernmen[ particularlg the Municipalifu of Merida, Legte.
CONTRARYTO I,AW.
Crimlnal Case lrfo. SB- I6-CRM- 1260 .t That on or about the gh dag of Mag 2004, or ',i sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the Municipatitg of Merida, Prouince of Legte, Philippines, and within tte jurisdidion of th;,s Honorable Court, acansed RODRIGO MIAGA WENCESLAO, a high-rankirry ptblic olficer being the Municipal Magor, conspiing and. confederating uith co-auused namelg:
1. EFLIDA DUALLO OLAGUER, Municipat :.,.i General Seruices Officer and Municipal r1 Aatauntant Designate, 2. JOSEPHINE MIAGA MOPON, Municipal Budget Offtcer, 3. NENITA GOMEZ CENIZA, tuIunicipal 4l Treasurer, and 4. ROSALINDA WENCESLAO CASTRO, Utilitg Worker and Accannting Clerk,
did fuen and tlwre u)illfullg, unlaufutlg, feloniouslg and. ttith abuse of their respectiue positions, misappropriate, misapplg, embezzle, conuert, coftsen[ or thrutgh negligene permit ang other person or ang of tlwm or all of them to take public funds in their anstody in the amouftt of ONE HUNDRED FIFW THOUSAIVD PESOS (Php15O,OOO.OO) Philippine Cuffencg, bg maktng it appear hflt accused Magor RODRIGO MIAGA WENCESLAO is entttled to a reimbursement claim for a purported financial assistance to the tuentg two barangags of the Municipalitg of Merid.a, Legte, ciueing a Check No. 352835, when no budget appropriation for the subject expenditures nor specific program/ project from which said financial assistance is allocated thus, falsifU@ Disbursement Voucher uith JEV No. LOO-04- O5-2O8, bg falselg nanrating t?erein tlrc financial a.ssis;trrnce subject of the claim of acansed Magor RODRIGO MIAGA WENCESLAO, when in truth ard in fact, acatsed. kneu that said financial assistaruce is false, thus, disallouted bg the Commission on Audit under Notice of Disalloutance No. 05-094-lO1 dated June :I 24, 2005, tlwrebg causing daruage and prejudice to t
18 DECtStOtil Crimindl Cose No. SB-16-CRM-1242-63 People v Wencesloo, et ol.
gouemrnent, particularlg to tLw Municipalitg of Merida, IEAte.
CONTRARYTO LAW.
Crlmlnal Case No. SB-16-CRM-1261
TTnt on or about the l1h dag of June 2OO4, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the Municipalitg of Merida, Province of Legte, Philippines, and uithin the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, acansed RODRIGO MIAGA WENCESLAO, a high-ranking public olfier being the Municipal Magor, conspiring and confederatirug uith co-accused ruamelg:
1. EFLIDA DUALLO OLAGUER, Municipal General Seruices Offier and Municipat Accountant Designate, 2. JOSEPHINE MIAGA MOPON, Municipal Budget Officer, 3. NENITA GOMEZ CENEA, Municipal Tlea.strer, and 4. ROSALINDA WENCESIA,O CAS?Rq Utilifu Worker and Accounting Clerlg
did then ond. there uillfullg, unlaufullg, fetoninustg and with abuse of tleir respectiue positions, misappropriate, misapplg, embezzle, conuert, consent, or through negligene permit ang otler Wrsorl or ang of tlem or all of thEm to take public funds in their custodg in the qmount of THREE HUNDRED TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (PW2O,O0O.O0) Philippine Currencg, bg making it appear tlnt accused Magor RODRIGO MIAGA WENCESLAO is entitled to reimbursement claim oru ct ptrported proanrement of one hundred twentg e@hl (128) rolls of PE PIPES uith a unit cost of Tllo Thnusand Fiue Hundred Pesos (Php2,50O.0O) per roll or in tle total amount of THREE HUNDRED TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (W320,000.00) Philippire Currerrcg, and uuered bg a Check No. 352882, by fakifuing unnumbered Disbursement Voucher under JEV No. 100- O4-OG253, through an untruthfut narration of facf of proc.fiement of one hundred haentg eight (128) roll,s of PE PIPES madein behalf of tle Municipalitg of Meridabg amtsed Magor RODRIGO MIAGAWENCESLAO, uhenin truth and in fact said procurement i,s faLse and the same is knoun to them to be false, rendering said. transaction to be disallowed bg the Commission on Audit under Notice of Disallowance No. 05-O94-1O1 dated June 24, 2005, resulting to the damage and prejudie of the gouemrnent, particularlg to the Municipalitg of Merida, ,t.I Legte.
19
.r:i:.t DECtStOH Crimindl tdse No. SB-16-CRM-7242-63 People v, Wencesloo, et ol.
CONTRARYTO LAW,
Crlnlaal Case No. SB-15-CRM-1262
Ttnt on or about the llth dag of June 2OO4, or 'i. sometime pior or subsequent thereto, in the Muruicipalitg of Merida, Prouince of Legte, Philippires, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused RODRIGO MIAGA WENCESLAO, a high-ranking public olficer being the Municipal Magor, conspiing and confederating uith co-aca)sed namelg:
1. EFLIDA DUALLO OLAGUER, Municipal General Seruices Offier arud Municipal Ac@untant Designate, 2. JOSEPHINE MIAGA MOPON, Municipal Bttdget Officer, 3. NENITA C,OMEZ CENEA, Municipal Tleasurer, and 4. ROSALINDA WENCESIAO CAS?Rq Utilitg Worker and Acaunting Clerl;
did thert qnd there uillfullg, unlaufullg, feloniauslg and. ruith abuse of their respectiue posttions, mi.sappropriate, misapplg, embezzle, conuert, consent, or through negl@en?E Wrmit ang other person or ang of them or all of them to take public funds in their custodg in tlw amount of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAM PESOS (P|W15O,OOO.00) Philippine Clmencg, bg makilrg it aplaar that accused Magor RODRICA MIAGA WENCESLAO is entitled to a reimbursement claim for a putported financial assistance to tle twentA tuo barangags of the Municipalitg of Merid,a, Legte, coueing a Check No, 352878, tahen no budget appropriationfor the atbject expenditures nor specific program.,/ project from u.thich said financial assistance is allocated thus, falsifgitq Di.sbursement Voucher with JEV No. 1OO-04- 06256, bg falselg narrating therein the financial assistance subject of the claim of acarced Mayor RODRICIO MIAGA WENCESLAO, when in truth and in fad, acatsed kneu that said financial assistancr- is false, tfuts, disallouted bg t?e Commission on Audit under Notice of Disallotuance No. O5-094-1.07 dated June 24, 2005, tlerebg causing damage and prejudice to the gouernm.ent, partianlarlg to tLe Municipalitg of Merida, Legte. ,,.
CONTRARYTO LAW. ,.1
Crlniaal Case No. SB-16-CRM-1263
20 DECTSTOn Criminol Case No. SB-76-CBM-1242-63 People v: Wencesldo, et ol.
T'hat on or about the 28h dag of June 20O4, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the Muninipalitg of Merida, Prouince of Legte, Philippines, and. utithin tte jurisdiction of thi"s Honorabte Court, acansed RODRIGO : ,.'l MIAGA WENCESLAO, a high-ranking public offier being tte Ltunicipal Magor, conspiring and confederatin4 with co-acansed namelg:
1. EFLIDA DUALLO OLAGUER, Municipal General Seruices Officer and Municipal Accountant Designate, 2. JOSEPHINE MIAGA MOPON, Municipat Budget Officer, 3. NENITA GOMEZ CENIZA, Mttnicipal Tfeasurer, and 4. ROSALINDA WENCESLAO CASTRO, Utilitg Worker and Accounting Clerk,
did then and there uiilfullg, unlaufullg, feloniouslg and with abuse of their respectiue position s, misappropiate, misapplg, embezzle, conuert, consent, or through negligerure permit anA otLrcr person or ang of them or all of them to take public funds in their anstodg ift *E amount of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAIVD PESOS (Ph9150,OOO.OO) Philippine Currency, bg making it appeqr that acansed Magor RODRIC/C. MIAGA WENCESLAO is entitled to reimbursement claim on a purported procl$ement of fifiq (50) rolls of PE PIPES taith a unit cost of Two Thousand Fiue Hundred Pesos (Php2,5OO.O0) per roll or an amount of ONE HUNDRED FIFW THOUSAIVD PESoS (Phpl 50,O0o.aQ Phitipphe Cuttencg, qnd couered bg a Check No. 3529OO, bg falstfgirrs Disbursement VoucLer with JEV No. lOO-04- 06-262, through an untruthful nanation of fact of Praqffement of fifiy (50) rolls of PE PIPES made in behalf of the Municipalitg of Mertda bg acansed Magor RODR/GO MIAGA WENCESI-A,O, uhen in truth and in fad said procurement is false and tlw same is knoum to them to be false, rendeing said transaction to be disalloued bg the Commission on Audit under Notie of Disallouance No. 05-094-101 dated June 24, 2005, reaiting in damage and prejudice to the gouernment, partianlarlg to the Municipalitg of Merido" LeAte.
CONTRARYTOLAW.
Upon his arraignment on August 22, 2017, accused Wenceslao pleaded "Not Guiltg" to all the charges.l Meanwhile, pursuant to Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code, the Court t Recorde, Volume l, p. 360. fl 27
JI DECtSION Ciminal fuse No. SB-16-CRM-1242-63 People v. Wencesloo, et dl. dismiesed the cases against accused Mopon due to her death.2 Accuged Olaguer, Ceniza, and Castro remain at-large.
During pre-trial, the parties joinfly agreed to stipulate on the following:
I That at all times relevant to the cases, accused Rodrigo M. Wenceslao was a public officer, being then the Municipal Mayor of Merida, Leyte;
2 That accused Rodrigo M. Wenceslao admits his identity as the accused in these cases.3
Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSEICUTION l
The prosecution presented the following witnesses: Alvin :l T. Nogar, Atty. Luisita A. Catalon, Joselito Delos Angeles, Glicenio P. Kalaw, Eddie Autida, Joel Agustin, Felix Gingco, and Diosdado Urbano.
*lvln T. Nogar4 is the Record.s Officer of the Commission on Audit (COA), Regional Offrce No. VIIL In compliance with the subpdena issued by the Oflice of the Special Prosecutor (OSP), he brought with him a copy of Exhibits oW', *Y', \-1", oV-2', ov *y oy uy nv-g-A", uv -3" \ -4", -5", -6, r,,y -7", -9,r, "v-g-B", -g", nv-L3' uV- "v- los, "v- 1 1" to "V- 1 l-Ou ,, "v-12" , , "v-L4" , "v- 15", 16","V-17", and "V-18". The defense counsel admitted that they are faithful reproduction of the original document. Witness also has a copy of the other attachments to the subpoena, but tJ,e custody thereof is with the Legal Seryices Office department of COA.
On cross-examination,s he confirmed that the documents he identified are mere photocopies and tJ:e originat thereof is with the Regional Office. He was the one who certifred them to be true copies and those which are not in his possession were certilied by Luisa Yap. He also confirmed that his duty as Records Officer is only to safe-keep documents and that he has no participation in the production and preparation of the documents he identifred.
', ti'i 2 Id.. at 286. z Pre-Trid Order d.ated JanuarJr 26 2O18, Records, Volume 1, pp. 416-417 a TSN dated February 14, 2018 s TSN datrd February 15, 2018
22 DECtStON Criminol &se No. SB-16-CRM-7242-Oi People v. Wencesloo, etdl.
dtty. Lutstta A. Catalon6 is the Service Chief of the Legal Services of the COA, Regional Office No. VflI. Her principal duties and functions include reviewing draft decisions, investigation reports, cash examination reports, and complying with mrbpoenas issued by the courts and other investigating bodies. She received a subpoena from the OSP, directing her to bring the original copy oi documents relevant to the cases (Exhibdts "A" to "U" and oX" to .W-1'1.She brought with her certified true copies of Exhibits "H", nH-l', "H-2" "H-3", oH-+', ul', ul-L,, nl-z" ul-s", *r-4r, nJ, nJ-L", nJ-z", "H-5", "H-6',, , , "l-5r, , o u u rp- nxo, nyr, " J -3", J -+", J -5o, J -6", " J -7 ", "p" lr, "p-2", "p-3", and "8. The defense stipulated that all the documents, except *Z', Exhibit are faithful reproductions of the certifred true copies thereof. The other documents are with the Audit Team Leader of Mer:ida, Auditor Luisa Yap, who already passed away.
Witness narrated that in 2004, she was part of the Operations Team which conducted an audit of the local goverrtment units, nationa-l government agencies and corporate agencies. She was assigned to the national government agencies and corporate agencies but not to any local government unit. As far as she knows, Luisa Yap was a State Auditor who was assig4ed at Merida, Leyte in 2004. Witness, however, was not part of Yap's team that conducted an audit on the municipality of Merida in 2004. Likewise, she has no participation in the execution of the Notice of Disallowance and her knowledge thereof, is based only on the files maintained in the Legal Seniices. She also has no knowledge whether the PE Pipes were distrihrted.
Joselito Ilelos AngelesT is the secretary to the Sangguniang Bayal of Merida, Leyte since 1995. His duties and responsibilities include attending meetings, conferences and sessiotrs of the Salgguniang Bayan, taking minutes of all the meetirlgs, conferences, sessions, and proceedings of the SanggUniang Bayan, keeping custody of all the records enacted by the Municipal Council, and performing other duties designated to him by his supervisor.
He received a subpoena from the OSP, directing him to bring the appropriation ordinance which appropriated public funds for the purchase of PE Pipes and for the grant of linancial assistance to various barangays of the Municipality of Merida during the calendar years 2OO3-2OO4. He asserted that there is
6 TSN datbd March 1, 2018. 7 TSN dathd March 7, 2018.
z3 DECISION criminal alse No. iB-Li-CRM- 7242-63 People v. WenEesloo, et ol. no such appropriation ordinaxce in the records of the Sangguniang Bayan for the purchase of PE Pipes and grant of financ&al assistance to the different barangays of Merida for tJ:e years 2OO3 and 2OO4.
Gilicerio P. I(alaqF is the Supervising Administrative Officer of the Records Management Services of the COA. The prosec.ution offered for stipulation that the witness broughtwitJ: him tfrc original copy of the following documents: a) Decision of the CGA Legal Adjudication Offrce (LAO)-Local with Docket No. LAO-LocaI Decision No. 2006-1O0 dated September 14,2006 Qroseafiion's Exhibit "Z\; and b) LAO-Local Resolution No. 2OO7-OOI dated Januar'5r 72,2OO7 lproseqttion's Exhibit "AA1. The prosecution dispensed with his testimony after the defense counsel stipulated on said matter and confrrmed that the certified true copies are faithful reproductions of the original. However, the defense counsel made a counter- stipulation to the prosecution that the vritness has no personal knowledge as to the veracity of the contents of the documents, which tJle prosecution admitted. The prosecution further offered for stipulation that t-hese documents exist in the files of the COA, which the defense counsel likewise admitted.
Hdte Autldae is the Municipal Planning and Development Offrcer of Merida, Leyte. He spearheads the preparation of the comprehensive development plal of the municipality and coordinates with all the heads of the local departments, includlng the Association of Barangay Captains. He is also the Secretary of the Municipal Development Council since 1982.
FIe identified the Complaint-AfJidauiflo executed in relation to tl:e instant cases, which constituted part of his direct testirnony. It is his submission that there was irregularity in the procurement of the PE Pipes and the grant of financial assistance as they were not included in the programs, projects and activities in the Annual Investment Program (AIP) of the municipal government of Merida. Ttris prompted him to execute the sail Complaint-Affrdavit. Thereafter, their resident auditor, Luisa Yap, provided him a copy of the Notice of Disallowance. To his knowledge, the procurement of the PE Fipes and the grant of linancial assistance were not approved by the Munictpal Development Council.
I TSN datdd March 21,2018. s TSN dat€d April 4, 2018. 10 ErhibitBB.
24 ,,,..: DECtStOI{ Oimind Cose No. SB-16-CRM-1242-63 People v. Wencesldo, et al.
,On cross-exarnination, Autida admitted tJ.at he merely relied. on the Notice of Disallowance regarding the allegation that eccused Wenceslao misappropriated the amount of almost I Php3OO,000,OOO.OO from the Municipal Treasur5r. i
.,i , He acknowledged that as the Municipal planning axd .j Development Officer, functions his include monitoring and .i evaluation of the implementation of different progr€rms, projects .I and activities of tJre municipality and analyze the income and ,t'i ,1 expenditure patterns of the municipality in the implementation ; of thpse projects. However, he did not make any written comflaint on the alleged illegal transaction because he had no basis,until that time when he was provided a copy of the Notice of Dieallowance.
He averred that the procurement of the pE pipes was not submltted to the pre-Bids and Awards Committee and was not included in the AIP and the Annua,l Procurement plan (App) of Merida in the years 2OO3 and 20O4 since these were not included in the needs by the different department heads. Morecver, the Sangguniang Bayan did not promulgate or issue any aXrpropriation ordinance therefor.
Slhen asked if he knows that the Sanggunian created a :'l suppldurental budget afterwards, witness answered that to his knowledge, there was likewise no appropriation ordinance for { the sr4plemental budget.
.. ) He asserted that what accused Wenceslao did was that he ,.i used his own persoflal money to buy materials which were not included in the AIP and then reimbursed himself .I from t]le 'j1 municipal treasurer for the amount of those materials. He maintained that they should have been included in the AIp frrst :] and tlmt there should have been arr appropriation ordinance :I.i signed or approved by the Sangguniang Bayan. He reiterated that accused Wenceslao could not receive reimbursement from ,1 the mwricipalityfor the said materials as they were not included in the A.IP. t: .:t rllel Agustin,lr was the Barangay Captain of Barangay Mahalit, Merida, Leyte from 20O2 until 2O10. Sometime in
2OO+, he received a letter from the COA, requesting . ,/i confirmation of receipt of PE Pipes by Barangay Mahalit. In responBe tlrereto, he issued a Certification dated Januar5r 5, .11 r 1 TSN dated April 5, 2018. I
25 l
.j tr lri':.,] U DECISTON Oimindl Case No. SB-76-CRM-7242-53 People v. Wen@slao, et ol.
2005 stating that Barangay Mahalit did not receive any PE Pipes from tlre municipality of Merida for the period September 2003 to June 2OO4.L2
On cross-examination, he testified tJ:at in asking for a project or assistance from the municipality or provincial government, the baralgay, through a resolution, *o,rld have to first make a request to the Office of the Mayor. He admitted that he did not makl any request for PE Pipes from September 2OO3 until June 2OO4.
Fel$r Glngcol3 was the Barangay Chairman of Barangay Calunasan, Merida, Leyte from 1984 up to 2OO7. He stated that he receirred a letter from the COA, requesting confirmation of receipt of PE Pipes by their barangay. He thus issued a Certification dated January 5, 2005 stating that Barangay Calunasan did not receive any PE Pipes for the period September l, 2OO3 to June 2OO4.14 He forwarded the said certifrcation to the COA. He confirmed that he did not request for PE Fipes from the local government of Merida during this period since it was not a priority project of their barangay.
Diotds'do Urbanols was the former Barangay Chairrnan of Barangay Libjo, Merida, leSrte. The prosecution offered the following matters for stipulation: 1) tJ:at Urbano was the former barangay chairman of Barangay Libjo, Municipality of Merida; and 2l that he signed a Certification dated January 5, 2005 attesting that in the years 2O03 and 2OO4, Barangay Libjo did not receive any PE Pipes from the municipal government of Merida, Le5rte under tl e administration of former Mayor Rodrigo Wences1ao.l6 The defense counsel stipulated on the said matters and made a similar offer of stipulation, namely: 1) that before a project or assistarrce could be given to the barangay, it must first submit a resolution to the Office of the Mayor requesting for the same.
The witness further testified that during his term as Barangay Chairman, he requested for PE Pipes from the municipal government of Merida. However, his barangay did not receive any PE Pipes.
12 Exhibit V- I 1-1. tg TSN dated April 18, 2018 Ia Exhibit V- I 1 -c. 1s TSN dated April 19, 2018 16 Exhibit V- I I -i.
26 DECtStON criminol cose Ni. SB-16-CRM-7242-63 People v. Wenfusloo, et dl.
Aftm presenting its witnesses, the prosecution filed its Formal @fer of Euidence.tT The Court, taking into consideration the objections of the accused, resolved to admit the following u o o o exhibits: Exhibits x, A- 1", A-2,,,,,A-3", A-4",.,A-5', " A-6", " A_ nB-Zr,nB-S,oB_4", nB-6" uco oc-rr, 7"nBo, "B-1", "B-5", , "B_7o , , n n nD", *D- " c-2" "c-3", c-4,, "c-5,, c-6",,, c-7,,, rr, "D_2", "D_3r, oD-S" uBo, oE-!' nE.-2r' uB_3r' nF',, nF_I,, "D-4',, , , , "E_4o , "F_2" , "F_ uF nF-S", nF-6', o o rr n uc_sr, 3" r -+" Go, G- 1", G-2r',,,G-3r, G _4r, "G_ nH'roH-lr,"H-2",,,H-3r, uH-4r, oH_6o 6',ruc-7o, "G-g', "H_5r, ,"ro, or-3' or-4, or-5, nJ, uJ-ru uJ-2o *J-Sr, "r- l" , "l-P , , , , , "J-3" "J-4", oJ-7", oriJ, nK-7" , , , "J-6", "K-2", "K-3", "K-4", oK-Sr, nLr, nL-lo , uL_ oL-s".nL-4o, oL-6o, uL-7" uu-lr, oM_2r, oM_3", uM_ 2', , "L-1r, , "M" , nM-5" uM-6o, *N- r, u o 4" "Nr, 1 "N -2",,,N-3r, Or, O _ Ir, " O _2", " O _ oo-4o 3n uO-5", np' np-!, op-2" nQ, nQ-lr, , , , , , "p-3" , , , "Q-2" , "Q-3" , rR-3" oR-4n,,,R-Sr, .,R-6r, oSr, oS-2", nS_ "R', "R-1n, "R-2" r "S-1r, uT nT-3o nT-s" nT-6' uUt ny' nV_ 3n , , "T-L", "T-2" , , "T-4" , , , , , "V- 1", ov ny uy 2" -3" -4,, -5r, ov -6", "y -7",,,V-gr, "v_g_a", "v_g_b", "v_ 9", "V-10', "V-11", "V-11-a", "V-lL-b", "V-11-c", uV-11-d", nV- uV-11-o", "V-11-1", "V-11-m', "V-11-n', "V-11-p,,, "V-11-d, "V- *wr, uxo,*x- nzo, 12", "v-18", "v-14", "v-15", 1,,, ny, nAA", *BB, and "BB-1',.18
The prosecution frled a Formal Offer of Additional Doanm.entary Euidence consisting of Exhibits "A-1-b", nA-1-c", oA-Z-a", "A-l-{, "B-1-a", "B-1-b', "B-1-c', "B-z-a", "C-|-*, "C- 1-b', "C-1-c", "C-2-{, "D-1-a', uD-1-b", "D-1-c", "D-Z-{, "E-l- *,"F-I-8f, oF-1-b', "F-1-c", "F-2-a", "G-1-a", nG-1-b", "G-l-c", "G-2-*, T H-L-{, "H-1-b', "H-1-c", "H-z-a", ul-l-a', nI-1-b", "I-1- o nK- c", "I-z-a", " J - l-a", "J- I -b", J - 1 -c", " J -2-*, "K- l-a", 1 -b", "K- l-c", "K-Z-af, "L-l-*, "L-!-b", "L-l-c", "L-2-{, "M-1-a", "M-1- tM-1-e', *N-1-a', b"r "M-2-8", "N-1-b", "N-1-c", oN-2-a", "O-1-a", uP-1-b', "O-l-b', "O-1-c', "O-z-d', nP-l-*, "p-l-c", "P-Z-a", "Q- nQ-l-co, 1-a", "Q-1-b', "Q-2-a", *R-1-a', "R-1-b", uR-1-c', "R-2- oS-1-e', a', oS-l-b', "S-1-c', uS-2-a', "T-l-a.,, "T-I-b", "T-I-c", ar:d"T-z-af.te The Court resolved to admit the aforementioned exhibits.m
EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE
The defense presented the follouring witnesses: Noel Mercadal, Sr., Amor S. Zarco, Avelino R. Campehios, Mario B.
17 Records, Votr. f, pp. 501-766 tB Id- at783. te Records, Vol. 2, pp.336-343. 20 Id. at 346.
27 DECISION Crimindl Cose flo. SB-16-CRM-7242-65 People v. Wen@sloo, et ol.
Luzares, YolandaA. Jordan, Bebiana S. pales, Helen O. panilag, Berlito Jordan, Gerardo B. Pening, Florencia D. ybaiez, Zosima l. Lapaz, Perfecto G. Roble and Rodrigo M. Wenceslao.
Noeil Mercadal, Sr. was the Barangay Chairman of Barangay Calunangan, Merida from 1997 to 2OO7. In his Judicial AJfidauit,zt yr. stated that during his stint as Barangay Chairmarr, he had a project to expand the sources of water supply in their barangay since the common faucet only supplied fifteen (15) households. To address the issue of water supply in their barangay, the barangay council issued a resolution, requesting for PE Fipes from the Office of the Mayor. After around trro (2) months, the PE Pipes were delivered to their barangay hall and witness personally received the same. He then apointed a barangay kagawad to supervise the implementation of the water system project. He was present when the PE Pipes were being laid to be connected to the water sources and to the clustered community faucets/houses.
He denied signing a certification of non-receipt of pE Pipes.zz He also denied being interviewed or asked by any one from the COA regarding the water system project. He averred that the FE Pipes were laid all over and within the vicinity of the barangay and no one from the COA ever visited or inspected the pipes.
On cross-examination,23 he confrrmed that he did not attach arry barangay resolution to substantiate his claim. There is likewise no proof showing that he indeed received the materials.
On re-direct examination, witness stated that the barangay's copy of the resolution requesting for assistance from the Mayor's Office as well as the proof of receipt of the PE Fipes were lost when their barangay was hit by a typhoon.
On re-cross examination, he stated that he did not have any photo of tJ:e laid pipes.
Amor S. Zarco was the Baralgay Treasurer of Barangay Poblacion, Merida, k5rte from 2001 to 2OO7. ln her Judicial Affidauit,z+ she stated that she witnessed the barangay captains sign tJ:e complaint filed with the Ombudsman against accused
2t Id.. at 66-75, ,2 Exhibit v- I i -b. 23 TSN dated Uarch 6, 2019. 2a Records, Vc1. 2, pp. 53-65.
28 tr lri':.,] U DEC/StON Criminal Cose No. SB- 16-CRM-7242-63 People v. Weflcesloo, et ol,
Wencedao. She further stated that she was never interviewed by anyorre from the COA regarding the water system project nor was theie a time that anyone visited or inspected the PE Pipes which were laid all eysl and within the vicinity of their baralgey.
She identified the affidavit she executed wherein it was stated that sometime in 2004, a-fter a meeting of all barangay chairmen and baralgay treasurers of Merida, Barangay Captain Ramiro Nadin brought her to the oflice of Joseph Solana, tJre Municipal Assessor. Nadin and Solana handed her a one-page document bearing the names of the following barangay captains, namely: Ramiro Nadin of Barangay Poblacion, Bernardino Perez of Batangay Lundag, Romeo Pening of Barangay Canbantug, Erlinda Guiflarez of Barangay Masumhang, Rogelio Casimero of Barangay Cabaliwan, all of Merida, Leyte. They asked her to let those barangay captains sign the said document for the purpose of issuing a resolution. Only the signature page was given to her for the barangay captains to sign. All the barangay captains whose names appeared therein signed the document after she told them that it was intended for a resolution. They no longer asked what the resolution was all about and they signed the document considering that Radin already signed the same. She then gave the signed paper to Solana. Nadin later told her that the said document was a complaint/affidavit2s against Wenceslao concerning the PE Pipes. When she confronted Nadin, the latter told her that he would glve an explanation to tl:e barangay captains who signed the document.
Wtness averred that Barangay Poblacion did not receive PE Pipes because they did not request for the sanre.
Avclino R. Campehios, in his Judicial Affidauit,zo stated that he was a Barangay Kagawad and Chairman of the Infrastructure Committee of Barangay Libas, Merida, Le5rte from 2OO1 to 2OO7. As Chairman of the Infrastructure I Committee, part of his duty was to look into tfre needs of the I i barangay in relation to infrastructures and to make l, recommendations to address the same. He also supervised the implernentation of the approved projects of tJ e Infrastructure
Committee. tl
2s Exhibir BB 26 Records, Vol. 2, pp. 90-100
29 DECISTON Crinindl Cdse No. SB-76-CRM-1242-6] People v. w$tcesloo, et ol.
He narrated that in 200 1, to address the problem of insuflieient supply of water in their barangay, the barangay council issued a resolution requesting for PE Pipes from the Oflice of the Mayor. The PE Pipes were delivered to the house of Barangay Captain Bienvenido Cabrahan since their barangay hall had no space to safe-keep them. Pursuant to the decision of the barangay council, tlre barangay captain asked that the PE Pipes be laid. Witness was the one who supervised and monitor,ed their installation.
He denied being a privy to the Certification of non-receipt of PE Pipes allegedly issued by Barangay Captain Cabrahan.2T He, however, claimed that there is no trrth to the said Certification. He asserted that their barangay received pE Pipes from the Office of the Mayor; otherwise, there were no pipes to be laid. He further stated that no one from the COA asked or interviernred him about the water system project. Neither did they conduct an investigation or audit thereon.
Hc confirmed that he did not execute any alEdavit to support his assertion that he indeed accepted the PE Pipes. He also admitted that he has no copy of the resolution passed by the barangay council requesting for PE Fipes as well as any document showing that the pipes were indeed delivered to their barangay.2e
Upon questioning by the court, witness confirmed that the installation of the PE Pipes was the only project in their barangay relative to water supply in the year 2OO1. He stated that the PE Pipes were installed only in one district in Barangay Libas. He further stated that there was a list of those who volunteered in installing the pipes but it was destroyed during the typhoon Yolanda.
He admitted that he was not present when the PE pipes were aetually delivered to the house of the barangay captain. He was merely informed of the said delivery and he went to check the PE pipes after a month. Moreover, he was merely told that the PE Pipes came from the Office of the Mayor but he did not see any document that they indeed came therefrom.
Itfinrto B. Luzares was the Barangay Treasurer of ..1 Barangpy Libjo, Merida, Leyte from 1997 to 2OOT.lnhis Judicial !.)
27 Exhibit lf- I 1 -h . 28 TSN dated April 1, 2O19
30 DECtStON C minol Cosc No. SB-16-CRM-7242-53 People v. Wgnrcsldo, et dl.
Affidautt,zs he narrated that the barangay council decided to procure PE Pipes because of the inadequate source of water in their barangay. The barangay council issued a resolution, requesting for assistance from the Office of the Mayor. Therea-fter, PE pipes were delivered to their barangay hall and were received by Barangay Captain Eliosor Nodalo. The pipes were lald in the water source and were connected to the faucets in the districts. Barangay Captain Nodalo also supervised the implementation of the water system project. Witness asserted that these pipes are still being used until now.
He confirmed that he did not see Barangay Chairman Diosdado Urbano sign the Certification of non-receipt of PE PiPes.so
On cross-examination,3t he testilied tl.at he was not aware of an audit conducted by the COA relative to the PE Fipes. He asserted that there was a delivery receipt of the PE Pipes but it was lost due to typhoon Yolanda. On re-direct examination, he maintained that there \Mas no audit conducted by the COA on the delivery of the PE Fipes.
Upon questioning by the court, witness stated tJ at he participated in layrng the PE Pipes and was also present during their installation.
YOlaDda A. Jordan was the Barangay Secretar5r of Barangay Lrrndag, Merida, Leyte from Januarly 2001 to Jrrne 2O07. She narrated in her Judicial Affidouitsz that the water source nearest to their barangay is located in Barangay San Jose, r'rihich is about five (5) kilometers away. To address this, their barangay council passed a resolution, requesting for PE Pipes from the Office of the Mayor. After a month, the PE Pipes were delivered to their barangay hall through the LGU tmck. Barangay Chairman Bernardino Perez received the pipes and supervised the laying and connection thereof to the households. She further stated that she witnessed the laying of the pipes and the installation of the water system in their barangay.
In addition to the PE Pipes, their barangay also sought for financial assistance for their socio-cultural activities. For this pufpos, their barangay council also passed a resolution to the Office of the Mayor. Thereafter, the Mayor's Office issued a
2e Records, VoL 2, pp. I02-l l 1. 30 Exhibit V-11-i- sI TSN dat*d April 2, 20I9. 32 Records, Vol. 2, pp. 137-147 . rx 31 DECTSTON Criminal Cose No. SB16-AM-7242-6| People v. W$Eesloo, et ol. check to Barangay Captain Perez and the barangay treasurer issued a receipt therefor.
She claimed that there is no truth to tl:e Certificationss dated Januaqr 5, 2OO5 issued by Barangay Captain Perez because their barangay received the PE Pipes.
On cross-examination,3a witness testified that she has no copy of the aforementioned resolution requesting for PE pipes. The delivery receipt therefor was likewise lost during the typhoom. Yolanda.
Upon further questioning by the court, she stated that she was present when the barangay captain received the PE Pipes. She rei.terated that there was an acknowledgment receipt therefor but it was lost during the typhoon Yolanda. She added that the installation of the pipes took two (2)weeks. She claimed to be a beneficiary of this water system project from 2004 up to the present.
FurtJrer, she averred that she was not present when the aboveruentioned Certification was signed by Barangay Captain Perez.
E;biena S. Palesss was a Baranggay Kagawad of Macario, Merida, Leyte in 2OO1 to 2007. She was also the Chairman of the Cofrrmittee on Education. At that tirne, their only source of water \Fas a well near the river which provided for fifty-two (52) houseltolds. Since tJreir barangay had no source of clean water, it caused illnesses especially to the students, which affected their sehooling. Their barangay council decided to construct a tank/resenroir in tl e spring located at the nearby mountain. However, they were short of funds to bring down the water to the barangay proper. Hence, they requested for PE Pipes from the mrrnicipality. She prepared a resolution and submitted it to the Offrce of the Mayor. The mayor approved their request and PE Pipes were thereafter delivered to their barangay hall. The pipes were received by Kagawad Jerry Alonzo, the chairman of the lh-frastructure Committee. The barangay captain distributed the PE Pipes to the district leaders for the latter to lay and connect them to the waterfall/spring going to their respective districts.
33 _j. Exhibit 1/_ I 1 ,q) sa TSN datcd April 22, 20 ts See Jud&,ial Alfidauito biana S. Pales, Records, Vol- 2, pp. L26-136
32 ;_r DECtStON oimindl cd* No, 5B-1GCRM-1242-63 People v. Wenceslao, et dl.
Witness contradicted the Certificotion dated Jaauar5r 5, 20O5 i*ued by Barangay Chairmal Teresita Alonzo stating the non-reoeipt of pipes.36 She claimed that she was there when the pipes were received. Until now, these PE Pipes are still connected to the tank and are still being used. She could not recall that a representative from COA conducted interviews or investigation of the PE Pipes. l Ofi cross-examination,3T she admitted that there was no l delivery receipt pipes when ttre were delivered to their barangay. 't She claimed that she is a benefrciary of the PE Pipes installed in their barangay. However, she has no proof that the pipes laid in their barangay were the ones re(luested or purchased by accused former Mayor Wenceslao.
Hslen O. Panilag was the Barangay Secretar;r of Barangay Cabaliwan, Merida, Le5rte from 200 1 to 2OO7. She narrated in her Judicial AJftdauitse that their barangay had no own source of water in 2OOL-2OO4. Their source of water was around trvo !'] 'l (2) kiloaneters away. They relied on a well but not everybody was l able to get water therefrom. To address this, the barangay I executed a resolution and submitted it to the Mayor's Oflice. ! Thereafter, the Offrce of the Mayor delivered to their barangay the PE pipes and the materials for the establishment of a water l system; which were received by Barangay Captain Rogelio Casimero. Kagawad Constancio J. Cabudol, Chairman of the i Commfrtee on Infrastructure, supervised the installation of the PE Pipes. {
J .{ She claimed that there is no truth to the Certificationdated, .i January 5, 2005 issued by Barangay Captain Perez.3e .: I Witness admitted just that the PE Pipes were delivered to j their harangay and that there was neither a resolution nor a : ,'] document aclcrowledging the receipt tl:ereof. Likewise, she has l no doclrment to prove that these pipes were actually installed in their barangay.ao I
She clarified that Barangay Captain Casimero was already j deceawd when the PE Pipes were delivered to their barangay. She further stated that some of the PE Pipes were installed in :'lll the mo{rntains and some in the houses of the beneliciaries. t
36 Exhibit V- I 1 -k. 37 TSN dated May 20, 2019. .\ '{ 38 Recordq, Vol. 2, pp. 173-182. ! 3e Exhibit V- 1 I -a. rd ao TSN dated May2l,2O19. .! ili 33 i
',:' ,.;i DECTStON Ctiminal Cost No. SB-16-AMJ242-63 People v. Wfftcesloo, et ol.
Eglito Jordan was a Barangay Kagawad and Chairman of the Health Committee of Barangay Cambalong, Merida, Le5rte from Jdnuary 2OO1 to June 2007. He stated in his Judicial Affid,asf1+t that in 2O01, their barangay merely relied on wells. They hed no source of clean water which resulted in illnesses such as diarrhea, stomach ache, or cholera to the residents. In additioo to that, the pipes used at that time were damaged. The barangay council thus decided to replace the pipes and put chlorine therein. Barangay Captain Teotimo Tahil requested for and was granted PE Pipes and chlorine by the office of accused former Wlayor Wenceslao. They were delivered to the town hall and were received by the barangay captain. They were thereafter delivered to their barangay hall. Barangay Captain Tahil distributed the materials to the barangay kagawads and asked them to lay and install the pipes. Barangay Captain Tahil himself supervised their installation.
Wi.tness claimed that there is no trrrth to the Certification of norr-receipt of PE Pipes issued by Barangay Captain Democrito Sagaldia. - On cross-examination,a3 witness confirmed that he does not have a copy of the barangay resolution and that tJre receipt of the pipes was lost due to typhoon Yolanda. He denied that there vpa's already an investigation conducted by the COA on the l PE Pipes prior to the ffihoon. Prior to 2013, accused Wenceslao approached him to secure documents showing that PE Pipes were indeed delivered to their barangay. However, witness did I ! not give him a copy thereof. He reiterated that he was at the barangay hall when the pipes were delivered and unloaded from the truck. Gorardo B. Pening was the Bararrgay Captain of Barangay Bello, Merida, Le5rte from Januar5r 2OOl to June 2O07. He narrated in his Judicinl Affidauifa that in 2OOI-2004, their ar Recorde, Vol. 2, pp. 212-224. 42 Exhibit V- 1 I -d. as TSN datEd June 3, 2019. ++ Recordq Vol. 2, pp.201-211. lfl 34 DECtStON Criminal Coe No. SB-X6-CRM-7242-6A People v, Wencesloo, et ol. barangay had no proper source ofwater. There was only one (1) well which provided water to more than ten (10) households. Upon learning that tle municipa-lity were distributing PE Pipes, their barangay requested for the sarne. A day after their request, accused Wenceslao asked them to get the PE Fipes, which were then delivered to their barangay hall. He recalled tJ at their baralgay received more than three (3) rolls of PE Pipes which were ueed to connect to the spring in tJ:e mountain going to the barangay proper. He and Barangay Kagawad Juanito Umabak supervised the implementation of the water system project. However, he has no knowledge if the pipes are still there because tl e spring has already dried up. H€ denied signing a Certification that he received two (2) rolls of PE Pipes from the Municipality of Merida.as He claimed + that the signature alfixed therein is not his. On cross-examination,ao vritness testified that he signed a receipt at the Office of the Mayor but he was not given a copy thereof. He clarifred that the PE Pipes in the mountains are already destroyed and the ones that they laid are still there. He stated ttrat he is not a beneliciary of the PE Pipes. Florencia D. Ybafiez was the Barangay Treasurer of Barangay Benabaye, Merida, Le5rte from 2OO4 to 2O07. She testifred through }irer Judicial Affidauit+z that the Merida Water District is their source of water since 1998. However, the charges imposed by the said water district were too cosfly. Hence,. their barangay constructed their own water source separate from the Merida Water District and for this, they sought'assistance from the Office of the Mayor. They prepared a resolts.tion which they submitted to the Mayor's Office. Two (2) weeks thereafter, the PE Pipes were delivered to their barangay hafl. Tnrey also requested for funds for the socio-culflrral activities of the barangay and Captain Berlito Sanchez received the fingncial assistance therefor. She claimed that there is no truth to the Certificationae of. non-receipt of PE Pipes issued by Chairman Mario D. Ignacio since t}re latter was not the chairman at the time the barangay received the PE Pipes from the Mayor's Office. 4s Exhibit V-11-p. a6 TSN datd June 3, 2019. a7 Records, Vol. 2, pp. 22A-239 lfi 48 Exhibit V- 1 1. 35 DECISTON Criminol CosE No, 5B-16-CRM-1242-63 People v. Weflcesloo, et al. She insisted that there is a resolution requesting for PE Pipes and finartcial assistance but it was lost due to typhoon Yolande. Witness also claimed that their barangay captain signed a document for the receipt of the PE Pipes. However, the said bAangay captain has already died. Further, she stated that their barangay did not submit liquidation papers for the financial aid that they received.ae Zoeima I. Lapezso was a Barangay Kagawad and Chairnmn of tJ,e Health Committee of Barangay Benabaye, Merida, Leyte from 20O4 to 2007. She testified that since 1998, the source of water in their barangay was the Merida Water District, which was too costly for them. Hence, their barangay establighed their source water sought own of and they ,'] assistance from the Oflice of tJle Mayor for its construction. They prepared and submitted a resolution to the Mayor's Office. Two (2) weeks thereafter, the PE Pipes as well as the linancial aid for the installation of a cemented resenroir were delivered to lt ,: their bsrangay hall. ,ii She claimed that she does not have a copy of the resolution and the written proof of receipt of the PE Pipes because tJrey ,l were destroyed by typhoon Yolanda.st She confirmed that the I signatuue appearing in the Certificattons2 dated Januaqr 11, i 2OO5 d non-receipt of PE Pipes by Barangay Cal-unzo was : .: hers. It was the barangay captain who asked her to sign the ,li sarne. $trhen she affixed her signature in the Certification, only the nam.es appeared therein. She signed it considering that the barangny captain was her superior and a relative. She, however, denied appearing rl before the notary public Atty. Eusebio L I Otadoy, Jr. P5rfecto G. Robless is a former Barangay Kagawad and Chairutran of the Committee on Infrastructure of Barangay Mat- e, Merida, Leyte from 1994 to 2OO7 . To address Barangay Mat- e's prohlem on water, through a resolution, they requested for i ! PE PiBes from the Office of the Mayor. Two (2) months t1 ,-t tl:erea-fter, PE Pipes were delivered to their barangay hall and Ii were received by Captain Paciano Travero. Witness was present when the pipes were delivered. He averred that there is no truth ,} to the Certificationsa of non-receipt of PE Pipes issued by .,: ae TSN daEd July 2, 2019. 3o See Jufuial Alfrd.auit of Zosima L Lapraz, Records, Vol. 2, pp. 241-252. sl TSN dabd July 3, 2019. s2 Exhibit v-l 1-e. st See,fufublAfidauilof Perfecto G. Roble, Records, Vot. 2, pp. 299-308. l s4 Exhibit V-I1-n. I 36 "1 iJ ':-.,r1 DECtStON Criminol Case No. SB-L5-C4M- D42-6i People v. Wehcesloo, et dl. Captain Paciano Ttavero since witness himself saw and supervieed the laying of the pipes. Ttre resolution they issued and submitted to the Office of the Mayor as well as the proof of receipt of the PE Fipes were destroyed during the typhoon Yolanda. He claimed that tJ:e signature appearing in the Certilication is not the signature of Paciano Ttavero.ss Rtdrigo M. Wenceslaos6 was the Mayor of Merida, Le5rte from 1992 to 2004. When he became the mayor, he prioritized the follewing: (a) to have an adequate water system/facility; (b) to help those who were hospitalized and died from diarrhea and cholera as well as from road accidents; and (c) to provide a proper road network for efficient communication and for the livelihood of farmers and fishermen. He instructed the Municipal Planning Oflicer to include tJrose priority projects in the AIF. However, the Municipal Planning Officer failed to include them therein. It was only in 2003 when those projects were in*Iuded in the AIP, which was thereafter submitted to the Sanggr-miang Bayan for approval through the General Appropriation Ordinance. The Sangguniang Bayan approved all :: the matters contained in the AIP for the year 2O03. However, all these documents were destroyed due to typhoon yolanda. ,| Tke AIP was based on what has been agreed upon by the l Municitrlal Development Council, composed of all the 'l department heads and barangay captains. Wenceslao learned through the AIP about the lack of proper water system in their town, which caused illnesses such as diarrhea and cholera to the residents. He informed the barangay captains of the ',1 approval of the AIP. The barangay captains submitted their respective resolutions, requesting for PE Pipes financial i and ,i assistas.ce for the construction of a tank/reservoir to store 'l water coming from the spring. The PE Pipes would be used as a passag€way of water from the spring to the tank located at the foot of the mountain near the barangay proper and going to the districts where there would be a communit5r faucet. ;} Wenceslao confirmed that he bought the PE Pipes using : his pensonal money because of the urgency of tle requests. Moreover, if the process of releasing the budget was observed, the prq{ect would be covered by the election ban. He recounted rl that errery time a barangay would submit a resolution to his ss TSN datad August 1, 2019. sa See Judbinl Afrdaat of Rodrigo M. Wenceslao, Records, Vol. 2, pp.2Za-298 n 37 ,; DECtStON Crimindl Cqse No. SB-76-CRM-1242-63 People v. ]yiF,nceslao, et dl. office, he would order the pipes from the supplier and immediately pay for them. The budget officer assured him that .j1 he could apply for reimbursement. When the budget for the .,1 water system was already available for release, he clajmed for .i !i reimbrrsement from the municipal government of Merida. He narrated the process for the application of reimbursement. He a frrst flIed an application for reimbursement to tJ:e municipal budget oflicer. Attached therewith were the barangay's ,i resolution request for assistance, receipt, delivery receipt and inspecfion report. The municipal accountant was the one who Itled the application for reimbursement. After his application was approved, the Treasurerb Office informed him that a check was available for his reimbursement. He insisted tlat there were resolutions requesting for assistance from the barangays and these were included in the attachrnents that he submitted when he asked for reimbursement. He asked the barangay captains who signed the certif,rcations of non-receipt of PE Fipes from his office and they derried that they signed such certifications. They even told him tha't tJ:ey are not familiar with the notary public before whom they aJlegedly appeared. He denied that he failed to deliver PE Pipes to the barangays as the barangay captains and kagawads themselves received the same. In2OO4, he went to the recipient barangays, inspected their project and conlirmed that they used the said PE Pipes. However, in a recent visit, he saw that the PE Pipes in most of the barangays were already damaged due to the lapse of time.s7 i ,] Orr cross-examination,s8 accused conhrmed that he is "'r familiar with the rules on procurement of materia-ls and l servicea. He also confirmed that the water system/facilit5r projectwas not referred to the Sangguniang Bayan for approval and paasage of appropriation ordinance to fund tl e project. He admitted his signature in the disbursement vouchersse ald Landbark checks.60 He likewise admitted that he received the checks for the items in the disbursement vouchers. 57 Exhibit 22. sa TSN dated September 9, 2019. se kI, Erftibits &- 1-a, A-1-b, A-1-c, B-I-a, B-1-b, B-1-c, C-1-a, C-1-b, C-1-c, D -a, D-1-b, D-1-c, F- 1- a,F-1-b, F-l-c, G-1-a, G-1-b, G-l-c, H-l-a, H-1 b, H 1-c, I-l-a, I-1-b, I-1-c, J-l-a, J-1-b, J-l-c, K-1-a, K-l-b, K-1-c, L1-a, L1-b, L1-c, M-I-a, M-1-b, M-I-c, N-1-a, N-1-b, N-1-c, O-1-a, O-1-b, O-l-c, P-l-a, P-l-b, P-I-c, Q-l-a, Q-L-b, Q 1-c, R-l-a, R-l-b, R-l-c, S-l-a, S-l-b, S-l-c, T-l-a, T-1-b, T-l-c. 60 E (hibits f,,-z-a, B-2-a, C-2-a, D-2-a, E-2-a, F-2 a, c 2-a, H-2-a,l-2-a, J-2-a, K-2-a, L-2-a, M-2- a, N-2-a, A-2-a, P-Z-a, Q-2-a, R-z-a, S-2-a, T 2-a. 38 DECISION Criminol Cafr No. SB-16-CRM-1242-63 People v. WarEesloo, et dl. Otr re-direct examination, accused Wenceslao was asked why did he not ask for the issuance of an ordinance for the approvel and implementation of the PE Pipes' project. He ErnswerEd that the AIP as well as the annual budget submitted to the $angguniang Bayan were good for one (1) year. He further said that tfre approval of the Sangguniang Bayan was no longer needed. before the implementation of the project since it was already'included in the annual appropriation ordinance and the AIP. According to him, the copy of the AIP is with the Sangguriang Bayan. However, he is no longer aware of its whereabouts because all their files were destroyed by ffihoon Yolande. In the same ma:nner, the barangay resolutions which are under the custody of the municipal accountant were likewise destroyed due to the typhoon. He explained that the term reirnbursement stated in Disburaement Voucher No. 03-13501 means that he was the one who adtanced the pa5rment for the PE Pipes. Hence, the disburgement voucher was for reimbursement. He further stated ftrat before he advanced the paynent for the PE Pipes, he asleed the budget officer if it could be subject for reimbuf,sement, which the latter confirmed. The reimbursement was pfocessed by the budget oflicer and tJ e municipal accountant. Hc identifred the canvasses for PE Pipes with Ormoc Mercury Hardware,62 Abel Lucero Enterprises,63 North Atlantic Hardw4re,6+ Brodeth Marketing,6s and the Abstract of Open/$ealed Canvass for Furnishing and Delivering of Materids/Equipment/ Supplies for the Municipality of tVleridsoo which was prepared by the municipal accountant, Elfida Olaguer. Therea.fter, accused Wenceslao submitted his Formal Offo of Euidence.67 The Court, taking into consideration the objectiwrs of the prosecution, resolved to admit the following exhibitE: Exhibits nl'to "1-F', u2",u4u to"4-H",u1o,o6n to "6-I", n8', t8-A', o8-Do n9-H', olTn, "8-B", "8-C", r "8-E', "9" to ulz', "t+", "L5' to "15-A', "16" to "16-8", "17" to "17-W", and"2Z" to 6I Exhibit I..1. 62 Edribit E. 6s Exhibit 8-a. 64 Exhibit 8.b. 6s Exhibit 8-c. 66 Exl bit Ed. 67 Records, Vol. 2, pp. 349-542. 39 ,nd DECtSTON C mindl &se No. SB-16-CRM-1242-69 People v. Wencesloo, et al. "22-H".68 It also noted the adoption by the defense of the uV- prosecution's Exhibits "8B", 1 l" "V-Il-aI I 1- nV-11-h',nV-Ll-i", nV-11-j', , , "V-ll-b", "V- d", "V-11-lC, and nV-11-m" as part of the testimonies of its witnesses. RIILING OF THE COIIRT Crtmtll,e.l Case Jtlos. S,B- I 6-CRIW- I 242-48 Wenceslao is charged with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, as amended, which reads: Sectlon 3. Comtpt practices of public oJfiers. In addition to acts or omissions of public oflicers already- penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corupt practices of any public oflicer and are hereby declared to be unlawful: xxx (e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions. Reduced to its elements, a violation under this provision reguireo that: (1) the accused is a public oflicer discharging admini*trative, judicia-l or officia-l fimctions; (2) the accused acted with marifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence; and (3) the accused caused undue injury to any party including the Government, or giving any private,party unwarranted benefrts, advantage or preference in the diseharge of his functions.6e The first element is undisputed, it having been stipulated during pre-trial that at all times relevant to these cases, accused Wence$ao was a public officer, being then the municipal mayor of the Municipalrty of Merida, Leyte. The second element may be committed in three (3) ways, i.e., through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, and/or gross 6E Id at 58O. 6e Garcia o. Bandiganbaga4 G.R. No. 197204, March 26, 2Ol4 nt 40 DECTStON c minol c6se No. SB-16-CRM-7242-67 People v. Wencesloo, et ol. inexcusable negligence. proof of any of these three (3) in conne€tion with the prohibited acts is enough to convict.io The ly-prerre Court explained these terms in Srson u. peopldr in the following m€utner: ,'bias,' 'Partialtty" is synonymous with which "excites a d{sposition to see and report matters as they are wished for ,,Bad rather than as they are.', faith does not simplv connote bnd -judpirnent or negligence; it imputes a dishonest purpose or seme moral obliquitv and conscious doing of a wrong; a breach of sworn dutv through some motive or intent or iIl will; it partales of the nature of fraud." ',Grose negligence has been so defined as negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally viith a conscious indifference to consequences in so far as other persons mav be affected. It is the omission of tllat care which even inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to take oE their own property. " Ae described in the Information in CriminatUse No. SD 76CRN-7242, acoused Wenceslao is charged for violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 30 19 for illegally disbursing public funds by making it appear that he is entitled. to reimbursement claims for the procurement of PE pipes when it was mad.e without an approred appropriation and there were no supporting documents that tJ'e items were actually purchased and acceptd by the intended benefrciaries/recipients . ln (Hlmlnal Case Jtlil. SB-76-CRIW-72423, he is charged for iltegally disburaing public funds by making it appear that he is entitled to reirrfiursement claims for the purported fina,cial assistance given to several bararrgays of Merida when tf:ere was no approrred appropriation nor supporting documents that there was a epecific project ot program for the uttlizatton of tJ.e said financinl assistance. A scrutiny of the evidence formally offered by the prosecution shows that it failed to prove tJre said charges against Wenceslao. Records revea_l that the prosecution failed to properSz identify and authenticate t].e documentar5r evidence which 8:e material to establish his guilt. Here, the prosecution offered the following documentar5r evidence: erhibft Descri A Joumal Ent4r Vouctrer No. 100-O4-03-12O dated March 2O04 for P100 o00.oo zo Abubakw u. People, G.R. Nos. 2O24Ot, 2O24Og and 2O2412, June 27, zofa 71 G.R. Nos\ 170339, 170398-403, March 9, 2010. I 4t { DECtStON Criminol C-iie No. SB-16-CRM- 1242-63 People v. Wencesloo, et dl. A-1 Undated Disburaement oucher No 03 Ico fot PI 0o 0o0 00 LB c A-2 P check No 000U2J 832 dated January 20o4 aTrt iuntinc Pt 0o ooo 0o b1e to Rod o wenceslao A-3 Undated Allotment and Obli tion SIi for P100 o00.00 Undated Purctrase Request of 40 rolls of PE Pipes for distribution ;1, A-4 to the 22 barangays for the maintenance of water system requested I and a Rodri Wenceslao Purch pE pipes A-5 ase Order dated November 2003 for 40 rolls of arloun P100 000.00 ed Rodri Wenceslao A-6 U11 dated Acceptance alld InSpection Report for 4o rolls of PE Pipes amo thers Rodr o wenceslao A-7 Requisition and Issue Slip for 4O rolls of PE Pipes requested and a b Ro Wenceslao B Journal Entry Voucher No. 1O0-O4-03-123 dated March 2004 for P100 o00.00 Disbursement Voucher No. 1O0-03- 1 1-O3- 123 dated August 2OO3 B-1 '. for P100 000.o0 .,, B-2 LBP Check No. 0000232833 dated JanuarJr 7, 2OO4 amounting Ploo oo0.00 le to Wenceslao 'j B-3 Undated A-llotment and Obli tion for Pl00 000.o0 Undated Purchase Request of4O rolls ofPE Pipes for distribution B-4 to the 22 barangays for the maintenance water of system requested J and Ro Wenceslao t B-5 Purchase Order dated November 2O03 for 4O rolls of PE Pipes Pto0 oo0.o0 ed Wenceslao "l B-6 Inspection and Acceptance Report for 64 rolls of PE Pipes sigr.ed 'i others o Wenceslao : B-7 Undated Requisition and Issue Slip for 4O rolls of PE Pipes ted and b Ro Wenceslao c Journal Entry Voucher No. 10O-04-03-742 dated. March 20O4 for P100 000.00 '' c-1 Disbursement Voucher No. O3-142 dated August 2OO3 for Pro0,o00.00 ; c-2 LBP Check No. 00O0352753 dated January 9,2OO4 amounting P100 o00.00 to Ro Wenceslao .',] c-3 Undated Allotment and Ob on Sl for P1O0 o00.00 . Undated Purctrase Request for 40 rolls of PE Pipes for distribution c-4 to the 22 barangays for the maintenance of v/ater system requested :i q4d approved by Wenceslao c-5 hrrchase Order dated November 20O3 for 40 rolls of PE Pipes q4qounting P 1OO,OO0.O0 signed by Rodrigo Wenceslao c-6 Undated Acceptance and Inspection Report for 40 rolls of PE Pipes ed am others Rodri o Wenceslao c-7 Undated Requisition arrd Issue Slip for 40 rolls of PE Pipes uested and db Rodri Wenceslao : Journal Entr5z D Voucher No. 100-O4-03-091 dated March 2OO4 for P75 000.o0 D-l Undated Disbursement Voucher No. 03-091 for P75 000.o0 !.i D-2 LBP Check No. 0O0O232849 dated January 13, 2004 a.uoounting w5 o00.00 b1e to Rodri Wenceslao I D-3 Undated Purchase Request for 30 rolls of PE Pipes requested and oved b Ro Wenceslao .l D-4 Undated hrrchase Order for 30 rolls of PE Pipes amounting P75 1 o00.00 Ro o Wenceslao ',] Inspection and Acceptance Report for 30 rolls of PE Pipes signed D-5 .l b amo others Ro o Wenceslao :, E Journal EntrJi Voucher No. 10O-04-03-118 dated March 20O4 for P300 000.00 . .,i {7 l:l ;il I ,. DECtStON Criminal fuse No. 5B-16-CRM-1242-63 People v. Wencesloo, et ql. LBP E-1 check No 0000352757 dated Januaflr 1 9 2004 amounting P300 000 o0 ble to o Wenceslao Undated E-2 Purchase Requ St for 1 20 rolls f PE Pipes requested ald a Wenceslao c E-3 Undated Purchase order for I 0 rolls of PE Pipes amounting P3oo o00 0o ed Rodr o wenceslao E-4 Inspection and AcceptanCC Report for I20 ro s of PE Pipes slgnled arn others Rodri o wences ao F Journal Entry Voucher No. 10O-04-O3-130 dated March 20O4 for P160 000.o0 F-1 Undated Disbursement Voucher No o3 1 3o for PI 6o 0o0 oo F-2 LBP ChEck No ooo02.)2866 dated January 29 20o4 amounting P80 0o0 o0 e t Rodri o we11ceslao F-3 LBP Check No OOOO232Aa2 dated Februar5r 73, 2OO4 a.rrounting P80 000.oo le to Wenceslao F-4 Undated Allotment and O tion Sli for P160 000.00 F-5 Undated Purchase RequeSt for 64 rolls of PE Pipes requested and Wenceslao F-6 Undated Purchase Order for 64 rolls of PE Pipes amounting PI60 o00 00 ed o wenceslao Journal G Entry Voucher No 100-04-05-195 dated May 2004 for P300 o00.00 .'. G-1 Undated and Unnumbered Disbursement \7oucher for P3o0 o00 00 1 G-2 LB? Check N o0o02J 2884 dated F bruary 1 3 20o4 amounting ii P3oo 0o0 00 bIe to I\ odri w 1Iceslao +:j Undated elnd e ed A1lo G-3 unnumb r tment and oblieation Slip for :11 P30o o00 0o ,ta .! G-4 Undated Purchas e Request for P300,0O0.O0 worth of 120 rolls of l PE re ested and a roved b Wenceslao i G-5 Undated Purchase Order for 12O rolls of PE Pipes amounting P300 oo0.o0 ed R o Wenceslao l G-6 Inspection arrd Acceptarce Report for 120 rolls ofPE Pipes signed b other Rodri Wenceslao G-7 Undated Acceptance arld Inspection Report for 12O rolls ofpE pipes re and ed Ro Wenceslao G-8 Undated Requisition and ISSu slip for 1 o0 rolls of PE Pipes ested arrd il^ d Wenceslao Joumal oo H Entry Voucher No 1 oo o4 05 8 dated May 2oo4 for P300 000 o0 H-l Undated Disbursement oucher for P300 000 o0 H-2 LBP Check No. 0000352776 dated Feb. 13, 2OO4 for P3OO,OOO.OO to Wenceslao H-3 Undated Allotment and Obli tion Sli for P30O 000.00 H-4 Undated Purchase RequeSt fot I 20 rolts of PE Pipes requested and a roved b Rodri wenceS1ao Undated H-5 Purchase Order for 120 rolls of PE Pipes amounting P300 o00.o0 ed o Wenceslao p H-6 ns ection arrd Accepta.rr R port for I 20 rolls of PE Pipes SIgrred b arno others Rodri wences1a I Journal Entr5r Voucher No 1OO-O4-05-218 dated May 2OA4 for P300 000.o0 I-t Undated Disbursement Voucher for P300 o00.oo I-2 l,BP Check No. 0000232905 dated March 1 1, 2O04 for P30O,0O0.OO to Wencesiao I-3 Undated Allotment and Ob on Sli for P3O0 o00.00 Undated I-4 Purchase Request for 12O rolls ofPE Pipes requested arrd Wenceslao ril ,fr l ,: DECtStON .l Criminol Co[,e No. 5B-16-CRM-1242-63 ,! People v. lf{*ncesloo, et dl. .i i I-5 Undated Purchase Order for I2o tolls of PE Pipes amounting P300 ooo oo ed b Rodri wenceslao I i J Joumal Entr5r Vouctrer No 1O0-O4-03-136 dated March 2O04 for P100 o00.00 ,j j J-1 LBP Check No. OO0O352803 dated March 30, 2004 for P1O0,O0O.OO letoR Wenceslao i'il.E .: J-2 Undated Allo'tment and obli arion SU for P10O 000.o0 J-3 Undated Purchase Request for 4O rolls of PE Pipes requested and j a Ro Wenceslao : J-4 Undated Purchase Order for 4O rolls of PE Pipes atnounting P to0 o00 00 ed Rodri Wenceslao ! J-5 Undated Purchase Order for 40 rolls of PE Pipes amounting 1 P 1 o0 I 000 0o Ro o Wenceslao -,1 Undated l J-6 Acceptance and nspection Report for 40 rolls of PE Pipes { amon others Rodri wenceslao I Undated Requisition and ISSue Slip for 40 rolls of PE Pipes I J-7 .l.,I ested and Rodri Wenceslao J K Journal Entry Voucher No 1O0-O4-03-139 dated March 2OO4 for P200 000.o0 .'1 'j K-t Undated Dis ,:) bursement oucher N o3 1 J 9 for P200 00o o0 ,! K-2 LBP check No 0o0o3 804 dated Mardr 30 2o04 amounting V20o oo0 00 ble to Rodr wenCCslao I .a K-3 Undated Allotment arrd Obli tion Sli for P200 000.00 .'t t$ K-4 U1]dated Acceptance and nSpection Report for 8o rollS of PE Pipes .1 ested €tnd d Wenceslao i Undated Requisition and SSllE slip for 80 ro11s of PE Pipes K-5 I ested and Ro werrceslao I L Journal Entr5r Voucher No 100-04-03-135 dated March 2OO4 fot P80 o00.00 r{ 4 L-1 Undated Disbursement oucher No o3- 1 5 for P80 ooo oo ,i L-2 LBP Check No. O000352801 dated March 30, 20O4 amounting l P80,000.oo ble to Wenceslao l I.3 Undated Allotrnent r and Obli tion Sli for PtlO 000.o0 i Purchase pE pi t-4 Undated Request for 32 rolls of pes requested and '4 oved Ro Wenceslao Purchase rder VE a! .) { L-5 o dated No mber 2003 for tolls of PE Pipes ,)1 amoun PI 0 000 o0 s ed wenceslao ri L-6 Un ted Acceptance and nSpection Report fot 3, rolls of PE Pipes ed €lIIto others Ro o wenceslao r-7 Undated Requlsltion and Issu stip for 2 rolls of PE Pipes ested and d Wenceslao M Journal Entry Voucher No 100-04-03-133 dated March 2OO4 for P190 000.00 M-1 Undated Disbirrsement Voucher N o3 1 3 for P 1 90 000 o0 M-2 LBP Check No 0000 J 2948 dated Mardr 30 2o04 amounting P 1 90 o00 00 to wenceslao M-3 Undated Purctrase Reque St for 76 rolls of PE Pipes requested and a roved b Ro wenceslao M-4 Purchase Order dated November 200o for 6 ro1ls of PE Pipes amountin P 1 90 Uo0 o0 S1 ed R wenceslao M-5 Undated Acceptarlce and Insp ction Report for 76 f olts of PE Pipes ed am others Rodri wenceslao M-6 Undated Requisition and Issue Slip for 76 rolls of PE Pipes uested and dh Ro Wenceslao N Journal Entry Vouch er No- 1O0-04-03-13i dated March 2004 for P200 o00.o0 a N-1 Undated Disbursemen t oucher No 0 I J 1 for P2oo oo0 00 lil 44 fr DECIS|ON Criminol CoG No. SB-16-CRM-1242-63 People v. w*ficeslqo, et ol. l,BP N-2 Check No . 0000232946 dated March 30, 2004 amounting P200 ooo.o0 to Ro Wenceslao N-3 Undated Allotnent and o tion Sli for P200 000.00 o Journal Entry Voucher No 100-04-06-260 dated May 2OO4 for Pl50 000.00 o-1 utIdated Disbursement oucher for P 1 1 0 o00 00 o-2 LBP Check No 0oo0232947 dated March 3o 2004 amottntinc P 1 1 o o00 00 1e to R o wenceslao o-3 Undated Allotment and Obli ation Sli for Pl10 000.00 o-4 Y"dated AccePtance and InSpectlo1l Report for 44 ro1la of PE Pipes others o Wenceslao u-5 Undated sition and Issue Sli for 44 rolls of PE Pi s Journal P Entry Voucher No. 100-04-03-128 dated March 20O4 for P300 ooo.00 P-1 Undated Disbursement oucher for P300 o00 o0 LBP P-2 Check No. O000232936 dated March 30, 2O04 for P3OO ,o00.00 ble to Wenceslao P-3 Undated Allotment and Obli n Sli for P300 ooo.oo Journal Ent4r Voucher No 1O0-O4-O5-208 dated May 2OO4 fot a Pt50 000.00 -1 Undated Disbursement Voucher for P 1 5o ooo 0o LEP Check No 00 a ., Q-2 00o 2 5 dated May 5 20o4 for PI 5o o00 00 abtre to Ro Wenceslao -3 Undated AIlotment and obli ation SI for Pl50 o00.00 Joumal R Entr5r Voucher No 700-04-06-253 dated June 2OO4 for P320 000.o0 R-l Undated Disbursement oucher for P320 000 0o LBP R-2 Check No. OOOO352882 dated June 11, 2004 for P32O,OOO.OO to Wenceslao Undated R-3 Purchase Request for 128 rolls of PE Pipes requested and Wence slao :|| Un R-4 dated Purchas e Order fof 1 2I foI s of PE Pipes auEou ntifls I P3c0 000 0o Ro o wenceslao U R-5 ndated Requis1tion and ISsue slip for I28 ro11s of PE Pipes re ested ald a roved b Rodri wenceslao ii ltspe R-6 ction and Acceptance Report for 1 28 rolls of PE PipCS slgrred b amo others Rodri o wenceslao : Journal Entr5r I S Vouctrer No 100-04-06-256 dated June 2QO4 for PI50 000.00 .t s-1 Undated Disbursement oucher for P 1 50 o00 oo s-2 LBP Check No. 0000352878 dated June 11, 2004 for PISO,OOO.OO to Wenceslao s-3 Undated Allotment and Ob on Sli for P15O o00.00 Journal T Entry Voucher No. 100-04-O6 -262 dated, June 20O4 for P150 000.o0 T-1 Undated Disbursement Voucher for P150 000.o0 ;.1 T-2 LBP Check No. O0OO35290O dated June 28, 2OO4 for PISO,OOO.OO ble to Ro Wenceslao l T-3 Undated A-llotment and Ob ation Sli for PISO 000.o0 Unda- pE T-4 ted Purchase Request for 50 lengths of Fipes requested and d o Wenceslao ,J T-5 Utl ted Purchase Order for 50 1encths of PE Pipes amountinc -,1: P 1 5o o0o 00 Ro o wenceslao I T-6 Undated Requlsttion and ISSue slip for 50 lengths of PE Pipes ested and d o Wenceslao j ;".i q fr l lr 45 : .. I DECTSTON ' criminol cw No. sB-15-CRM-1242-63 People v. Wencesloo, et dl. It bears stressing that the above documents are mere photocopies and certified true copies. prosecution witness Catalon, during her testimony, was not able to bring and present all of the documentary exhibits intended to be presented by the prosecution. Her testimony reads as follows: PROS. FERRER: Q In the subpoena, you were requested to bring the originals of these documents, photocopies of these were marked in these cases from Exhibits "A" to "tJ" and "X" to W-1" with the respective sub-markings. Do you have the originals of these documents? A I have here some of the documents but not all of them. xxx PROS, FERRER: I would like to manifest Your Honor that this witness brought before this Court the following certified true copies of documents: The first one is the certihed true copies of documents which is the Journal Entry Voucher No. 100O0405228, photocopy of which has been marked as Exhibit "H." The certihed true copies of undated vouchers and photocopies of which had been marked as Exhibit "H-1"; the certified trt.e copies of Landbank Check No. 0O00352776 dated February 13,2OO4, photocopies ofwhich had been marked as Exlribit "H-2". xxx PROS. FERRER: The certified photocopies of Exhibits uH-3", "H-4", "H-S", "H-6" "1", "l-1", "I-2", "I-3", "I-4", "l-5", "Jo, " J - L", " J -2", " J - 3","J-4","J-5","J-6","J-7", arrd t.Ilen "P", "P-1", "P-2" and defense counsel to go over those documents. A?TY. RAMOS: For Exhibit "H" series Your Honors, we cannot stipulate if , it is faithful reproduction of the original because the oJ" marked document is a photocopy. Exhibits "H" , "1" , and "P series, we stipulate that these are faithful reproductions of the source document, w"ithout admitting ttre genuineness and due execution. Exhibit "X , we stipulate that it is faithful reproduction of the source document without admitting the genuineness and due e:recution. With respect to Exhibit "2" , we refuse to stipulate because the marked document is not similar to the one identified by this witness, Your Honors. With respect to Exhibit "Y, we stipulate that this is faithful 46 - ,:,.,;a DECtSTON Criminol C&E No. SB-16-CRM-L2u!-63 People v. Wencesldo, et ol. reproduction of the source document, the original was presented before. xxx P.d TANG: D ATTY. RAMOS: Not original, Your Honors P.X TANG: Certilied true copy. AfTY. RAMOS: Yes, Your Honors.72 _ Flbnce, tJre only documents that were actually presented ft" prosecution through Catalon are Exhibits "H; ,aH-L", "H- !y nH-4" uH-6", uru, *r_2r, 2o "H-3" "H-Sr, "l-lr, "r_3r "i_5", nJ', uJ-1" uJ-4" r'"1_4", "J-2", "J-3", "J_5" "J_6" nJ_7", np_r, op_ nX:, oy', , , , "p, , 2", "P-&o, alrd "2". Notably, a careful perusal of these Jo-urnd Entry Vouchers, Disbursement Vouchers, Landbank Checks, Allotment and Obligation Slips, purchase Request Purchme Orders, Acceptance and Inspection Reports, Requisftion and Issue Slip would reveal that ihey were certified as true copies by Auditor Luisa yap. The evidentiary weight of these documentar5r exhibits presented by the proseJution through Catalon shafl be discussed in seriatim. Ohr rrle on evidence lays down the procedure on how to present documentar;r evidence before the court, as follows: frrstly, t'he documents should be authenticated and proved in the m{nner provided in the rules of court; secondly, the documqnts should be identified ald marked; and thirdly, it should:be formally offered to the court and shown to-the opposirtg party so that the latter may have the opportunity to object thereto or cross-exarnine the witness called upon to piove or identit/ it.73 The 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence provides for the mannef by which documentary evidence are to be presented based qn the nature and classification of a certain document. ?2 TSN dated March 1, 2018, pp. 6-9. 73 Ramrar lilmrynrated. u. Hi-Power Marketing et. al, c.R. No. I S7O7S, July 17 , 20O6, citing Cfuu u CA, G.R. flo. 88383, February t9, l99ai ViuahE u. Ligon, G.R. No. 143721, Aucust 31,'OOS. 47 DECISTON . Criminol ci.se No. sB-lGcRM-1242-63 People v. Wencesloo, et al. sectiofl 19 of Rule 132 thereof distinguishes between public and private documents: SBction 19. Classes of doanments. - For the purpose of their pfesentation in evidence, documents are either public or ffivate. FLtllc docuaeats are: (d The wrltten ofliclal acta, or records of the soveretgl authority, oflicial bodies and trlbunals, and pubilc ofrlcera, whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country; x x x (Emphasis supplied) ftnerally, a public document does not require autherttication for admissibility as contemplated by Section 19, Rute 182 in conjunction with Section 23, Rule 132 of the 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence, which provid.es: SGs{ion 23.. Public documents as euidehce. - Documents corsisting of entrles ln public records made in the perfotuance of a dut5r by a public ofllcer arc prtma. lacle e*Ideoce of the tiacts therein stated. Ail other fubtc documents are evidence, even against a third pe.son, bf the fapt which gave rise to their execution and of t-he date of the latter. (Emphasis supplied) The Supreme Court in Repubtic u. Gimenef,a emphasized the imtrportance of the distinction between a public and private documcnt: A public document, by virtue of its official or sovereign ctmracter, or because it has been acknowledged before a noftary public (except a notarial will) or a competent public official with the formalities required by law, or because it is a pt$Jic record of a private writing authorized by law, as sely' at&henticating and requires no furtler autLentication in ord.er to ibe presented as euidence in court. In contrast, a private d@ument is any other writing, deed, or instrument executed by; a private person without the intervention of a notar5i or otlier person legally author ized by which some disposition or agtreement is proved or set forth. Lacking the official or sotereign character of a public document, or the solemnities pr0scribed by law, a private document requires authentication in tfhe manner allowed by law or the Rules of Court before its aceeptance as evidence in court 74 G.R. No. N74673, January 1 1, 2016. -] 48 DECTStON Criminal @se No. SB-76-CRM-1242-63 People v. tfuencesloo, et al. oH', *H-1', Exhibits "H-2" "H-9", "H-4,, nH-S,,, nH-6,, oI,, .r14 nl-3' nl-+" ul-s,, uJ,,, "I-1", a-2" , "J-Ln, uJ-2r, , "J-3" r;J-4", "j_5", .4 "J-6", oP-l,, ,,p-3" "J-7', 'P,o, "p-2", attd or the Journal Entry ::l: )\ Vouchers, Disbursement Vouchers, Landbarrk Checks, Allel*orr, and Obtigation Slips, purchase Request, purchase ''tt,,l Ordersi Acceptance and Inspection Reports, and Requisition i and I*ue SIip presented by Catalon were entries in public ,l r_ecord* made by public officers in the performanc" of th.i, .. d,ties. they could Ihr", be classified as self-authenticating .lt public documents. However, Catalon presented them as tru6 ,! copies certified by Luisa yap. ',1 :j t{ .f] Ptrsuant to Section 24, Rule 132 ,i of the Revised Rules on :l Eviderrce, proof of official record may be evidenced by an offrcial :J public4tion thereof or by a copy attested by the od."., having ,t: the legsl custody of the record, or by his o, h., deputy: .ij '1.11 Srrstioa 24. Proof of olficiat record. - The record of public , dscuments referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19, when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official :l publication thereof or by a copy attested by the olfrcer ,1 hqsfng tho legal custody of the record, or by bis or her .l !tr_Ity., and accompanied, if the record is noi kept in the ,l Philippines, with a certificate that such o{Iicer has the ,] cr.mtody. xxx (Emphasis supplied) -ll .l Otherwise stated, the record of public document need not j be actrrally presented in court so 1ong as th.e off,rcer having the .t legal cXrstody thereof attests that the secondar5r evid-ence { presented before the court |' is a true copy of tfre originat und.er I his or her custody. :1 I J necessit5r to establish the custody of the original l public- -.Tt9 I document is in line with Section 3, Rule tgo of the :i t Revised Rules on Evidence which enumerates the exceptions to i the Original Document Rule: "] Section 3. Original document must be produced; exeeptions. - Whea the subject of lnquiry is the contents of,,c docunent, wrlting, recording, pnotograph or other re{ord, no evldence is admissible other than the original dt*mnent itself, excer:t in the following cases: (a) When the original is lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror; t 49 1 n .:li ;a =-T 'J DECISION Crimindt C6J€ No. SB-76-CRM-7242-6J ..ri People v. Wencesloo, et ol. -i ''. (b) :i When the original is in the custody or under the .,i control of the party against whom the evidence is :i offered, and the latter fails to produce it aJter c reasonable notice, or the original cannot be obtained by localjudicial processes or procedures; i ,.I ..i (c) When the original consists of numerous accounts ;t or other documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact : sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole; .'ti :rj (d) Ulhea the original is a public record in the .,] custodv of a public ofllcer or is recorded in a { ,.i public office; and t 'rrl (e) When the original is not closely-related to a I controlling issue. (Emphasis supplied) ::i 14 ,-i 'l Fbr the Court give probative # to value to a secondary ,* eviden*e such as a certiIied true copy, the prosecution mujt ,t establ&h that it falls under one of the exceptions laid dovrn by ,.t ,t Section i 3, Rule 130. It is imperative for the prosecution to .i preserfi the original or at the very least, a certified trre copy { :,;l which is coupled by an attestation of an officer having legal custoqi of the subject document or by his or her deputy. ,4 T .i The Court notes that State Auditor Luisa Yap was the one who certified .{ tJe documents as "certified true copies from the .; .,! origin#. Unfortunately, she was not presented by the r i.l prosecution. 'ii As a substitute, the prosecution presented Catalon .,1 who is the Service Chief of the Legal Services of COA Region VIII. 1 Durin$ her testimony, she manifested that she only brought nH", oH-Io, uH-2, ij with h*r tlre certified true copies of Exl:ibits .$ *H-3" rH-4", nH-Sr, oH-6n nr-L, ul-zr, oI-3, uJr, r'1", , , "l-4, , "l-5r, ;{ nJ u n o u nEV, " J - 1", -2", J -3" J -4o, J - " J 5", -6r, J -7o, 1", -2", and, r! oP-3'. "p- "p j Catalon was not the one who certifred the said exhibits. 'i.i ,.i Hence, she cannot be deemed to be the person who has the i custody or is in possession of those public documents. I Indubitably, no evidentiarJz value can be given to the above- ,]"4 mentiotrred pieces .: of evidence presented by the prosecution { since it failed to establish the link between the public record 19 in I possession of a legal custodian and the certified true copy tl i presented in court. -1 !; x The production of the Jorrrnal Entry Vouchers, i Disbur&ement Vouchers, Laldbank Checks, Allotment and .i Obligation Slips, '.i Purchase Request hrrchase Orders, I 5 '1 , |1.i ,'# :, DECTStON t. criminol c@ No. sB-16-CRM-1242-6j People v. Wncesldo, et ol. 'l : ,i Acceptance and Inspection Reports, Requisition and Issue 1 Slips, in compliance with the Original Document Rule, is "; materi&l since the contents thereof form part of the factual issue in disp:.te. These documents are material to establish if indeed -i: .i accused. Wenceslao made illegal disbursements of public funds. Conse{uerrfly, mere offer oi photocopies and certified true : copies,in these cases, not coupled with an attestation of the custodan of the original, suffrcient is not to support the .i allegatlons against the accused. .t Ihe testimonies of witnesses and other documentary eviden&e7s presented and offered by the prosecution, althougir sufficieurt to establish a pima facie foundation of a case, does sahisfactorily .tJ not convince the Court of Wenceslao,s guilt "a beyond reasonable doubt. i Well-entrenched in jurisprudence is the rrle that the conviction of the accused must rest, not on the wealmess of the defens,6, but on the strength of the prosecution. The burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, not on the'accused to prove his innocence.T6 With the prosecution having failed to discharge its burd.en of istablishing WenceSlao's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, this court is :! constrained, as is its bounden duty when reasonable doubt persistb, to acquit him. { , ,,] Crintd;ffil Case .lVos. S'B- I 6-CRIW- I 244-6A ..'; Accused Wenceslao is charged with twenty (20) counts of '::) . tl:e co*nplex crime of Malversation of public Funds through --l Falsification of Rrblic Documents under Art.2lZ (4) in relation to Arts. 171 and 48 penal of the Revised Code in twenty (20) !: I separab Informations. The Informations contain identical ,{ allegatibns, save for ttre following: -t ': ! AEount Alleged Xlete Check Cese tr$!. IDvolved IrV I{o. Urttruthful CoEIlitt€d No. ltarratloa of ,:i lPhp) :'.1 Facts I SB- 16+ DV under JEV Procurement !) cnu- rz++ | /7 /2oo4 100,000.00 232a32 No. 100-04- of 4O rolls of i.t t20-A PE Pipes SB- 16. DV under JEV Procrlement r/7l2oo4 , ',1 cRM- 12i+5 100,000.00 232433 No. 10O-O4- of 40 rolls of 03-123 PE Pipes 'i '-t 7s 'l Q$ibits.tt, v, V-1, V-2, v-3, v-4, V-5, v-6,v-7, V 8, V-8-a, v-8_b, v_9, v_to, v_11, V-11-a to V-11-q, V-12, V-13, V-14, V-1S, W, X, X-r, y, Z, AA, BB and BB_1. za M9gaaatd people ,, Jr. u. People, G.R. No. 175842, March 1g, 2OLS; u. Velarde, G.R. No. 1 3 July 18,i2002. ';l 51 ':,1 f^il ,i rl "i *d DECTSTON crimino! c@ No. sB-lGcRM-1242-63 People v. lt&ncesldo, et dl. sB- 16- DV with JEV Procurement cRM-1946 1 /e l2oo+ 1o0,000.00 352753 No. 100-04- of 4O rolls of 04-142 PE Pipes sB- 16- Procurement cRM-1&4? 7173/2Oo+ 75,O00.00 232A49 DV #03-091 of 30 rolls of PE Pipes sB- 16- DV under JEV Procufement CRM-U48 t/ t3 /2oo4 300,000.00 3527 57 No. 100-04- of 120 rolls of 03-118 PE Pipes sB-16- 7l29l2oo4 232442 DV under JEV Procurement cRM-1S49 and 160,000.00 and No. 100-04- of 60 rolls of 2/L3/2OO4 232466 03- 130 PE Pipes SB-16 DV with JEV Procurement cRM-1250 2 / t3l2Oo4 300,000.00 232Aa4 No. 100-04- of 120 rolls of 05- 195 PE Pipes sB- t6- DV with JEV Procurement cRM-1251 2/t3/2oo4 300,000.00 352776 No. 100-04- of 12O rolls of 05-22a PE Pipes SB-16ti. DV under JEV Procurement CRM-I62 s I t7 /2oo4 300,000.00 232905 No. l00-04- of 120 rolls of 05-218 PE Pipes sB- l6i DV with JEV Procurement CRM-163 3l30 l2oo4 100,000.00 352803 No. 100-04- of 40 rolls of 03- 136 PE Pipes SB-16; DV under JEV Procurement cRM-r254 3 /3O /2OO+ 200,000.00 352804 No. l0O-04- of 8O rolls of 03-139 PE Pipes SB-1G DV under JEV Procurement CRM-1285 3 /30 /2oo4 80,o00.oo 3s2801 No. 100-04- of 32 rolls of 03- 135 PE Pipes sB- 16- DV under JEV Procurement cRM-r2b6 3 /30 l2OO4 190,000.00 232948 No. l0O-04- of 76 rolls of 03- 133 PE Pipes sB- 16" DV under JEV Procurement cRM-12E7 3l30 / 2OO4 200,o00.o0 232946 No. 100-04- of 80 rolls of 03- 131 PE Pipes SB- 16. DV under JEV Procurement cRM-1268 3 /30 l2OO4 110,000.00 232947 No. 100-04- of 44 rolls of 06-260 PE Pipes DV with JEV SB- l6+ Financial 3l30 /2oo4 300,o00.00 232936 No. 100-04- cRM- 1259 Assistance 03- 128 DV with JEV sB- 16- Financial cRM-1260 s ls l2oo4 150,000.00 352835 No. 100-04- 05-208 Assistance sB- 16. DV under JEV Procurement cRM-1261 6l 7t l2oo4 320,O00.00 252AA2 No. 100-04- of 128 rolls of 06-253 PE Pipes DV with JEV sB- 16-, Financial 6/ 17 l2OO4 150,000.00 352A78 100-04- cRM-1262 No. Assistance o6-256 sB-16, DV udth JEV Procurement cRM- 12e3 6128/ 2oo4 150,O00.00 352900 No. 100-04- of 50 rolls of 06-262 PE Pipes Tor sustain a conviction, the prosecution must establish the prrsence of all the elements of the complex crime of Malversqtion of Public Funds through Falsifrca[ion of public Documents. Article 217 of the Revised Pena_l Code provides: 4 52 ,,4 DECTStON Criminal C@e No. SB-i6-CRM-1242-G3 People v. Vflencesloo, et dl. 4rt. 217. Malversation of public funds or property; Ptesumption of malversation. Any public officer-*t o, Uy re.son of the duties of his ofhce,- is accountable for pubtt fi,inds or property, shall appropriate the sarne or shall take or tdsappropriate or sha-ll consent, through abandonment or ndgli- gence, shall permit any other person to take such public ft0rds, or property, wholly or partially, or shall otherwise be ggilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds o( property xxx . TE failure of a public offrcer to have duly forthcoming ady public funds or property with which he is chargeablel utrlon demand by any duly authorized oIlicer, shall be pima lf4pb evidence ttrat he has put such missing funds or property to,personal use. Ilhlversation may be committed by appropriating public funds Or property; by taking or misappr;prdting the same; by conserting, or through abandonment or negligence, by permitting any other person to take such publiJ funas or properry; or by being otherwise guilty of the misappropriation or malrcrsation of such funds or property. The elements common to all acts of malversation und.er Article 217 of the RPC, as amended, are the following: (a} that the offender be a public officer; (b| that he had custody or control of funds or propert5r , by reason of the duties of his office; (c), that those funds or property were public funds or property for which he was accountable; and (dlthat he appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented, or through abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take them. In;addition, the elements of Article 171 of the Revised. Pena1 Code are: (U th9 offender is a public off,rcer, employee, or notary public; 53 DECTSTON criminot cw No. sB-16cRM-1242-63 People v. Wncesldo, et ol. (2)the offender takes advantage of his official position; and (Q| that he falsifres a document by committing any of the ways it is done. _Specificatly, paragraph 4 of the said Article requires that: (a) the offender makes in a public document untruthful statenEnts in a narration of facts; (b) the offender has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him; aird (c) the facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false. Fftre, the documents claimed to be falsifred are the disbur$ement vouchers which caused the disbursement of governlnent funds of Merida in favor of accused Wenceslao. The act of ftlsification can only be determined from the contents of the di$ursement vouchers. As records bear and as discussed above,,ttre disbursement vouchers offered by the prosecution are meie photocopies and certified true copies. \trb reiterate that no evidentiary weight can be given to the photoc+opies of the disbursement vouchers that wire merely marked and offered but were never actually presented during qial. TlLre same is true with the certified true copies of thi disbur*ement vouchersTT presented by witness Catalon since the proeecution failed to present the actual custodian or Emy ?Tg9r Who is in possession of the public record alleged to bl falsified. It must be emphasized that although the said documEnts are certilied true copies, there is a need. to establish that thg5r are in tJre possession of a legal custodian or his or her deputy;pursuant to Section 24, Rule 132 and Section 3, Rule 13O of,the Revised Rules on Evidence. In this case, Catalon merelyforought with her documents that were certified as true copies by Luisa Yap. At best, the Court can only surmise from the testimony of Catalon that she is the cultodian of the certified true copies but not tl:e actual public record sought to be prese'ted. We cannot, therefore, give probative value to-these disbursement vouchers and their contents cannot be d.eemed to constitute proof of the facts stated therein. Be that as it may, even if the Court would give weight to the digbursement vouchers, the prosecution itilt has not sufficiently established the element of appropriation, taking or 77 Exhibits II-1, l-1, P-1. D 54 '" -- DECTStON Ctiminol Cdce No, SB-16-CRM-7242-63 People v. Vuencesloo, et ol. misappropriation of public funds through falsification of public docurrlent. The Informations in Crlminal Case iVos. SB-I6-CRM- 7244 lb SB-76-CRM-7247, SB-t6-CRilI-t249 tD SIB-76-CRM- allege flrat accused falsified the disbursement vouchers through untruthful narration of fact of procurement of rolls of pE pipes made in behalf of the Municipality of Merida. A narration of facts is an eccount or description of the particulars of an event or occurrence.rs A scmtiny of the corresponding disbursement vouch6rs claimed to be falsified reveals that the particulars stated therein are not consistent with the untruthful narration of factg alleged in the said Informations. while the Informations specifigally charge the accused of falsifying disbursement vouch€rs through untruthful narration of fact of procurement of a cdrtain number of rolls of pE pipes, the disbursement vouch6s merely mention of "materials" purchased. It cannot be determtned solely from the contents of the disbursement vouchtrs as to what "materials" it pertains. 14 Cfinllna,l Ca.se J\Ios. SE-f5.CRItfi-tZS9, S,B-tfiCRilI- 726O *nd. SB-76-CRM-7262, the prosecution alleges that accrrsed falsely narrated the financiat assistance subject of his claim ih the corresponding disbursement vouchers. We hereby quote i4r verbatim the particulars of tl:e disbursement vouchers in these cases: caseS. DV ItIo. Partlcutrars sB-16i- To frnarrcial assistance to the 22 brgrs. of cRM-ICEe DV No. 03-128 Merida, Lelte, as per supporting documents hereto attached sB-16. To pa5,nnent for financral assistance as pef CRM-160 unnumbered supporting papers hereto attached in the amount of... SB-f6" To payment for the reimbursement of finalcial CRM-Iffiz unnumbered assistance for the different cooperatives of Merida It,should be emphasized that paragraph 4 of Art. 121 of the RPC requires that the facts narrated by the offender are absolubly false. Here, the prosecution did not present any evidenoe to prove that the above-mentioned statements in thL disburwment vouchers are absolutety false. There are neither documGntary nor testimonia-l evidence t]:at would show beyond reason&ble doubt that the statements were untrue 78 Barblo ut'Sandigarrhagan, Secand, Diuision, G.R, No. 172123, April 16, 2OO9 {) 55 -a DECISION Cri min ol @se No. 5B-16-CR M- 1242 i j People v. Uenceslao, et ol. Parenfhetically, the prosecution,s Exhibit nV-18,, or the certifi€ation stating that the managers of different cooperatives received !"d "+t frnancial assistance from the Municipality of Merid{ was never authenticated by any person who signed the same 4g to Crimlns,l Cqse lVo. SB-16-CRM-LZ4I, the prosecution failed to present the disbursement voucher which was alllegedly fatsifi ed. IE sum, we find no suf{icient competent evidence to prove Wence6lao's guilt. In all criminal prosecutions, the prosecutio' bears the burden to establish the guilt of the accused beyond. reasorm.ble doubt. The burd.en of proof placed on the prosec{r.tion arises from the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused that no less than the Constitution has Suarariteed.Te The evidence adduced by the prosecution failed to pasF the test of moral certainty and are inadequate to overtufn tJre presumption of innocence in his favor. whln there is reasonable doubt, the accused thus must be acquitted.. WilEREIIORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows; 1 In Crlminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-I-Z4Z-LZfiO, accused Rodrigo M. Wenceslao is ACeUITTED of the charge of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019, as arnended, for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt; 2.In Crininal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-L2{,/.-LZ6}, accused Rodrigo M. Wenceslao is ACeUITTED of the charge of Malversation of public Funds through Falsilication of hrblic Documents under Article 2LT in relation to Article 171 of the Revised penal Code for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. - Na civil liabitity is imposed there being no preponderance of eviderrce to prove the same. Ttt€ Hold-Departure Order issued by the Court against Rodrigo.M. Wenceslao is hereby LIFTED and SET ASIDE, and the baif bond he posted is ordered RELEASED, subject to the usual afcounting ald auditing procedures. 7e Section 14 (2), Article nI EiU of Rights). 55 -T! 1 ?r ,t:l DECTStON Criminol @se No. SB-164RM-L242-65 People v. Wncesloo, et al. _ 'ltre cases against accused Josephine M. Mopon are herebg ITISMISSED by reason of her death, pursuant to erticle 89 of Sre Revised Penal Code. Since the Court has not acquired jurisd&tion over the persons of accused Eflida D. Olaguer, Neniti G. Ceniza aad Rosalinda W. Castro as they remain at- large, the cases against them are hereby ordered ARCUfllUO, the salne to be revived upon their arrest. Let an aljas warrant ofarretst be issued against the said accused. ffi ORDERED. Qrezon City, Metro Manila, philippines. Associat Justice { OM PreS1 ustice Chairpe n B R. FERNANDEZ ociate Justice ATTESTATTOIT I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were ,:, reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court,s Division. 1: PARO M. Chairperson, 57 ',. ^n DECISION : Criminol Qse No. 5 B-\6-CRM-7242-63 People v. Wenceslao, et al. RTIFICAT If , Pursuant to Article VIII, Section I3 of the Constitution, and the Division Chairman's Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in ceflsultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division. ARO M. T Presidi 58