REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Quezon City

Seventh Division

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff,

SB-12-CRM-0273 -versus^ For: Violation of Section 3(e)9 Republic Act No.3019, as amended.

PEDRO ACHARON, JR, y BUSGANO, MARCELINO DOSPUEBLOS y ESPLANA and CHRISELDA L MACION y CLARISA, Accused. Present:

Gomez-Estoesta,J, Chairperson Trespeses, J. Hidalgo, J.

Promulgated on:

mb

DECISION

HIDALGO,/.:

The present case teaches us that the term "liquidation" is not merely a rhetoric term mentioned in our government accounting and auditing rules. Ip fact, it is considered as a legal obligation, knowingly or unknowingly imposed to us as a consequence of our membership in government service. The obligation to liquidate forms part of our sworn duty to work side by side witih the Government to serve the People - the very foundation of the principle of public accountability.

In an INFORMATION dated October 23, 2012', Assistant Special Prosecutor Sheri P. Zales charged accused PEDRO ACHARON, JR., y

'Record, Vol. 1, pp. 1 to 4

/ Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 2 of 77

BUSGANO(accused Acharon), MARCELINO DOSPUEBLOS y ESPLi^^ (accused Dospueblos) and CEKISELDA 1. MACION y CLARJSA (accy^e^ Macion) pf Violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, as ^etidej^ otherwise knpwn as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, conimittpd. follows;

"That on or about 25 May 2006 and or sometime , pripr or subsequent thereto in General Santos City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused PEDRO ACHARON,JR. y BUSGANO, a high ranking public officer with Salary Grade 30, being the City Mayor of General Santos City together with accused MARCELINO DOSPUEBLOS y ESPLANA, a public officer being the designated City Finance Administrator of General Santos City, both accused and coyunitting the offense in relation to office, acting with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence together with accused private person CHRISELDA I. MACION y CLARISA being the President and representative of GSC Tourism Association, Inc., a non-governmental organization, all accused conspiring and confederating with one another did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and criminally cause the two cash advances amounting to PI,500,000.00 and PI,000,000.00 under Land Bank of the Philippines check number 540316 and 540420,respectively, or in the total amount of P2,500,000.00 purportedly for the "Pagana Dinner Show and Tambayayong Festival" in Los Angeles, California, United States of America on June 9- 16, 2006 knowing fully well that said amount was ' intended for 37 participants when in fact only 17 participants were able to participate in the said festival and, thereafter, the said accused failed to liquidate the amount of P2,500,000.00, thereby causing undue injuiy to the Government in the aforesaid amoimt.

CONTRARY TO LAW".

After the Information was filed, a Hold Departure Order^ and an Order of Arrest^ both dated Januarys 7,2013 were issued against three accused. Ou February 11, 2013, accused Macion posted a cash bond before the Regional Trial Court of Surallah, South Cotabato, Branch 11 for her provisional liberty in the amount of Thirty Thousand Pesos(P 30,000.00). Accused Acharon aihd

^ Record, Vol. 1, p. 188 ^ Record, Vol. 1, p. 190

{ ■) Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 3 of77 accused Dospueblos likewise posted their respective cash bonds in the amount of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P 30,000.00) before the Regional Trial Court of General Santos City, Branch 35.

Prior to their arraignment, accused Acharon and Dospueblos fifod a Joint Motion to Quash"^ while accused Macion filed her Motion to Dismiss^ which were both DENIED in a Resolution dated January 7, 2014.^ Their respective Motions for Reconsideration were also denied.^ Consequently, accused Acharon was arraigned on March 18, 2014 and pleaded NQT GTJILTY to the crime charged. Accused Dospueblos also entered the g^e plea of NOT GUILTY to the crime charged during his arraignment qn J^uaiy 30, 2015. On record, accused Macion was arraigned on Janua]^ 2|, 2Q15 ^d entered her plea of NOT GUILTY. Thereafter, Prelimini^ Conference and Pre- Trial Conference then ensued.

THE CASE

EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION

To substantiate the material allegations in the Information, the prosecution presented both testimonial and documentary evidence.

TESTIMONIAL;

The prosecution presented the following witnesses:

HERMAN BILLIONES JUMILLA,Filipino, 59 years old, married. State Auditor IV of the Commission on Audit of Davao City, residing at No. 7 Jade Street, Doha Francisca Homes, Matina, Davao City

During his testimony, he said that he is currently a State Auditor ly and he started his employment at the Commission on Audit(COA) in 1978. Frpip 2006 tp January 2010, he was the Audit Team Leader occupying the position of State Auditor IV in General Santos City. His team members were Sf^fo Auditor II Movinia Linghon who was assigned at General Santos City General Fund; State Auditor II Cenon Tesurero assigned at General Santos City Trust Funds and Infrastructure Fund; State Auditor I Annie Mandanas and Statq Auditing Examiner I, Salvador Bertulfo. As Team Leader, the following dtp

^ Record, Vol. 1, pp. 247 to 250 ^ Record, Vol. 1, pp. 279 to 296 ^ Record, Vol. 1, pp. 320 to 327 ^ Resolution dated September 2,2014, Record, Vol. 1, pp. 429 to 434

f\ i Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 4 of77

his duties: a)to audit the cash and accounts oftlie City of General Santos and other municipalities including the Municipality of Maasim and Municip^lify of Kiamba in Saranggani Province.; and b) to audit Disbursement Vouchers includipg cash advances granted to non-government organizations.

In the conduct ofthe Post Audit and Examination ofthe cash accounts of General Santos City for the year 2006, he said that he divided the ^orlc among his te^ members to audit vouchers and all documents supporting thereto. In case there are deficiencies in the audit, the matter is referrecJ jtQ him for further audit.

He recalled that there were three non-government organizations that received cash advances fi'om the City Government of General Santos in 2006 namely:(1) General Santos City Chamber of Commerce;(2) General Santp$ City Tourism Association (GSC Tourism Association) headed by jts prjesidenit, Criselda Macion and (3)Dangpanan Foundation.® He clarified ft^t the c^h advance granted to GSC Tourism Association was for its p^icipation in the *'Pagana Dinner Show and Tambayoyong Festiy^l^', ^ culturd arts presentation, held in Los Angeles, California, United States of America on June 9 to 16,2006.^

In the Pagana Festival, the GSC Tourism Association was among the participants. Cash advance was given as evidenced by disbursement vouchers in the amount of One Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos Pesos 1,500,000.00)*® and Acknowledgment Receipt No. 001.** Other supporiihg docunients identified by him include Journal Voucher in the amount of0he Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P 1,500,000.000)*^ Voucher in tite aniount of One Million Pesos (P 1,000,000.00)*^ which was(sic) acknowledged by Official Receipt No. 002*"* issued by the General S^tpS City Tourism Association, Journal Entry Voucher in the amount of 0n0 Million Pesos (P 1,000,000.00)*^; Obligation Slip in the amount of Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P 2,500,000.00)*^; Work ^4 Financial Pl^ and Request for Allotment in the amount of Two Million fiyp Hundred Thousand Pesos (P 2,500,000.00)*^; another Work and Financial Plan for the year 2006*®; Subsidy to NGO PO in the amount of Two Million

® TSN dated October 7,2015, pp. 17 to 18 ^ id Exhibit B-3 *'Exhibit B-4 *2 Exhibit B-5 Exhibit B Exhibit B-1 Exhibit B-2 Exhibit B-6 ® Exhibit B-7B-8 ^ 1 Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 5 of 77

Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P 2,500,000.00)^^; Affidavit of Chrisel^a Macion requesting for the allocation of funds^®; Memorandum of Agreement^^; Certificate of Accreditation^^; Certification from the Secujitie^ and Exchange Commission(SEC)^^; two (2) checks one for One Million pesos (P 1,000,000.00) and the other is in the amount of One Million Five Hun4fe(i Thousand Pesos(P 1,500,000.00).^"^

Similarly, he identified the signatures of accused Acharon and accuscjd Dospueblos as appearing in Boxes "A" and "B", respectively on the Disbursement Voucher in the amount of One Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos.^^ He also identified the signature of accused Dospueblos, the City Administrator as appearing in Box "D" and explained that this signahirc means that the City Mayor delegated the City Administrator to sign the disbursement voucher.^^

However, because of the objection on the part of the defense counsels that the documents mentioned and being identified by witness Jiimilia ^e mere photocopies, he was excused for the meantime on the witness stand until such time that the prosecution was able to produce original copies of th^ documents witness Jumilla identified.^^

When he was called anew to the witness stand on February 1, 2017? he recalled that the cash advance granted to GSC Tourism Association in Ae amount of P 2,500,000.00 was not liquidated on time Le. within sixty 0^ days after the completion of the activity sometime around June 2006 required by COA Circular No. 97-002. There were also deficiencies found in the course of the audit namely,(1) there was no Securities and Exchwge Commission (SEC)registration as a requirement for accreditation as a f^onr Government Organization (NGO) as required under COA Circular Np. 96r 003 dated February 27, 1996,(2) there were no financial statements for fb? last three (3) years and,(3) there were (sic) no list of project undertaken ]by GSC Tourism Association to show that it was capable of undertaking tjip proposed project.^® These findings of[deficiencies] can be found on pages 50, 60,61 and 62 ofthe Annual Audit Report^^ His observations were included in the Annual Audit Report for the year ended December 31,2006 which was released [only] in 2007 {Exhibits "G" to "G-83").

Exhibit B-9 20 Exhibit B-10 2'Exhibit B-11 22 Exhibit B-12 22 Exhibit B-13 2"^ Exhibits C and D,respectively 22 TSN dated October 7,2015, p. 25 2SW 22 TSN dated October 7,2015, pp. 29 to 37 2® TSN dated February 1,2017, pp. 7-8 / 20 TSN dated February 1,2017, p. 11 Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 6 of77

He likewise testified that, in the Annual Audit Report, there is a recominendation from the COA requiring the City Government to demand from the GSC Tourism the liquidation of its standing account to be carried out by the City Accountant. Unfortunately, tlie recommendation was upt earned put because sometime in 2008, the GSC Tourism Assocmtion requeste4 several extensions to submit its liquidation. One instance is when the GSC Tourism Association requested for an additional period of sixty($0) days as contained in a letter dated April 29,2008.^® That upon the exp%tipn ofthe period [as a matter of policy ofthe COA], his office issued a Noticp pf Suspension which in effect, suspending the transaction or the cash adyance made by GSC Tourism Association. The Notice of Suspension was issupd toaccused Acharon since he is the local chief executive who has the fiscal responsibility ofthe fimds ofthe local government.^ ^ The City Government General Santos did not reply to the Notice of Suspension prompting hitn ip talk to the City Treasurer demanding for the liquidation ofthe cash advanpe,-? After he did not receive a reply to the Notice of Suspension for one ye^, fee issued a Notice of Disallowance dated December 28, 2009, [since the transaction is still pending and he might be reassigned in 2010].^^ In said Notice of Disallowance, the unliquidated amount of R 1,906,979.65 was disallowed because the liquidation reports were insufficient and some pf tlie expenses were not in accordance with the Work and Financial Plsyni,?- Candidly, he confessed that his office received a liquidation report prepared by the City Government of General Santos City before they issued the Nptipe ofDisallowance but the same was not sufficient. He explained that as a mattej: of procedure and as pointed out by the Court, if there are deficiencies pr missing documents, the attention of the accountable officers will be called first such that the notice of suspension shall not be issued outright. For ^s case, he confessed that he issued the suspension order because of the discrepancy between the amount of cash advance and the amount actually liquidated.^^ He admitted to the Court that there were indeed two(2) instapees of partial liquidations, both of which were allowed in the course ofthe audit-

When asked about the difference between the cash advance pf(R 2,500,000.00) and the amount reflected in the Notice of Suspension (which is only R 2,282,903.65), he said, the amount of cash advance given to GSC Tourism Association was indeed R 2,500,000.00 but the latter returned the unspent amount ofR 217,096.35 sometime in 2007 to the City Treasurer as

TSN dated February 1,2017, pp. 15 to 18 TSN dated February 1,2017, pp. 19 to 23 TSN dated February 1,2017, pp. 27 to 30 TSN dated February 1,2017, pp. 31 to 32 TSN dated February 1,2017, p. 34 TSN dated February 1,2017, pp. 35 to 37 TSN dated February 1,2017, p.41 TSN dated February, 1,2017, p. 42 f ; Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 7 of77 evidenced by a receipt. Therefore, the amount still to be liquidated is P 2,282,903.65.

He further expounded that as per the Schedule of Report pf Disbursement submitted by the Office of the City Accountant, the amoiint liquidated is P 1,013,043.51 only, while the amount suspended is p 2,282,903-65. When asked to clarify, he said that, from the amount of P 1,013,043.51 [which he earlier testified to have been liquidated], thearpqupt of P 420,023.70 was disallowed both by the City Accountant and the CQA because it was used not in accordance with the Work and Financial Flap. Hip added that under the Work and Financial Plan, the only allowable expenses are local travelling expenses in the amount ofP 56,516.00, foreign travelling expenses in the amount ofP 2,143,440, office supplies expenses in the aipouiht ofP 200,000.00, and other maintenance and operating expenses in the anipipit ofP 100,000.00. Adding all these items, the total is P 2,500,000.00, However, from the said amount(referring to the P1,013,043.51),representing the partial liquidation, twp amounts were allowed in audit namely,(1) the amount pf 375,923.96 and,(2) the amount ofP 217,096.00 which were refunded. Thus, he made it clear that from the total cash advance ofP 2,500,000.00, the tpi^ amount that was allowed on audit was only P 684,000.00. This amount \yas not included in the notice of disallowance.^^

He continued to testify that the expenses for visa interview, consultatipn fees and accommodation during the visa interview were disallowed because they are in the nature ofpersonal expenses. That most ofthe participants \ye^e not allowed to travel nor were granted any visa. Hence,they were not able to participate in the activity. He also explained that expenses for accommodatipn during the visa application were disallowed because they were also in the nature pf personal expenses and were made during the time of the interview. The documents attached to the liquidation report pertaining to these expense? were only BPI Deposit slips. He went on to say that he did not see any itinerary of travel and plane tickets of foreign travel submitted by any of |he participants.^^

As to the other travel expenses and liqmdation reports, he stated diuf the cash advance given to one Key Villena was liquidated and itemized as'a travel allowance for the performers in the amount of$ 1,100.00; food for the contingent in the amount of$ 500.00; communication expenses in the amount of $ 50.00; food service for the Pagana Festival in the amount of $ 680.00; mixed food service in the amount of$ 410 in the total amoimt of$ 3, 953.00, inclusive of travel allowance. This full amount was allowed by the auditor?. He added that other than the personal expenses which were disallowed, some minimal expenses were also disallowed such as P 105.00(PCC Mall) because

TSN dated February 1,2017, pp. 44 to 47 TSN dated February 1,2017, p. 48 to 50 / Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 8 of77 no receipt was attached, the amounts ofP 165.00,P 100.00,PI34.00, P239.p0 and P95.00 because no receipts were also attached to the liquidation report.^®

As to the number of persons who participated in the Tambayayong Festival and Pagana Dinner Show, he recalled that, as per list of the offipiy delegates, there were twenty (20) participants who travelled to Manila, bqt only six (6) participants travelled abroad namely, Julius Valmores, Jqyy Sombrero, Rpnan Leutertio, Rick Decatoria, Crismarie Fay Fuerte apd Rochdel Valmera. He made it clear, however, that the only amount giyep jtp each of them is [in the form of a travel allowance] in the amount of United States $ 100.00, representing their per diem. He did not clarify though if tfus amount is for the duration ofthe whole trip or given on a daily basis."*^

During the continuation of his direct testimony on February 2,2017,b? said that the remaining amount to be liquidated is P 1,906,979.69 as shpym by Exhibits "E" and "E-185"- the subject of their Notice of Disallow^qp, To clarify things, he admitted that the amount ofP 217,096.35 was refi^ded to the City Government, while the amount of P 375, 923.96 was in fact liquidated and was audited by his office. He explained that the transaction not in accord^ce with COA Circular No. 85-55 A particularly on the fact tbnt tho liquidation report was made after the lapse of the period required by ;^^}d COA Circular and was done not in accordance with the Work and Fin^clal Plan and some pertinent Rules and Regulations. These reasons becamp t}ip basis for the issuance of the Notice of Disallowance. He further testified Aat among the detailed expenses as reflected in the Work and Financial Pl^ local travelling expenses in the amount of P 56,560.000 which includes airplane fare, [other] transportation fares and perkings (sic), foreign trayej expenses in the amount ofP 2,143,440.00,P 100,000.00 for the maintenance and operating expenses."^^

When he was confronted about the local travel expenses, he said diat, while there was no itinerary of travel attached, plane tickets and bus tickefs were attached to the [report]. These expenses were allowed because they wkxp made prior to the foreign travel. As regards the foreign travel, he explaihed that the plane tickets and the [proof] of payment of terminal fee must ^e included in the liquidation report but no such plane tickets were attached. Lastly, with respect to "other supplies expenses and other maintenance and operating expenses", such expenses were allowed by his office."*^

When he was confronted with a copy of the Notice of Suspensipn {Exhibit "F-2 he attested that the Offices of the City Mayor, the City Treasurer, City Administrator and City Accountants all received their

TSN dated February 1,2017, pp. 52 to 53 TSN dated February 1,2017, pp. 56 to 59 TSN dated February 2,2017, pp. 15 to 19 TSN dated February 2, 2017, p. 20 to 23 7 / Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 9 of77

respective copies of this document. He furnished the Office of the City Administrator a copy of the Notice of Suspension because he found out the City Administrator, i.e. accused Dospueblos, is one of the persons liable to the transaction, since he approved the disbursement voucher. He also sery^d the Office ofthe City Treasurer ofthe Notice of Suspension because the Cily Treasurer was the one who signed the checks. He also remembered furnishing the GSC Tourism Association a copy ofthe Notice of Suspension,though ope Chiclet Rillo, the secretary of the GSC Tourism Association because it ^yas the entity who received the cash advance in the amount ofP 2,500,000.00, He explained that he also served a copy of the Notice of Disallowance tp t^ie Office of the Mayor because as the local chief executive, he has the fiscal responsibility over the financial transactions ofthe city government. Aftp?^e receipt of the Notices of Disallowance, he does not know anymore whether the concerned persons replied thereto because he was re-assigned to Davnp City on January 2010 and one Jose Mercado took over his position unti} hi? retirement. Lamentably, he has no contact with the latter."^

Lastly, he emphasized that during the post audit of the financial gtiaiit to GSC Tourism Association, his office considered all the original docuniPhts attached to the disbursement vouchers."*^

He insisted on CROSS EXAMINATION that, it is the GSC Tourisrn Authority who is mandated to make the liquidation report since it wa? this entity who was granted the cash advance. He admitted that there wps liquidation but the liquidation was not submitted on time albeit it w^? incomplete or deficient.'*^

When subjected to deeper probing, he clarified that the cash ady^ce was made in 2006 but it was only in 2007 that [they] refunded the unspent amount but still no liquidation report was submitted."^^ When he was asked the reason why the liquidation was not made on time, he assumed that [accu^pd] may have difficulty in trying to get all the receipts, plane tickets and pth^r documents.'^® Since the submitted liquidation report was incomplete, hi? recommended to the LGU of General Santos City through the ^ity Accountant, Mr.Federico Cabanit to demand liquidation from the accountable officers and GSC Tourism Association. He insisted that under the Rule pf Procedure of the Commission on Audit, the Notices of Suspension arid Disallowance were issued against the City Mayor because the mayor has a fiscal responsibility over these transactions."^^ He went on and explained that a Work and Financial Plan in essence (sic) that there is a budget obligated for

^ TSN dated February 2,2017, pp. 24 to 29 TSN dated February 2,2017, pp. 70 TSN dated February 2,2017, p. 72 'Ud TSN dated February 2,2017, p. 73 TSN dated February 2,2017, pp. 73 to 75 / 7 Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 10 of77

a particular purpose, i.e. Tambayayong Festival and the proponent of this activity is the GSC Tourism Association although he admitted that he h^ liot seen any irregularity in these document obligating funds for local and foreij^ travels.^®

He clarified that in this case, there were two Work and Finan[cial Pl^s namely the(1) general and the other one is the(2) detailed Work and FinahQial Plan.^^ It is in the detailed Work and Financial Plan where the expenses fqr travel are indicated but the expenses incurred for visa application i^ not reflected because it is not an allowable expense.^^

With respect to the Notice of Suspension and Disallowance, hje lamented that diere is no time frame when to issue these notices [tp ftp accountable officers] but he maintained that GSC Tourism Association ^a§ given an ample time to complete the liquidation but definitely, the issuance of these notices was not made prematurely. Although, he made it clear that there is no partial suspension because they suspended the whole amount [but] pn the other hand, he admitted that there exist a partial disallowance.^^Howeyer, in this case, his office opted to demand liquidation since accused were ample time tp make the liquidation. In fact, in their Annual report in 391!^? they already sent to the Office of the Mayor and the Office of the iCit^^ Accountant a demand to liquidate the cash advances. Thus, it was npi permissible to [just] issue a Notice of Partial Disallowance [instead]

He claims that for the past thirty (30) years in government seryice a? state auditor, he was assigned both in the local government and natipn^ goyemment agencies and his work focuses on the legality, regularity apd tbp reasonableness of the expenses as guided by the COA Circular on Irregular, Unnecessary, Excessive and Extravagant Expenses. He candidly admitted that the release of the financial grant of P 2,500,000.00 was supported by an appropriation ordinance.^^

Still on CROSS EXAMINATION, he clarified that a general Worjk and Financial Plan is usually made before the budget is obligated by the City Government although this is not mandatory for purposes of audit. Nonetheless, he relied on the Work and Financial Plan since it specifies the details of the expenses unlike in the appropriation ordinance which contains none. He confessed that the figures stated in the Work and Financial Plan are mere estimates such that the actual expenses can be different from the figures

^0 TSN dated February 2,2017, pp. 76 to 77 'Ud id r TSN dated February 2,2017, pp. 79 TSN dated February 2,2017, pp. 70 to 80. TSN dated February 2,2017, pp. 78 /• / Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 11 of77

as reflected in the Work and Financial Plan.^^ He also clarified that the Wptk and Financial Plan was signed by the City Administrator by authority of the CityMayor.^^

With respect to the Visa Application Fee, he confessed that there is no specific provision of the law (sic) mandating that visa application feps be shouldered by the government.^®

On further questioning, he made it clear that the liquidation repqit submitted pertains to the local travel only which was allowed during the ad4i|. None was submitted for the foreign travel. The other expenses allowed were expenses for costumes, other supplies, communication expenses and other maintenance and operating expenses, food expenses particularly on the Pagana Festival being part of a perking (sic)?^ Hotel accommodation is not allowed under an Executive Order.^°

During his RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION, he explained that ^hH^ the duty to liquidate falls upon the GSC Tourism Association, the Notice of Suspension was sent to the Office of the Mayor as part of the stan4^4 operating procedure because he has the fiscal responsibility over the finaneiy transactions of the local government, i.e. he is supposed to oversee the financial transactions ofthe city government. More, he explained that he \yas not aware if the persons [who] were allowed to travel to Manila were abl.^ tp leave for California.^* Further, he said, based on the documents on file, ^pine ofthose who went to the United States were not part ofthe official deleg^ibh of the City Qovemment.^^ In fact, he informed the Court that there were eleven(11) people who claimed for travel allowance in the amount of$100,00 each. Out ofthe 11 people, only six (6)persons were included in the official list namely Julius Valmones, Juvy Sumbrero, Kenan Leuterio, rick Decatpria, Chrismarie May Fuente and Rochdel Balmera.^^

On RE-CROSS EXAMINATION, he insisted that the cash adyapce^ were not liquidated.

JOSE T.MERC ADO, Filipino, 64 years old, married, former City Auditor of General Santos City, a resident of Purok 3, Barangay Villarica, Midsayap, North Cotabato.

TSN dated February 2, 2017, pp. 82 to 84 TSN dated February 2,2017, p. 94 TSN dated February 2,2017, pp. 85 to 87 TSN dated February 2, 2017, p. 95 TSN dated February 2,2017, pp. 96 to 97 TSN dated February 2,2017, p. 101 TSN dated February 2,2017, p. 102 / TSN dated February 2,2017, p.103 Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 12 of77

In the course ofhis testimony, he said he was a COA State Auditor since 2002. That from January 2010 (sic) to June 2010 he was assigned ^ ^e auditor ofthe LGU of General Santos City. Prior to his assignment in Genet"^! Santos City, he was assigned as auditor ofthe 6^ infantry Division,Philippine Army in Awang, Mindanao. He was also assigned at the Bureau of fire Protection and at the Bureau of Jail Management in a concurrent capacity, such, his duties include, to audit all the transactions of the local goyeri^ent unit ofGeneral Santos City including all barangays within the city.^ After Ijis career stint at General Santos City, he was transferred in (sic) the Province pjf Sultan Kudarat.^^

He added that prior to his assumption as the Audit Team Leader qf the LGU of General Santos City, the usual procedure followed is to turn oyqr ?ili documents involved in suspension and disallowance controversies. Howeyer, he lamented that in this case, disbursement vouchers and other supppiting documents pertaining to the cash advance granted to GSC ToiiHsm Association were not turned over to him.^^

He recalled that when he assumed his position, he discovered a fplder at the right side of a table containing a copy of the Notice of Disallowance dated "12/28/09" relating to Tambayayong Festival issued by Auditory Jumilla and Aspilla addressed to accused Mayor Acharon. That whilq the Notice ofDisallowance mentioned Check Number 540316 with Disbursement Voucher No. 100605-2194 and another Check Number 540420 with Disbursement Voucher No. 100606-5375, he did not see a copy of tbesie documents. That there were actually several notices of disallowance, Jje admitted that he did not do anything about these notices because they were already signed by the auditor (Jumilla) and the supervising aqditpr (Aspilla)and, as a matter of procedure, the incoming auditor cannot questiop anymore the actions of the previous auditors. That he was succeeded by Eusebio C. Espanol, Jr. and by the time he left General Santos City, AuditPr Aspilla was still the supervising auditor.^^

He insisted to the Court that, his predecessor did not turn pyer documents with respect to the Tambayayong Festival such that he also did not turn over documents to his successor.^®

He was not subjected to cross examination. Thus, his testimony was deemed completed.^^

^ TSN dated March 1,2017, p. 13 TSN dated March 1,2017, p. 23 TSN dated March 1,2017, p. 14 TSN dated March 1,2017, pp. 18 to 23 TSN dated March 1,2017, p. 28 69 TSN dated March 1,2017, pp. 49 to 50 ;■ Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 13 of77

FEDERICO VALMORIA CABANIT, Filipino, 64 years old, widower, City Accountant of the City of General Santos residing at No. 51 BLISS Calumpang, General Santos City.

He testified that since 1992, he worked as City Accountant of Gep

With respect to Tambayayong Festival, he admitted that he was not the one who prepared the voucher because the voucher and other supporting documents were prepared by the Office of the City Mayor or the officeiyhp will implement the program particularly, accused Dospueblos.^®

Before he was subjected to deeper probing, he candidly admitted Ih^t the documents that he will be identifying are mere photocopies because the originals are in the possession of the COA. That he was able to sepufe photocopies of the. documents only in 2007 when one Manuel Malinao this present case.

During the continuation of his DIRECT EXAMINATION, be described the Tambayayong Festival as a festival participated by the Ipeal government unit of General Santos City represented by GSC Tourispi Association held in Los Angeles, California, United States of America ^ 2006. He affirmed that LGU of General Santos City allocated the amopnt pf P2,500,000.00 for this purpose as evidenced by vouchers that passed thrpu^ his office for processing in favor of GSC Tourism Association headed by ijfe president, accused Macion. But before the three(3) copies ofthe disbursement vouchers together with only one (1) original copy of each of the obligation request, approved Work and Financial Plan, authorization from the Sanggunian Panlungsod, the Memorandum of Agreement and th9 accreditation of the GSC Tourism Association reached his office, the gamp passed through the Office ofthe Mayor. That after evaluating the docuixients, vouchees and other supporting documents, he affixed his signature tp jjip vouchers."^^ He consistently testified that the cash advance for the Tambayayong Festival was given in two(2) tranches, the first tranche is in the amount of One Million Fove Hundred Thousand Pesos(P 1,500,000.00) and the second tranche is in the amount of One Million Pesos(P 1,000,000.00).^^

He testified further that when he received a subpoena to produce the original copies ofthe documents as required, he created a team composed pf

TSN dated February 9, 2016, p. 9 TSN dated February 9,2016, p. 13 ^2 TSN March 2,2017, pp. 6 to 13 73 id Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 14 of77

Carmen Cutamora, Ruben Tiaga, Leticia Enero and George Blectoves wlio conducted the search in their warehouse in Calumpang Sports Complex for two days. Unfortunately, they found out that some of the documents ^^^e destroyed by termites prompting them to go to their other warehouse but still to no avail.

When asked to describe the process of disbursement, he said, aftpr die disbursement vouchers together with the supporting documents are apprpvecl, he will sign them and the same are sent to the Office of the Treasured fpt further processing. After which, they will be fjrwarded to the Office of the Mayor for approval. After approval, they will be forwarded to the Office pf the City Treasurer for check preparation. The prepared check will then be countersigned by the City Administrator and will be brought back to thie Office ofthe Treasurer for releasing.^^ With respect to the Work and Fin^pig!! Plan, he testified that it was the president of the GSC Tourism Association who prepared but it needs to be approved by the Office ofthe Mayor.^^

With respect to the unliquidated amount, he insisted that the amount still to be liquidated is more than ¥ 1,906,979.69, as reflected in the subsidii^ ledger .(Exhibit "F-3"). The rest of the amount was validly liquidated es evidenced by partial liquidation documents submitted to them on October 31, 2008. He also admitted that the COA allowed the partial liquidation because the COA issued a suspension with respect to the balance.^^

During his CROSS EXAMINATION, he acknowledged that the documents submitted to his office were complete. On deeper questioning, he said that it is his office that should receive the liquidation for purposes of evaluation and examination. That his office sent a notice to accused Macion to submit liquidation. He insisted that the liquidation submitted >yas incomplete.^®

HELEN P. LAVILLA, Filipino, 60 years old, married, COA Auditor, Audit T eam Leader and Concurrent Regional Supervising Auditor, a resident of Apitong Extension, Balite, Lagao, General Santos City.

She explained that she was employed at the COA on October 27, 1994 and on January 2010, she was designated as the Audit Team Leader apd concurrently the Officer-in-Charge Supervising Auditor under the Corporate Government Sector Clusters 1 and 2.

TSN March 2,2017, pp. 15 to 17 TSN March 2,2017, pp. 18 to 19 TSN March 2, 2017, p. 22 TSN March 2,2017, pp. 41 to 47 TSN March 2,2017, pp. 71 to 73 / Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 15 of 77

She clarified that from January 2013 up to June 30, 2014, she was the Audit Team Leader of General Santos City As the Audit Tam Leader h^jr duties include the examination, audit and to settle accounts ofthe agency, Sh? also discharges the function as custodian of the documents entrusted to fepr office which includes vouchers and other collection documents subject tp audit.^®

Upon receipt of the subpoena issued by the Office of the Ombudsirigp, she se^ched the vault inside her office containing various documents ^f pending cases handled by the COA Auditor. She emphasized that as the Au^it Team Leader, only she has access to the vault. Among the documents sbc found inside the vault are documents pertaining to Tambayayong FestiyaJ consisting of the official copies of the reports pertaining to [Tambayayong Festival] particularly the voucher and copies of the checks issued.® V She asserted that these documents are official documents since they are properly secured inside the vault.®^ However, when she was asked by the Court whe^p are the original copies ofthe documents she mentioned, she honestly admitted that she have (sic) not actually seen the original copies.®^

In the course of her testitmony, she identified Notice of Disallow^pe dated 12-28-09 {Exhibit Notice of Suspension dated July 31, 20Q8 {Exhibit "F-2"\ Audit Suspensions, Disallowances and Charges d^ted January 7,2010 {Exhibit 'F-1"), Annual Audit Report ofthe City of Genpt^l Santos dated December 31,2006 {Exhibit "G"and Exhibit "G-1" to "G-^p' as its sub-markings) and Liquidation Reports {Exhibit "E").

As to the Liquidation Report {Exhibit "E"), she explained that ^ matter of procedure, persons who asked for cash advances shall submit t^esp liquidation reports. In this case, these docun:.ents were submitted by thp [officers] ofthe LGU of General Santos City which in turn will be forw^dpd to the office ofthe Auditor.®'* When she was confronted with the Annual Audit Report {Exhibit "G'\ she explained that not all parts of the documentis aje reproduced and attached to the report since these documents are bulky £m

For the continuation of her direct testimony, she remembered that in an effort to locate documents relating to the Tambayayong Festival, she together

TSN dated July 26,2016, p. 8

tSN dated July 26,2016, p. 13 82 TSN dated July 26,2016, p. 18 83 TSN dated July 26,2016, p. 20 84 TSN dated July 26,2016, p. 48 83 TSN dated July 26,2016, p. 53 Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 16 of77 with the two(2) staff ofthe supervising auditor started the search by verij^ing documents inside the vault located at the Office of the Auditor, the filing cabinets, inside the "bodega", and all other posrible places where docum^n1:$ may be placed but after searching for a week, their efforts were in vaip, She eyen communicated with Auditor Jumilla prompting the latter to come who also looked inside the vault but what she found only were working papers which were reproduced and submitted to the Office ofthe Ombudsman^

Considering that counsels for all accused manifested that they will pot subject the witness to examination, her testimony was deemed complet^fi,-^

ORLANDO CARCUEVA MATAS, Filipino, 55 years old, married. State Auditor V of COA Region 12, Koronadal City.

He testified that he joined the COA as Auditor I on May 1984 anfi wa^ promoted to State Auditor V in 2007. He was eventually assigni^d ias Supervising Auditor in General Santos City by virtue of an Office Orde^ fipm the COA Central Office. He said that he cannot assume his new po^ifipn without complying with the proper invoice and receipt of properties pnd accountabilities.

As he continued to testify, he said that the two (2) Disbursement VpuchersNos. 10-06-05-4194 and 10-06-06-5375 and all respective annexe^ with supporting documents relative to the Tambayayong Festival, two (2) Landbank checks No. 540316 and 540420 and lastly, all other relpy^t documents in custody of previous COA Audit Team Leader assigned In General Santos City were not among the documents turned over to hiip by Auditor Aspilla.^^

He was not subjected to cross examination. Thus, his testimony was deemed completed.^^

SAMPAGUITA H. LADRIDO,representative of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

I She explained that she requested the Company Registration and Monitoring Department to prepare the Certification on Corporate Filing and Information of the GSC Tourism Association which she brought to the Coutt and found out that based on their data base which they call "SEC i-View" as well as the official records on file with the Securities and Exchange Commission(SEC), the status of the corporation[GSC Tourism Associatipp]

TSN dated March 1,2017, pp. 39 to 44 TSN dated March 1,2017, p. 50 TSN dated July 11,2017, pp. 14 tol5 TSN dated July 11,2017, pplS to 16; Order dated July 11,2017, Record, Vol. 4, p. 59 Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 17 6f77

was revoked since 2003. When asked why the registration of GSC Tourism Association was revoked, she explained that it was revoked because of thp non-filing of the General Information Sheets and Financial Statements frqm 1997 to 2002. Hence, in 2003, the GSC Tourism Association was included in the Master Revocation Orders of the SEC. She continued to testify that uppji getting a print out copy of the Certification on Corporate Filing and Information fi*om the Company Registration and Monitoring Department, she went to the Corporate Filing and Information Division for the issuance ofthe updated corporate filing and information status of GSC Tourisni Association.^®

On CROSS EXAMINATION, she explained that she perspnally requested for a copy of the Certificate of Corporate Filing Information frpih the Company Registration and Monitoring Department.^'

When asked ifthe GSC Tourism Association was afforded due prpce§^ before its registration was revoked, she explained that, an order was publi^hpih in newspapers although no notice was sent to the corporation or associatiph concerned. Corporations which failed to file their reports for a period qf at least five (5) years were given a period of thirty (30) days to appeal fo die

shall not be revoked. That non-appearance within the thirty day period \yill result to the inclusion in the Mass Revocation Order. In the case of QSG Tourism Association, she explained that although it was registered in 1993, it did not file its reports for the years 1997 to 2002 which explains why it was included in the Mass Revocation Order.®^

Lastly, she candidly admitted that she did not bring with her a copy pf the newspaper which contained the Mass Revocation Order but committed to bring a copy of the same when directed by the Court.^^

On RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION, she explained that the resort tp publication of the order of publication and [not sending a notice to the concerned corporation] is to make the information available to the piibijc relative to the status ofthe corporation.®''

On RE-CROSS EXAMINATION, she confessed that there was m imperfection in encoding the document containing the names of the corporation.®^

TSN dated July 12,2017, pp. 14 to 18 r "TSN dated July 12,2017, pp. 21 to 23 ^ TSN dated July 12,2017, pp. 24 to 27 "TSN dated July 12,2017, p. 31 •• / ^ TSN dated July 12,2017, p. 33 "TSNdatedJuly 12,2017,p.36 / Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 18 of77

By way of answer to the QUESTIONS OF THE COURT, she enlightened ^e Court that the GSC Tourism Association is a non-stpqk corporation.^^

LEAH YUTIS TOLIMAO, Filipino, married, 55 years old. Head ofthe Human Resource Management and ' Development Office of LGU of General Santos City, residing at No. 29, Springville Subdivision, Apopong, General Santos City.

To expedite her direct testimony, the prosecution offered for stipulafipn the following which were admitted by all the defense counsels^^:

L As the Head of the Human Resource Management Development Office of the the LGU of General Santos City, she has custody ofthe 201 files of[all personnel] ofthe LGU ofGenpml Santos City; 2, That she received a subpoena from the Office of the Ombud^ni!^ requiring her to submit documents pertaining to the Personal D^t^ Sheet of accused Pedro Acharon, Jr., 3, That as a record custodian, she brough with her original copiqs of the Personal Data Sheet and Service Records of accused PPdrp Acharon, Jr. and Marcelino Dospueblos; 4, That certified true copies of those documents are faithful reproduction ofthe original copies ofthose documents.

On additional direct examination, she attested that her office ^as furnished with a copy of Memorandum No. OMMA2006-Feb-IGST-0104-A on March 11, 2006, received by receving clerk, Bemarda Guzal.^^

On CROSS EXAMINATION, she clarified that her office does pot have a Finance Administrator. When she assumed office last 2013, all finance matters are being coursed through the Budget Office and the City Treasurer's Office. While there is a Finance Unit, it merely checks [as to] the 99

JOHN PHILIP QUIMOSING,Filipino, 56 years old, married. City Budget Officer of General Santos City and a resident of General Santos City.

I To expedite the proceedings, the follov/ing matters were stipulated upon:

TSN dated July 12, 2017, p. 34 TSN dated August 2,2017, pp. 7 to 22 TSN dated August 2,2017, pp. 15 to 18 TSN dated August 2,2017, p. 19 ■) ' Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 19 of77

1. That the witness was the Acting Budget Officer ofthe City , Government of General Santos in 2004 and in 2007, he was permanently appointed as such; 2, That being the Budget Officer, he is in-charge of the affairs (sic) of the said office and as such, he certify (sic) documents like the Work and Financial Plans and Obligation Slips as to availability of funds or appropriation; 3, TTiat sometime in 2006, he signed the Work and Financial Plan relative to the Tambayayong Festival delegation to Los Angeles,[United States] project ofthe GSC Tourism Association; 4. That he can identify the Work and Financial Plan, the signatures of accused Dospueblos and accused Macion.

He explained that the Work and Financial Plan must originate frorp(he proponent, who in this case is accused Macion of the GSC Tptirisi^ Association, a Non-Government Organization. Upon receipt of it, his pfjipe will then check if there are funds available. If there are, he will sign it ^|d return the same to the proponent. The proponent will then prepare Jhe necessary documents like the Obligation Slip and Disbursement Vouchers and together with all the documents, the Work and Financial Plan will be forwarded anew to his office. Upon review of the Work aiid Financial Plan, he found that the expenses described therein are for fprefgn and travel expenses, supplies expenses and other maintenance and oper^ipg expenses chargeable against the General Fund specifically for NGQ/POt^^-

Op CROSS EXAMINATION,he confessed that upon seeing the panpie of accused Macion followed by the term "president" in the Work and Financial Plan, he assumed that she is the president of GSC Tourisrri Association. He explained that when his office approved the Work and Financial Plan, it only means that funds are available but it does not certify tp whom the funds should be given to/paid. He added that since his officp has no audit functions, his office cannot verify as to who really requested thP funds. Upon questioning of the Court, he explained that, once the Work arid Financial Plan is submitted to his office, he will check ifthere is an ordinance that appropriated funds for the project. When asked further about the Work and Financial Plan and the other document denominated as Work and Financial Plan Request for Allotment, he explained that acronym "LBEF" means Local Budget Execution Form which indicates that said documents ate government official budget forms.^

'00 TSN dated October 5,2017, pp. 24 to 29 101 dated October 5,2017, pp. 32 to 36 '02 tSN dated October 5,2017, pp. 37 to 39 Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 20 of77

He expounded that his office has a financial book known as "registry" from which they deduct funds everytime a Work and Financial Plan pr obligation slips are submitted to them. He made clear that only after looking at the registry and after determining that there are no available funds, th^t the issuance ofa certification can be withheld. In this case, he emphasized that he has no personal knowledge as to who is the payee of the check and as tp ^e fact ofthe actual disbursement of the check.^®^

MARY ANNE LAGARE-ACADEMIA,Filipino, 46 years old, married, a lawyer and notary public, with business address at Lagare Law Offices, Catolico Avenue, General Santos City, residing at Ventilacion Street, Barangay Lagao, General Santos City.

To expedite her direct testimony, the following were stipulated uppn by all the parties:

1, That she is a Notary Public in General Santos City since 1097; 2. That she notarized the affidavit ofaccused Criselda Macion on April 18,2006; 3. That the affidavit of accused Criselda Macion was perspn^ly executed before her; 4. That she can identify the signature of accused Criselda Macion; 5, The existence of a Memorandum of Agreement marked as Exhibit "B-11"; 6, The existence of the Memorandum of Agreement and that sh? brought the original copy of the Memorandum of Agreement fpir comparison.

VIRGILIO OMANDAM ASPILLA, Filipino, 64 years old, married, former COA State Auditor V, currently a Licensed Real Estate Broker and Businessman, doing business and residing at Aspilla Building, Quirino Drive, Kidapawan City.

Tp expedite his testimony, the following matters were stipulated:*®^:

1. That he was assigned as Supervising Auditor of General Santos City from July 2009 up to February 2011; 2. That he is a co-signatory with Audit Team Leader Herman JuniiUa of the Notice of Disallowance {Exhibit "F") issued to the LGU pf

TSN dated October 5,2017, pp. 40 to 42 TSN dated October 5,2017, pp. 46 to 54 105 dated October 5,2017, pp. 61 to 68 Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 21 of 77

General Santos City with regard to a transaction made in 2006 granting a financial assistance to GSC Tourism Association, a. ppa- govemment organization; 3. That he is a co-signatory with Herman Jumilla in the Statement of Audit Suspension, Disallowance and Charges {Exhibit "F-/") as required by COA Issuances; 4. That he can identify the signatures of Herman Jumilla as appe^ing in the Notice of Disallowance, Statement of Audit Suspensiphis, Disallowances, and Charges and Notice of Suspension in NS-2p08r 001-101-2006; 5. That the disbursement vouchers and also the documents marked e? Exhibits "B" to "3-13" pertaining to this case are no longer iri hfe possession or custody and has been returned together with the Notice of Disallowance marked as Exhibit "F-1" after he signed it.

For the continuation of his DIRECT EXAMINATION,he confinned that he reminded and directed Herman Jumilla to prepare the Noticp of Disallowance as well as the Statement of Audit Suspension, Disallow^cps and Charges. He, however, admitted that the latter document was submitted on a later date because Herman Jumilla was about to be re-assigned to G&A Region XI and there would be turn-over of some documents. That because pf this, the audit of transaction was not completed although the 90 days period as provided in the Notice ofSuspension already lapsed. Thereafter, documeiits such as liquidations statements and checks and disbursement vouchers apd other documents, were submitted to his office. Further, he admitted that liP did not sign the Notice of Disallowance pending the submission of fljp Statement of Audit Suspensions, Disallowances and Charges(SASDC). tJppn receipt ofthe SASDC, he signed it as well as the Notice of Disallowancp tod forwarded it to the office ofthe Audit Team Leader. He likewise affinped that fact that the LGU- General Santos City did not reply to the Notice pf Disallowance

On CROSS EXAMINATION, he admitted that he did not actually

Macion, Marcelino Dos Pueblos and Federico Cabanit. But he insisted that he relied on both the Notice of Suspension and Notice of Disallowance. More, he asserted that a check was issued under the name of GSC Tourism Association and not in the name of accused Macion nor accused Dos Pueblos nor Mr. Cabanit. He made it clear that he included the name of accused Macion in the Notice of Disallowance because she was the one who made representation on behalf ofthe GSC Tourism Association.^®^

TSN dated October 5,2017, pp. 71 to 72 TSN dated October 5,2017, pp. 77 to 79 TSN dated October 5,2017, p. 80 109 dated October 5,2017, pp. 84 to 86 f Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 22 of77

When asked about the Statement of Audit Suspensions, Disallowances and Charges (SASDC), he admitted that he did not personally evaluate j^s document because of time constraint and just relied on the docuinent? submitted by Mr. Jumilla. He explained that he will not sign a Notice df Suspension if he finds [out that] Ae findings to be highly incorrect and that the names as appearing in the vouchers are the not the persons whq are responsible under the Notice of Suspension.^

Further, he clarified that ifa transaction can be denied outright, a Notice ofDisallowance will be issued. But if there are matters that the agency cap settle, a Notice of Suspension can be issued instead. He explained that ip this case, what happened was a Notice of Disallowance was issued because the m^agement (sic) did not comply with the requirements as stated in the Notice of Suspension particularly on the gross amount, the amount what was refunded and the amount covered by the Notice of Suspension^ He said, he sent the original copy of the Notice of Disallowance to the head the agency while the other copies were sent to the persons primarily liable. He stressed that there is no such thing as Notice ofPartial Disallowance eycp if a partial liquidation was submitted as in this case. As to when liquidatip.n be submitted, he relied on the provision ofexisting COA Rules and Regulation

are primarily responsible to make the liquidation. He explained that the ^^prk and Financial Plan must emanate from an NGO.

SUSAN LffilDASUS PACE DONALVO, Filipino, , 63 years old, widow. Regional Director IV of Commission on Audit Region XII and a resident of Davao City

To speed up her testimony, the following were offered for stipulation which jformed part of her direct testimony^ ^ :

1. That she is the incumbent Regional Director IV of COA-regiop 2. That she received a letter from the Office of the Special Prosecqtqr to conduct an investigation; 3. That she conducted an investigation by verifying existing disbursement vouchers and supporting documents in connection with this case but the same is still not terminated;

After the testimony of these witnesses, the Prosecution offered the following:

110 dated October 5,2017, pp. 87 to 94 TSN dated October 5,2017, pp. 118 to 121 Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 23 of77

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

Exhibits Description

Affidavit-Complaint of Manuel S. Malinao dated May 30, 2007 Certified Photocopy from Photocopy on File Disbursement Voucher dated June 5,2016 "B-14" The signature on top ofthe name Marcelino E. Dospueblos, City Finance Administrator «B-14-a" The signature on top of the name Federico V. Canabit, City Accountant «B-14-b" The signature on top of the name Marcelino E. Dospueblos, City Finance Administrator "B-14-C" The signature on top ofthe name Chriselda Macion , «B-r Certified Photocopy from Photocopy on File GCS Tourism Association, Inc. Official receipt No.002 dated June 6,2006 reflecting the amount of PI,000,000.00 "B-2" Certified Photocopy from Photocopy on File Journal Entry Voucher dated June 6,2006 '•B-20'' The signature on top of the name Carmen A. Catamora, Accountant IV "B-20-a" The signature on top of the name Federico V. Cabanit, CGDH II Certified Photocopy from Photocopy File Disbursement Voucher "B-15" to The signature on top of the name Marcelino E. "B-15-a" Dospueblos, City Finance Administrator "B-15-b" The signature on top of the name Federico V. Canabit, City Accountant «B-4'' Certified Photocopy from Photocopy on File GSC Tourism association. Inc. Official Receipt No. 001 dated May 30, 2006 reflecting the amount of P1,500,000.00 "B-5" Journal Entry Voucher dated May 30, 2006 reflecting the amount of 1,500,000.00 "B-21" The signature on top t f the name Federico V. Cabanit, CGDH Certified Photocopy from Photocopy on file Obligation Slip No. 06-05-05005 dated May 18,2006 "B-Ib" The signature on top ofthe name Pedro B. Acharon, Jr. City Mayor «B-16-a" The signature on top of the name John Philip G. Quimpsing, Acting Budget Officer "B-T* Certified Photocopy from Photocopy on File Work and Request for Allotment, Financial Pain and Request Allotment CY 2006 of City Mayor's Office-GSC Tourism Association "B-T-a" The signature on top ofthe name Chriselda Macion "B-T-b" The signature on top ofthe Marcelino E. Dospueblos "B-T-c" The signature on top ofthe name John Philip G. Quimosing «B-8" Certified Photocopy from Phtocopy on file of the Work and Financial Plan(WFP) CY 2006 "B-S-a" The signature on top of me name Chriselda Macion "B-8-b" The signature on top of the name Marcelino E. Dospueblos "B-S-c" Traveling Expenses Local reflecting the amount of 56,560.00 -B-S-d" The signature on top ofthe name John Philip G. Quimosing "B-9" Certified True Copy from the Original on File Subsidy to NGOs/Pos-GSC Tourism Association reflecting the total amount of 2,500,000.00 "B-ir* The signature on top ofthe name Chriselda C. Macion "B-W Certified True Copy from Photocopy on File affidavit of Chriselda C. Macion, President of General Santos City Tourism Association, Inc. "B-I8" The signature on top of the name Chriselda I. Clarisa- Macion, GSC Tourism Association, Inc. "B-11" Certified True Copy from Photocopy on File Memorandum of Agreement between City of General Santos and GSC Tourism Association, Inc.(2 pages) Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 24 of77

The signature on top of the name Chriselda-Macion, President GSC Tourism Association "B-19-a" The signature on top of the name Pedro B. Acharon, Jr. LGU-General Santos Certified True Copy from Photocopy on File certificate of Accreditation General Santos City Tourism Association, Inc. Certified True copy from Photocopy on File Securities and Exchange Commission Certificate with registry No. 000321 GSC Tourism Association, Inc. «C" Certified True Copy from Photocopy on File Check with No. 540420 reflecting the amount of PI,000,000.00 Certified True Copy from Photocopy on File Check with No. 540316 reflecting the aniount of PI,500,000.00 Status of Cash Advance Granted to the GSC Tourism Association as of December 28, 2009 with Unliquidated Balance fir disallowance PI,906,979.69 "E-l" to Schedule of Report of Disbursement GSC Tourism «iE-5" Association, Inc. Tambayayong Festival 2006 «E-6" to Summary reflecting the total amount of •♦E-6-a" P375,923.96 «E-T* Attachment reflecting the amount of PI,013,044.0I "E-S" Tracer Slip GSC Tourism council "E-9" GSC Tourism association Inc. Addressed to Mr. Federico Cabanit, City Accountant re: Liquidation of Tambayayong Fund dated October 31, 2008 signed by Chriselda C. Macion, President "E-10" to Work and Financial Plan and Request for Allotment •♦E-ir CY 2005, city Mayor's Office-GSC Tourism Association prepared by Chriselda C. Macion recommended by John Philip G. Quimosing and approved by Marcelino E. Dospueblos, City Finace Administration "E-12" Subsidy to NGOss/Pos-GSC Tourism association signed by Chriselda C. Macion, President GSC Tourism Association "E-13" report of Disbursements reflecting the amount of P75,488.70 "E-14" Comment of Chriselda Macion re: rebooking fee "E-15" Comment of Chriselda Macion re: flights of delegates "E-16" Yellow Blue Line, Inc. Ticket Nos. 763341, 763334, 763333, 763343 «E-17" Yellow Bus Line, Inc. Nos. 763332,76331,763330,763329 "E-W Yellow Bus Line, Inc. Ticket Nos. 763332,763331,76330, 763329 «E-19" Statement of Account Nos. 0306 dated May 26, 2006 to GenSan Delegates do Emerberta Nazareth/Chriselda Macion "E-20" Sonly Travel and Tours Official Receipt No. 0104 with the amount of P66,I47.20 and Official Receipt No. 0105 with the amount of P5,264.0C «E-2r Air Philippines ticket of Mr. Ronald Sarona with serial no. 0410354434 dated may 25, 2006, Terminal fee ticket. Boarding Pass dated may 30,2006 and Air Philippines ticket of Mr. Felicisimo Casilagan with serial no. 0410354427 dated May 25, 2006, Terminal fee ticket. Boarding Pass dated May 30,2006 "E-22'' Air Philippines ticket of Ms. Aloha Lugares with serial no. 0410354432 dated May 25, 2006, Terminal fee ticket. Boarding Pass dated May 30,2006 «E-23" Air Philippines ticket of Ms. Sheiyl Mae Fuerte with serial no. 0410354442 dated May 25, 2006, Terminal fee ticket. Boarding Pass dated May 30,2006 and Air Philippines ticket of Mr. Ronel Guevarra with serial No. 04103544^ 'E-24' Air Philippines ticket of Ms. Rosita Hatulan with serial no. 0410354429 dated May 25, 2006, Terminal fee ticket. Boarding Pass dated May 30,2006 "E-25" Air Philippines ticket of Mr. Omar Bulambot with serial no. 0140354435 dated May 25, 2006, Terminal fee ticket. Boarding Pass dated May 30,2006 and Air Philippines ticker of Ms. Marites Esteva with serial no. 0I4I0354466 dated May 25,2006, Terminal fee ticket. Boarding Pass dated May 30,2006

{r- Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 25 of77

Air Philippines ticket of Mr. Ray Philippe Octura with serial no. 0410354431 dated May 25, 2006, Terminal fee ticket. Boarding Pass dated May 30,2006 and Air Philippines ticket of Ms. Chriselda Macion with serial no. 0410354466 dated May 25,2006,Terminal fee ticket. Boarding Pass dated May 30,2006 «E-27" Air Philippines ticket of Mr. Bechel Cajegas with serial no. 04103554433 dated May 25, 2006, Terminal fee ticket. Boarding Pass dated Ma/ 30,2006 «E-28" Air Philippines ticket of Ms. Alicia Tiala with serial no. 0410354436 dated May 25, 2006, Terminal fee. Boarding Pass dated May 30, 2006 and Air Philippines ticket of Mr. Bonna Mai Pasaje with serial no.0410354438 dated May 25, 2006, Terminal Fee ticket. Boarding Pass dated May 30, 2006 «E-29'' Air Philippines ticket of Ms. Jovelen Colis with serial no. 0410354440 dated May 25, 2006, Terminal fee ticket. Boarding Pass dated may 30,2006 «E-30" Air Philippines ticket of Ms. Charis Pagay with serial no, 0410354439 dated May 25, 2006, terminal fee ticket. Boarding Pass dated May 30,2006 and Air Philippines ticket of Mr. Florian Padecio with serial no. 0410354441 dated May 25,2006,Terminal fee ticket. Boarding Pass dated May 30,2006 "E-3r Air Philippines ticket of Ms. Irene Joy Macadag-um with serial no. 0410354437 dated May 25, 2006, terminal fee ticket. Boarding Pass da'ed May 30,2006 "£-32" Air Philippines ticket of Ms. Emeberta Nazareth with serial no. 0410354430 dated May 25, 2006, Terminal fee ticket. Boarding Pass dated May 30,2006 and Air Philippines ticket of Ms. Josephine Deldig with serial no. 0410355428 dated ,ay 25, 2006, Terminal fee ticket. Boarding pass dated May 30,2006

"£-33" Air Philippines ticket of Mr. Peter Nazareth with serial no. 0410354445 dated May 25, 2006, Terminal fee ticket. Boarding Pass dated May 30,2006 "£-34" report of Disbursement of Ms. Chriselda Macion for Visa Application Fee refleting the amount of P243,300.00 "£-35" Comment of Chriselda Macion re; visa application "£-36" Equitable PCI Bank Deposit receipts for Aileen Umali reflecting the amount ofP31,500.00 and PI 11,300.00 "£-3r BPl Bank deposit Slips for US Embassy reflecting the amount of P5,300.00, and P5,300.00, and P5,200.00 "£-38" BPl Bank Deposit Slips for US Embassy ref. No. 003805 - P5,300.00, Ref. No. 003803 - P5,300.00, ref. No. 003801 - P5,300.00, Ref No. 00382 - P5,300.00, ref. No. 003804 - P5,300.00, Ref. No. 003795 -P5,300.00, Ref. No. 003797- P5,300.00 "£-39" BPl Bank Deposit Slips for US Embassy ref. No. 003800- P5,300, Ref. No. 003790- P5,300.00, ref. no. 003794 - P5,300.00, ref. No. 003793- P5,300.00, Ref. No. 003806- P5,300.00, ref. No. 003792- P5,300.00, ref. No. 003794 - P5,300.00, ref. No.0025345 - P5,300.00 "£-40" report of Disbursement re: Travel allowance to delegates during visa Interview reflecting the amount of P79,600.00 "£-41" comment of Chriselda Macion re: Travel Allowance of the Delegates "£-42" Check Voucher dated June 6, 2006 received by Julius Valmores with the amount of P75,000.00 "£-43" Receiving copy for termmal fees, meals and fares dated June 7,2006 "£-44" Fay Fuerte liquidation "£-45" general Santos City Tourism Association, Inc. Receiving copy re: allowance for travel June 3,2006 "£-46" Handwritten receiving copy re: allowance to delegates dated June 3,2006 reflecting the amount of P800.00 "£-47" Handwritten receiving copy re: allowances to delegates dated June 3,2006 reflecting the amount of P2,600.00 "£-48" Report of Disbursements with Cash Advance No. DVlO-06- 05-4865/DV10-06-06-5375 reflecting the amount of P37,985.00 •.r Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 26 of 77

"£-49" List of Delegates "E-50" Midland Pacific Development Corporation. Collector's receipt No. 28283 for GSCTA reflecting the amount of P4,800.00 "E-Sl" to Residencia De Mar Hostels Corporation Official "E-SS" receipt # 428 with the amount ofP 10,405.00; OR#429 with the amount PI2,730.00 with the amount PI0,050.00 "E-54" REPORT OF Disbursements reflecting tite amount of P209,513.77 "E-SS" Comment of Chriselda Macion re; expenses incurred in Los Angeles "E-56" Liquidation of Expenses submitted by Rey L. Billena, Substitute Head of delegation and approved by Chriselda Macion, President GSC Tourism Association "E-57" Travel Allowance of Performers with the amount of US $1,100.00 "E-SS" food for Contingent with US $500.00 M£_59» Communication with US $50.00 «E-60" to General Santos City Tourism Association Inc. "E-62'' Participation to the 1"Tambayayong festival in Carson City, USA Travel Allowance to Official delegates from June 10- 11,2006 received by Mary Jaerlin Mandal and Disbursed by Chriselda Macion "£-63" to General Santos City Tourism Association Inc. "E-65" Participation to the l'^ Tambayayong Festival in Carson City, USA Travel Allowance to Official delegates from June 10-11, 2006 received by Valmores, Sombero, Leuterio, Decatoria, Fuerte,, Valmera, Valmones, Octuram, Asencio and Hernandez which was disbursed by Chriselda Macion "£-66" Manila Grille Restaurant Invoice No.0156 with the amount $500.00

/ »E-67" Manila Grille fastfood and catering Services Menu "E-68" Expenses reflecting the balance of US $60.90 "£-69" Vicky's food Service with the amount of US $680.97 •*£-70" receiving copy of Vick*/ Malasador from General Santos Tourism Association "E-71" Mixie's Food Service with the amount US $410.36 "E-72" to Mix n Magic Official Receipt No. 14635 dated "E-75" June 11,2006 and receipts "E-76" to Tuna Raw Materials with the amount of US "£-79" $752.83 and receipts "£-79" Disposable Plates and Utensils with the amount of US $234.91 "£-80" to Receipts from Food 4 Less and Walmart «£-8r "£-82" Bottled Water with the amount of US $ 70.00 "£-83" Acknowledgment receipt re: payment ofseven (7) cartons of mineral water with the amount of US $70.00 received by Yolanda Punzalan "£-84" Fuel Expenses with the amount of US $154.02 and receipts "£-90" Report of Disbursements re: Costumes with the amount of 91.015.69 "E-91" Comment of Chriselda Macion re: Costumes "£-92" report of Disbursement re:Costumes with the amount of 6,923.50 "£-93" Tibu Arts and Crafts with OR No. 2077 dated May 7,2006 with the amount of P6,500.00 "£-94" Fit Mart Gensan Cash Invoice dated May 11,2006 with the amount of P562.50 "£-95" Padirog Tailoring receipt dated May 13, 2006 with the amount of P2,600.00 "£-96" Cotabato K. Modiste Center Cash Invoice dated May 15, 2006 with the amount P250.00 "£-97" Fit Mart Cash Invoice dated May 17,2006 with the amount P315.50 "£-98" Popeye Handicraft Cash Invoice No. 1209 dated May 21, 2006 with the amount ofPI 75.00 Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CPIM-0273 Page 27 of 77

"£-99" KCC Mall of Gensan Cash Invoice No.51636 dated May 21, 2006 with the amount of PI65.00 "E-lOO" Gaisano Dadiangas, Inc. Cash Invoice No. 199861 dated May 23,2006 with the amount of P700.50 "E-101" KCC Mall of Gensan Cash Invoice No.52601 dated May 23, 2006 with the amount of PI,067.86 "£-102" delivery receipt No. 2288 with the amount of PI,100.00 •*£-103" Sarangani Merchandising 11 Cash Invoice No. 43932 dated May 25,2006 with the amount of P63.00 "IM" Rey's Store Cash Invoice No. 75573 dated May 25, 2006 wirh the amount of P45.00 "£-105" Padirog Tailoring receipt dated May 26, 2006 with the amount of P4,443.00 "£-106" Side Step Store Cash Invoice No. 2121 with the amount ogf P44,660.00 "£-107" KCC Mall of Gensan Cash Invoice No. 52665 with the amount of PI96.00 "£-108" Sarangani Merchandising Cash Invoice No. 133511 dated May 29,2006 with the amount of P288.00 "£-109" Fit Mart Gensan Cash Invoice No. 174663 dated May 27, 2006 with the amount of PI21.50 "£-110" Rey's Store Cash Invoice with Invoice No. 15313 dated May 27,2006 with the amount of P88.00 "E-111" KCC Mall of Gensan Cash Invoice No.52725 dated May 27, 2006 with the amount of P35.00 "£-112" Ace Centerpoint Cash Invoice No. 564025 dated May 28, 2006 with the amount of P59.50 "£-113" receipt No. 341 dated May 28, 2006 with the amount of P70.00 "£-114" KCC Shopping Center Cash Invoice No. 334038 with the amount of P289.00 "£-115" Caumeran Store receipt dated May 30,2006 with the amount of PI55.00 "£-116" Commoners Commercial Cash Invoice No. 60953 dated June 3,2006 with the amount ofPI 67.50 "£-117" Sales Invoice No. 3590 dated June 3,2006 with the amount ofP120.00 "£-118" Schools of Indigenous Knowledge and Tradition (SIKAT), Inc. Official Receipt No. 09 dated June 2, 2006 with the amount of P9,140.00 "£-120" Aida and Billy's Native Store Delivery receipt no. 1215 dated June 7,2006 with the amount ofP4,305.00 "£-121" Fuego United sales. Inc. Cash Invoice No. 18155 dated June 27,2006 with the amount of P130.00 "£-122" Petty Cash Voucher dated March 14,2006 with the amount of PI,120.00 "£-123" MJA Artcrafls Cash Invoice No.64 dated May 30,2006 with the amount ofPI 98.00 "£-124" Caumeran Store dated May 30, 2006 with the amount of P890.00 "£-125" Rengel Mart Cash invo.ce No. 71951 dated May 31, 2006 with the amount of P288.00 "£-126" Viray-Amoguis Store Cash Invoice No. 20914 dated May 30,2006 with the amount ofP384.00 "£-127" Ohden & Prima Handicrafts Sales Invoice No. 0964 reflecting the amount of P750.00 "£-128" Report of Disbursements reflecting the amount ofP9,538.00 "£-129" Mega Charm Convenience Store Cash Invoice No. 3412 dated April 10, 2006 fir KAFYE Ensemble reflecting the amount of P56.00 "£-130" Dad Crown Bookstore, Inc. Cash Invoice No. 124801 dated April 11, 2006 for KAFYE Ensemble reflecting the amount ofP88.75 "£-131" Marasa Grill Cash Invoice No. 0979 dated April 13, 2006 reflecting the amount ofP75.00 "£-132" Unique Digital Studio, Inc. Official Receipt No. 5205 dated June 14, 2006 reflecting the amount ofP350.00 "£-133" Gaisano Dadiangas, Inr. cash Invoice No. 193480 dated April 15,2006 reflecting the amount of PI34.00 "£-134" Gaisano Dadiangas, Inc. Cash Invoice No. 193492 dated April 16,2006 reflecting the amount of P23.00

/' Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 28 of77

"E-135" to Receipts received from KAFYE dated April 28, "E-137" 2006 with the following amount of P460.00, P40.00 and April 19,2006 with the amount of PI 55.00 "E-WS" Wilmond Printing Press Delivery receipts No. 27754 dated April 20,2006 reflecting the amount of P4,200.00 "E-139" Dad Crown Bookstore, Inc. Cash Invoice No. 60561 dated April 20,2006 reflecting the amount of PI 30.00 "E-140" Dad Crown Bookstore, Inc. Cash Invoice No. 60566 dated April 20,2006 reflecting the amount of PI 62.50 -E-14r Dwinar Computer Center Official receipt No. 0987 dated April 22,2006 reflecting the amount of P676.50 •♦E-142" National Bookstore receipt dated April 23, 2006 reflecting the amount of P399.75 «E-143" R-Dinhaw Marketing Official receipt No. 888 dated May 11, 2006 reflecting the amount of PI 5.00 •♦E-144" to Starbright Office Depot, Inc. Sold to GSCTA dated "E-MS" May 30,2006 reflecting the amount of P130.50 and P2I7.50 "E-146" to Jovan Photo Center receipt nos . 919912 & 919910 "E-M?" dated May 31, 2006 reflecting the amount of P38.50 and P743.75 •♦E-148'' Uncle Jude's Pharmacy Official Receipt No. 004650 dated May 31,2006 reflecting the amount of P37.50 "E-149" Uncle Jude's Pharmacy Official Receipt No. 004676 dated May 31,2006 reflecting the amount of P 56.00 "E-150" National Bookstore reci.ipt dated May 31, 2006 reflecting the amount of P388.50 "E-isr Jet-Link Official receipt No. 0982 dated May 31, 2006 reflecting the amount of P425.00 •♦E-ISZ" Jet-Link Official receipt No. 0981 dated May 31, 2006 reflecting the amount of P290.00 "E-153'' Report of Disbursements reflecting the amount of P41,618.00 •'E-154*' Report of Disbursements reflecting the amount of P965.00

"E-ISS" deposit/Payment Slip dated May 8, 2006 for Atty. Alberto Ablan with the amount of P5,000.00 "E-ise" Hope Travel and Immigration Services Official receipt No. 1056 dated May 7, 2006 foe Emeberta Nazareth with the amount of P5,000.00 "E-IST" Hope Travel and Immigration Services Official receipt No. 1057 dated May 9, 2006 for Chriselda Macion with the amount of P14,800.00 "E-158" Handwritten receiving copy dated May 31, 2006 reflecting the amount of P20,000.00 as partial payment for immigration consultancy services "E-159" Falgui Law Office Official receipt No. 9855 dated May 30, 2006 for GSC Tourism Association, Inc. with the amount of PI 00.00 "E-160" Diagnostic Computer Center Cash Invoice No. 28866 dated January 26,2006 for KAFYE with the amount of P250.00 "E-161" Weblink receipt dated January 27,2006 with the amount of PI42.00 for printing "E-162" Starbright Office Depot, Inc. Cash Invoice No. 014105 dated January 28,2006 with the amount of P216.00 "E-163'' Weblink receipt dated January 28, 2006 with the amount of P40.00 for printing "E-164'' Receipt dated March 13,2006 with the amount of P27.00 for computer rental "E-165" Diagnostic Computer Center cash Invoice No. 30120 dated March 16, 2006 with the amount of P500.00 for video transferring "E-iee" Diagnostic computer Center Cash Invoice No. 29139 dated February 7,2006 with the amount of PI 60.00 for printing "E-167" Diagnostic Computer Center Cash Invoice No. 30025 dated March 13,2006 with the amount of PI 7.50 for reproduction "E-ieS" CE Internet Caf6 & Business resources Official receipt No. 5515 dated March 18,2006 with the amount of P37.00 "E-169'' Diagnostic computer Center cash Invoice No. 30194 dated March 21,2006 with the amount of PI 0.50 1 Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 29 of77

"E-170" Diagnostic Computer Center Cash Invoice No. 30231 dated March 21,2006 with the amount of PIO.SO "E-i7r Cyber Galleria Internet Caf(£ & Business Center official receipt No. 0107 dated March 22, 2006 with the amount of P13.00 for computer rental "E-172" Diagnostic Computer Center cash Invoice No. 30253 dated March 20,2006 with the amount of P28.00 "E-173'' Marasa grill Official receipt No. 2031 dated march 30,2006 with the amount of PI 8.00 "E-174" City Web receipt dated April 5,2006 with amount of P30.00 "E-175" City Web receipt dated April 6, 2006 with the amount of P29.00 "E-176" City Web receipt dated April 9, 2006 with the amount of P95.00 ."E-I77'' City Web receipt dated April 11, 2006 with the amount of P68.00 •♦E-178" City Web receipt dated April 19, 2006 with the amount of P90.00 "£-179" City web receipt dated April 19, 2006 with amount of P 34.00 "E-180" City Web receipt dated April 19, 2006 with the amount of P66.00 «E-18r Web Gateway receipt dr ted April 19,2006 with the amount ofPSOO.OO "E-182- City Web receipt dated May 5, 2006 with the amount of P55.00 "E-183" City Web receipt dated May 13, 2006 with the amount if P57.00 "E-184- report of Disbursements re: returned Unexpended Balance to the GSC Treasurer's Office reflecting the amount of P217,096.35 "E-185" General Santos City Office of the Treasurer Official receipt No. 2143320 reflecting the amount of P217,096.35 "£-186" Comment of Chriselda Macion re: resolutions nos. 187 & 188

"E-187" Letter if Pedro Acharon, Jr. to Chriselda Macion dated May 9,2006 "E-188" to Memorandum of Agreement dated May 12, 2006 "£-188-3" between the City of General Santos, represented by Mayor Pedro Acharon, Jr. and GSC Tourism Association by Chriselda Macion "£-189" to Excerpt from the Minutes of the 94"* Regular "£-189-a" Session of the Sangguniang Panlungsod dated April 27, 2006 Resolution No. 188 "£-190" Affidavit of Chriselda Macion dated April 18,2006 "£-191" to Excerpt from the Minutes of the 94*^ Regular Session "£-191-a" of the Sangguniang Panlungsod dated April 27, 2006 Resolution No. 187 ap» Certified True Copy from the Original in file Notice of Disallowance dated December 28,2009 "F-2-g" The signature on top of the name Herman B. Jumilla, Audit Team Leader "F-2-h" The signature on top of the bane if Virgilio O. Aspilla, Supervising Auditor "F-2-i" The stamp marking appearing in the upper right portion of the Notice of Disallowance showing receipt of City Administrator's Office General Santos City "F-2-j" The stamp marking appearing in the lower right portion of the Notice of Disallowance showing receipt of Office of the City Mayor General Santos City "F-2-k" The stamp marking appearing in the lower left portion of the notice of Disallowance showing receipt of Office of the City Government General Santos City "F-1" certified true Copy from the Original on file Statement of Audit Suspensions, Disallowances and Charges (SASDC) dated January 7, 2010 addressed to Pedro B. Acharon, Jr., Mayor attn.: Mr. Federico V. Canabit, City Accountant

1 } Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 30 of77

"F-2" Certified true Copy from the Original on File Notice of Suspension with No.2008-001-101 (06)dated July 31,2008 "F-l-a** The stamp marking appearing in the upper left portion ofthe Notice of Suspension showing receipt of Oflfice of the City Government General Santos City "F-l-b" The signature on top of the name Herman B. Jumilla, Audit Team Leader "F-2-c" The stamp marking appearing in the upper right portion of the Notice of Suspension showing receipt of Administrative Division City treasurer's Office "F-2-d" The stamp marking appearing in the lower left portion ofthe Notice of Suspension showing receipt of City Administrator's Office General Santos City •*F-2-e'' The stamp marking appearing in the lower right portion of the Notice of Suspension showing receipt of Office of the City Accountant General Santos City «F-2-f' The signature on top of the name Chiclet Rillo, Secretaiy "F-S" Subsidiary Ledger LGU Due from NGO's/People's Organization (PO's) "F-3-a" Handwritten note stated "please refer the end balance no movement still PI,906,979.69 "G"to Annual Audit Report on the City of General Santos for the year ended December 31, 2006 f Commission on Audit(83 pages) "H" Audit Observation Memorandum dated February 5,2007 for Pedro B. Acharon, Jr. "I" Certifed Copy on file of Commission on Audit Circular No. 96-003 dated February 23,1996 signed by Pilar R. Del Pilar, COA Service Chief(14 pages) "K" Certified Photocopy Personal data Sheet if Pedro B. Acharon, Jr.(2 pages) "L" Certified Photocopy Employee's Permanent Service record of Pedro B. Acharon, Jr. "M" Certified Photocopy Personal data Sheet of Marcelino Dospueblos(4 pages) "N" Certified Potocopy Employee's Permanent Service record of Marcelino Dospueblos "O" Certified Photocopy Memorandum No. OMMA2006-Feb- IGST-0104-A for Marcelino Dospueblos regarding Delegation of Authority "P" Letter if Chriselda Macion, President of GSC tourism Association, Inc. to Mr. Herman B. Jumilla, State Auditor IV dated April 29,2008 "P-l" letter if Chriseda Macion, President of GSC Tourism Association, Inc. to Mr. Herman Jumilla, State Auditor IV dated July 30,2008 "F-l-a" the signature on top ofthe name Chriselda Macion,President of GSC Tourism Association, Inc. "P-l-b" The signature on top of the name Chriselda Macion, President of GSC Tourism association, Inc. "P-l-c" The signature on top ofthe name Daniel P. Gabuyo, Officer- in-Charge Corporate FiFng and records Division "P-S-a" Year registered 1992-1995, Date of Order September 30, 2003, Period of Reports Covered 1997-2002, Date of Publication (Newspaper) October 4, 2003 Philippine Daily Inquirer, Date of revocation November 3,2003 "Q" Certified true Copy Securities and Exchange Commission Certificate with Registry No. 000321 GSC Tourism Association, Inc.(16 Pages) "Q-l" Certification of Corporate Filing/Information "Q-l-a" Company Registration and Monitoring Department Compliance Monitoring Division "Q-l-b" Signature on top of the name Ghaille Bongon, Monitor/Analyst "CJ-l-d" Signature with no name dated June 10,2017 "Q-2" Certified Xeroxed Copy SEC Office Order No.445 series of 2017 to Atty. Sampaguita R.H. Ladrido, Securities Counsel IlI-CRMD re: Authority to attend the Hearing "0-2-8" Company Registration and Monitoring Department Authorization for Atty. Sampaguita R.H. Ladrido to appear and testify before the 7"* Division, Sandiganbayan signed by Ferdinand B. Sales, Director Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 31 of77

"Q-3* Certified Xeroxed Copy SEC Circular No. 4, series of2998 regarding Finality of Ae Mass revocation Orders(2 pages) "R" Office of the Special Prosecutor Letter Report to COA addressed to Chairperson Michael G. Aguinaldo dated August 1,2006(3 pages) «s»* Memorandum dated September 16,2016 for Director Susan P. Donalvo signed by Asst. Commissioner Divinia M. Alagon

In a Resolution dated September 17, 2018'^^ this Court ADMITTED Exhibits "B-14-a," "B-14-b," "B-14-c," "B-3," "B-3," "B-Ji,^* "B-15-a," ,"B-15-b","B-1," "B-2," "B-20,""B-20-a," "B-4," "B-5,""B-2i;' "B-6," "B-16," "B.-16-a," "B-7," "B-7-a," "B-7-b," "B-7-c," "B-8," "B-8-a,'' "B-8-b," "B-8-c," "B-8-d," "B-9," "B-17," "B-10," "B-18," "B-11,""B49," "B-19-a," "B-12," "B-13," "C" ,"D", "E","El" to "E5," "E6" to "E-64" "E7" to "E-191-a";"F," "F-2-g," "F-2-h," "F-2-i," "F-2-j," "F-2-k," "F-1'' to "F-3-a";"G" to "G-83","H," "I," "O,""Q," and "Q-1" to "Q-3";"R" , , "L,""K," "M,^', "N" , "P," "P-1" to "P-3-a."

On the other hand, Exhibit"A" was EXCLUDED for being hearsay.- -

Thereafter, the prosecution rested its case

EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE

In answer to the charge filed against them, the three(3) accused likewise presented testimonial and documentary evidence.

TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE:

Fpr their part, accused Acharon and accused Dospueblos presented the following witnesses:

MARCELINO ESPLANA DOSPUEBLOS, Filipino, 78 years old, a Project Management Officer at St. Elizabeth Hospital, General Santos City.

He testified on direct examination through his Judicial Affidavit- which was admitted as his direct testimony.

Stripped of non-essentials, he affirmed that he was the City Finance Administrator of the City Government of General Santos and as such, his duties include reviewing supporting documeats relating to all financial

Record, Vol. 5, pp. 118 to 121 '''id dated February 12,2019, Judicial Affidavit Folder Vol. 1, pp. 3 to 10

/;• Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 32 of77

transactions ofthe city government and performed functions delegated to him by then City Mayor,Pedro B. Acharon,Jr. While still performing his functions as City Finance Administrator, he recalled having approved and signed two (2) disbursement vouchers intended for the travel of the participants to the Tambayayong Festival in Los Angeles, California sometime in June of 2Q()6 covering the sum of Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P 2,500,000.00).

He testified that the travel materialized but he cannot remember the exact number ofpersons who attended but he believed that it was participate^ by more than ten (10) people. The plane ticket of each participant is \y6fth Eighty Nine Thousand Five Hundred Ninety Seven Pesos (¥ 89, 597.PP). Only duplicate copies of the plane tickets are in his possession beqau^e it was the GSC Tourism Association that actually paid for them and piily gave him the receipts. He admitted that the people who are supposed to participate were not able to attend because they were denied visas.

He averred that he was authorized by accused Acharon to sign the two

of documents belongs to the City Accountant. He admitted having appjcpy^d the disbursement vouchers. He explained that the handwritten annotation "Balance after release of VISA approval" appearing on the dist>ursement voucher dated May 19, 2006 in the amount of One Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos ^1,500,000.00) is for the purpose ofsafeguarding the ^ds of the government. That on June 5, 2006, he approved the release of thp amount of One Million Pesos(P 1,000,000.00).

Upon knowing that many of the supposed participants were deni

On CROSS EXAMINATION, he affirmed that one of his delega.ted functions is to sign disbursement vouchers in behalf of accused Acharon. He confirmed that the amount of P 2,500,000.00 was intended for thirty seyen (37)participants ofthe Tambayayong and Pagana Festivals. Later on,the GSjJ Tpurism Association informed him that not all the 37 participants were allowed to travel because they have no visa.^^^ That there were more than ten (10) who attended the festival.'

When he was confronted with a Disbursement Voucher covering the amount of P 1,500,000.00, he admitted that he made an aimotation therein because he was aware that some of the supposed participants in the

TSN dated March 27, 2019, pp. 27 to 28 TSN dated March 27,2019, p. 230

7 / Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 33 of77

Tambayayong Festival and Pagana Festival have no visa, hence, were not able to participate in these festivals. Later, when a Philippine Airline Receipt (Exhibit "3") reflecting the amount of PI66,180.00 was shown to him. He confessed that it is merely a photocopy and the same document does nof reflect the fact that the receipt represents payment for each particip^t."^

He similarly affirmed that Roman Salazar, in-charge of ISO; Eypnnp Asencio, one of the secretaries in the Office of the Mayor and one Jos^fina Hemando fi-om the Sangguniang Panlungsod participated in the festival bpt Travel Qrder No. OMTA2006-JUN-IGST-0564 reflects only the names of Marcelino E. Dospueblos andNoman L. Salazar.'^®

Lastly, he insisted that it not his function to make and submit a liquidation report since he did not receive any money fi-om the Ci^ Govemrnent because in the first place, he spent his own personal money dvmng the travel.'

By way of CLARIFICATORY QUESTIONS FROM TKK COURT,he disclosed that he was really appointed as an Executive Assistant IV in the Office of the City Mayor and his flmctions include monitoring tHe financial transactions that the mayor may enter and to advising him wH^tHor the financial transaction may be allowed. This being so, he was designated a? a Finance Administrator.'^''

On deeper questioning of the Court, he candidly admitted thaf Memorandum No. OMMA-2006(Exhibit "5" for accused Acharon)does not authorize him to sign vouchers in the amount of P 3,000,000.00 and belpw with regard to travel expenses and other travel grants. He added that he signed the last voucher representing the amount of P 1,000,000.00 after sevenjeep (17) participants were already granted visa. He clarified that, if all the proposed thirty seven (37) participants were given their visa and will fi-ayei, the amount needed will be more than P 2,500,000.00.'^'

When asked if he defi-ayed his personal expenses, he admitted that sonie ofhis friends in the United States personally accommodated him and admitted that the GSC Tourism Association indeed gave him an amount to cover [fpr] the air fare expenses although his travel is on official time.'^^

Thereafter, Atty. Virgilio P. Alconera, counsel for accused Dospueblps manifested that this testimony will be adopted as part ofthe evidence-in-chief

117 supra TSN dated March 27,2019, p. 29 TSN dated March 27,2019, p. 31 TSN dated March 27,2019, pp. 33 to 36 TSN dated March 27,2019, pp. 45 to 47 TSN dated March 27,2019, pp. 50 to 51 / Decision People vi. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 34 of77 of accused Dospueblos himself.

FEDERICO VALMORIA CABANIT, Filipino, 67 years old, retired City Accountant, City Government of General Santos.

He testified on direct examination through his Judicial Affidavit,^^"^ Althouglt he was one of the witnesses for the prosecution, he was also made as one ofthe witnesses for the defense.

From his Judicial Affidavit, the following were stated:

1, That he was the City Accountant of General Santos City fiom 1992 up to 2017; 2, TJiat during his tenure as such, he was authorized to sigp a disbursement voucher dated May 10, 2006 in the amount of F 1,500,000.00 and signed another disbursement voucher dated 6, 2006 in the amount ofF 1,000,000.00 intended for cash advance subsidy to GSC Tourism Association; i. That the amounts reflected in the two vouchers were for th^ Tambayayong Festival; 4. That he signed the vouchers after evaluating the supporting documents ofthe vouchers; 5. That upon the directive of accused Acharon, he sent demand lettejcs to accused Macion directing her to liquidate the unsettled financial acountability.

On CROSS EXAMINATION, he admitted that he authorized his accountant Carmen Catamora to sign in his behalfthe Disbursement Voucher in the amount ofF 1,500,000.00. He affirmed that the Tambayayong Fe^tiyn! pushed through but he was not a participant to the festival. When cpnfironted about the demand letter, he clarified that it was in the first quarter ofthe ypar 2Q08 when accused Acharon orally instructed him to send demand letter to accused Macion.

He also said that the demand letter was issued based on the accounting records and Books of Accounts of the City which reflected the outstanding cash advance of GSC Tourism Association. He admitted that Office of Mayor and the City Accounting Office both received Audit Obseryatipp Memorandum, a Notice of Suspension and Notice of Disallowance and dbps not deny having seen the latter two documents. He also did not deny the fact that he was one of the persons mentioned in those documents, i.e. persons

Order dated March 27,2019, Record, Vol. 5, p. 305 Vol. 1, Judicial Affidavit Folder, pp. 16 to 38 '25 TSN dated March 27,2019, pp. 57 to 59 7 ^ Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 35 of 77

liable on the documents. He further explained that the demand letter was sent only to Accused Macion because as per record, accused Macion was the president ofthe GSC Tourism Association.

As the Cross Examination progresses, when he was asked why he senf a demanded [letter] to accused Macion only in 2008, he explained that Tourism Association submitted a complete liquidation report for the totql amount ofF 2,500,000.00 of the participants although he did not mention when the liquidation was submitted.

This cross examination was adapted by Atty. Alconera, counsel for accused Dospueblos.^^®

On RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION, he clarified that upon tiie submission of the liquidation (sic) for the full amount of P2,500,000.0Q, ll)? notice^ that the amovmt ofPI,500,000.00 cannot be allowed [in audit]. HencOj he returned the document to accused Macion but it took the latter until 2008 to submit her liquidation report. Thus, accused Acharon directed him to send a (deniand latter addressed to accused Macion.

The testimony of this witness on re-direct examination was likewise adapted by accused Dospueblos.*^®

By way of CLARIFICATORY QUESTIONS FROM TII^ COURT, he answered that as per the vouchers, the full amount pf P2,500,000.00 was completely liquidated but when he examined thn documents submitted, he found out that some of the expenses cannot tip allowed hence, he returned the documents prompting him to answer that diere was no complete liquidation. He also admitted that it was indeed accused Macion who has the responsibility to liquidate the cash advance because dip disbursement voucher was in her name. He admitted further that there are other pujDlic officials who are responsible for the funds released. |jle, however, confessed that upon his retirement in 2017, he has no idea of wh# happened with the demand letter until he found out that there was a c^e already in this Court relating to Tambayayong Festival.'^^

PEDRO BUSGANO ACHARON, JR., Filipino, 60 years old. Representative of the First District of South

'26 TSN dated March 27,2019, pp. 60 to 62 '27 TSN dated March 27,2019, pp. 63 to 64 '28 TSN dated March 27,2019, pp. 68 to 69 '29 TSN dated March 27,2019, p. 70 '39 TSN dated March 27, 2019, p. 71 '3' TSN dated March 27, 2019, pp. 65 to 67 '32 TSN dated March 27,2019, pp. 71 to 74 '33 TSN dated March 27,2019, p. 75 Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 36 of77

Cotabato, with office address at House of Representatives, Batasan Hills, Quezon City.

His direct testimony was reduced in the form of a Judicial Affidayit^^'* and was admitted in lieu of his direct testimony. Similarly, the following were also stipulated:

1, That he was the Mayor of General Santos City from 2001 to 2Q10, the material date for the commission ofthe crime charged; 2, That the Notices of Suspension and Disallowances dated August 2008 and January 2010, respectively, refer to Tambayaybiig Festival; 3, That he is not a participant in the Tambayayong Festival;

From his Judicial Affidavit, his testimony can be summarized as fbllows;

1. That he was the Mayor of the General Santos City from 2001 to 2010; ' • 2. He authorized his co-accused Dospueblos then FipapQe Administrator to sign and approve disbursement voupfciens intended for the travel of participants to the Tambayaydng Festival; V' 3. He insisted that when he approved the disbursement voucher^, the elements of partiality, bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence are lacking since the approval ofthese vouchers made pursuant to an Appropriation Ordinance and Resolutions ofthe Sangguniang Panlungsod of General Santos City; 4. The element of conspiracy between him and his co-accused i§ likewise lacking since the vouchers and checks were issued to GSC Tourism Association pursuant to Appropriation Ordinjance and Resoultions of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of G^ei:^! Santos City; 5. He has no personal knowledge as to how many travelled ^d participated in the Tambayayong Festival and that he did ppt travel and participate in the said event; 6. His office received the Notice of Suspension in August 2008 and Notice of Disallowance in January 2010; 7. He ordered the issuance through the Office of the City Accountant, the demand to liquidate to GSC Tourism Association;

dated March 5,2019, Vol. 1, Judicial Affidavit folder, pp. 41 to 49 TSN dated May 29,2019, p. 20 TSN dated May 29,2019, p. 9 /• / Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 37 of77

On CROSS EXAMINATION, he insisted that GSC Tourism Association is an accredited NGO as can be shown by a Resolution of the Sangguni^g Panglunsod. In fact,the Office ofthe Mayor made a verification because a non-accredited NGO/GO cannot be extended any financial assistanpe.^^^Admittedly, when he was confronted with the Memorandyhi of Agreement(MOA), he claimed that as the signatory therein, it is incumbent upon hjm to see to it that the MOA should be implemented.^^®As for the ixnyel authority pf Councilor Jose Orlando Acharon, he elucidated that the Office of the City Mayor sought clearance from the Department of Interior and Local Qovermnent md thereafter, the former issued a travel authority to participate in the Tambayayong Festival.

Upon knowing that some ofthe persons who are supposed to participate in the Tambayayong Festival were not granted visa, he discussed the matteir with accused Macion (sic) and then he assumed that those who cannot participate shall return the money. He affirmed that his office recpiypd copies of Notice of Suspension and Notice of Disallowance, and said that dip persons liable are accused Macion, accused Dospueblos and City Accountant Cabanit. That upon receipt of those two notices, he instructed accuse^ Macion, accused Dospueblos and Cabanit to complete the liquidation. That since 2006 or right after the travel, he kept cn reminding them about the liquidation though he cannot show proofthat he made such instruction.

Lastly, he confessed that the liquidation report submitted by QSQ Tourism Association was not complete and that no case was filed until he finished his term [as a mayor] relative to the said report.*"*^

By way of CROSS EXAMINATION by counsel for accused Macion, he affirmed that it was the Sangguniang Panlungsod that accredited Tourism Association and approved the budget for its participation in tbie Tambayayong Festival and upon approval, the checks were released througb the Office ofthe City Treasurer. He also clarified that not all participants cqmfi fi*pm General Santos City. Some came from the other cities ofthe Province of South Cotabato and some participants are members of the GSC Tourisrn Association. He candidly admitted that not all participants returned. Hence, the problem with liquidation.^'*^

TSN dated May 29,2019, pp. 21 to 22 TSN dated May 29,2019, p. 29 '39 TSN dated May 29,2019, p. 33 TSN dated May 29,2019, p. 36 TSN dated May 29,2019, p. 39 TSN dated May 29,2019, p. 43 '"3 TSN dated May 29, 2019, pp. 45 to 46 y Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 38 of77

On RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION, he explained that when he came to know that not all of the supposed participants were able to get a visa, accused Macion requested his office if she can replace them with government employees who already have visas. That since not all of them participated in the Tambayayong Festival are performers, some will do information drive and some will ^sist the performers. That he agreed to the proposal of accused Macion

He also recalled that he instructed the City Treasurer and the City Accountant to send a demand letter to the GSC Tourism Association tp complete its liquidation right after the travel in preparation to the yearrend widi COA sometime in January 2007.'"^^

In answer to the QUESTIONS FROM THE COURT,he insisted ^at it is incumbent upon the GSC Tourism Association to make the liquidatibn but later on opined tiiat the City Government should complete the liquidation and the City Accountant must certify that a liquidation was already made. Hp cpntiniied by saying that if there is no liquidation from whom the money giyen, Ifre COA will require the City Government to make the liquidation pr comply with the liquidation requirements.^'*^

Lamentably, he said that, although he instructed the City Accountant to send demand letters, he did not see a copies (sic) ofthese demand letteirs, JEIp asserted that through Memorandum No. OMMA-2006-FEB-IGST-Q1Q^ A, he authorized accused Dospuebos to sign vouchers lower thani 3,p00,0Q0.00, He answered also that it was the first time the LGU of Gpneral Santos City extended financial aid to GSC Tourism Association. He adinittp4 that there was an instance when the city government granted financial aid tp several NGO/PO and it was accused Dospueblos who all signed the vouchers^ all below F 3,000,000.00.*'*^

Lastly, he confirmed the appointment of accused Dospueblos as Executive Assistant IV and as such, he signs and approves disbursempnf vouchers in the amount lower than ¥ 3,000,000.00. Despite this, no Au4it Observation Memorandum was given by the COA.*'*®

This testimony of accused Acharon was adapted by accused Dospueblos.*'*^

TSN dated May 29,2019, pp. 47 to 48 id 146 dated May 29,2019, pp. 40 to 42 TSN dated May 29,2019, pp. 50 to 52 "*® TSN dated May 29,2019, p. 53 *'*^ TSN dated May 29,2019, p. 57 Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 39 of 77

For her defense, accused Macion was also placed on the witness stand:

CHRISELDA CLARISA MACION, Filipino, 54 years old, a housewife.

To expedite her direct examination, her testimony was reduced in tfee form ofa Judicial Affidavit. Eventually, her Judicial Affidavit was adip|tted in lieu of her direct testimony.

Her testimony in her Judicial Affidavit can be summed up as follp^^s; 1. That she never conspired with other accused in causing undue inji^ , to the government; 2. The Sangguniang Panlungsod of General Santos City issye.^ ^ Resolution appropriating the amount of ¥ 2,500,000.00 for the GSQ Tourism Association in the Tambayayong Festival; 3. That GSC Tourism Association prepared the list of delegates to ^e Tambayayong Festival; 4. That upon receipt ofthe amount ofF 2,500,000.00, it was deposited in the Current Account of GSC Tourism Association and not ip hipr personal account; 5. The participants were composed of private individuals government personnel; 6. After the conclusion ofthe Tambayayong Festival, five(5) delegates did not return to [the Philippines];

On CROSS EXAMINATION,she affirmed that she was the president of GSC Tourism Association. She denied knowing that sometime in 2003, Ae Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) revoked the registration of association because she was not the president during that time. That sjje became the president in 2005 and 2006.'^^ She admitted that the LGU-Generpl S^tos City released the amount of P2,500,000.00 in favor of GSC Tourism Association and that the expenses ofthe delegates were sourced from the said amount. She candidly admitted that she cannot recall if indeed thirty seyeii participated in the said event.'

I When she was asked questions about the MOA, she admitted that the "second party' referred thereto is the GSC Tourism Association as represented by herself and clarified that she was then the president of the GSC Tourisiii Association at the time the MOA was entered into. As to matter ofliquidatipp, she confessed that the liquidation she submitted was not accepted [by the

Judicial Affidavit folder Vol. 1, pp. 65 to 81 TSN dated August 29,2019, p. 21 TSN dated August 29, 2019, pp. 22 to 23 TSN dated August 29, 2019, p. 26 7- f Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 40 of 77

I LGU- General Santos City] because it was incomplete. Lastly, she also admitted that she prepared the Work and Financial Plan.^^^

On CROSS EXAMINATION by the counsel of accused Acharon,she answered that she has to submit all the receipts ofthe Tambayayong Festival after she received a letter from accused Dospueblos and accused Acharon reminding her to liquidate.

On the part of accused Dospueblos, his counsel adapted the que^tipiis propounded by the counsel for accused Acharon but asked few questions. On deeper.probing, accused Macion testified that the letters she recived from accused Acharon and Dospueblos are the same demand letters. This cross examination was also adapted by counsel for accused Acharon.^^®

In answer to the QUESTIONS FROM THE COURT, she acknowledged that, she was supposed to make a liquidation which she will submit to the City Govememt of General Santos City. That partial liquidntlon was accepted. That the amount being demanded from them [is] in the ampiint of P 1,900,000.00. She went further in testifying that there is still unliquidated amount pertaining to the expenses of the five (5) persons who did not return. While she exerted effort to get certification from the Philippine Airlines(PAL), it did not heed her request. Lastly, she admitted that she did not ask for a certification from the Bureau of Inunigration which would st^te that five persons did not retum.'^^

For his part, accused Dospueblos through his counsel, Atty Dinnah M^e Alconera, manifested that he is adopting the testimonial evidence presented by accused Acharon and accused Macion.'^®

After all the witnesses testified, the Defense offered the following:

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PRESENTED

FOR ACCSUED ACCUSED PEDRO B. ACHARON,JR.

"1" Disbursement Voucher dated May 19,2006 in the amount of PI,500,000.00 "2" Disbursement Voucher dated June 6,2006 in the amount of P1,000,000.00 "3" Philippine Airlines Official Receipt No.033-0007028

TSN dated August 29.2019, p.p. 27 to 30 TSN dated August 29,2019, p. 35 156 dated August 29,2019, pp. 38 to 39 " TSN dated August 29,2019, p. 43 158 XSN dated August 29,2019, p. 48 TSN dated August 29,2019, pp. 40 to 42 Order dated October 21,2019, Record, Vol. 6, p 218 i Decision. People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 41 of 77

"4" Travel Order No. OMTA2006-JUN-IGST-0564 dated June 5, 2006 "5" Certified true copy of Memorandum No.OMMA2006-FEB- IGST-OIOI-A dated February 28,2006

"6" Invitation from Sining Kambayoka Cultural Arts Foundation, Inc., Los Angeles, California dated December 12,2005 "7" Certified true copy of Resolution No. 187 Series of2006 of the Sanguniang Panglungsod of General Santos City consisting of two pages. This is a common exhibit with the prosecution "8" Certified true copy of R"solution No. 188 series of 2006 of the Sangguniang Panglu.igsod of General Santos City, dated April 27, 2006. This is a common exhibit with the prosecution "9 & 9-a" Certified true copy of Memorandum of Agreement between the City of General Santos and the general Santos Tourism Association dated May 12,2006 "10,10-a & 10-b" certified true copy of Appropriation Ordinance Number 03, series of 2006 approved on April 6,2006 "11" Disbursement Voucher dated May 19,2006 in the amount of PI,500,000.00. This is a common exhibit with the prosecution which the defense adopted during the hearing "12" Disbursement Voucher dated June 6,2006 in the amount of PI,000,000.00. This is a common exhibit with the prosecution which the defense adopted during the hearing. "13" Work and Financial Plan and Request for Allotment. [This is a common exhibit with the prosecution which the defense adopted during the hearing]. "14" Work and Financial Plar . This is a common exhibit with the prosecution which the defense adopted during the hearing. "15" Obligation Slip dated May 18, 2006. This is a common exhibit with the prosecution which the defense adopted during the hearing. "16-ato 16-d" Demand letters dated march 28, 2008, January 26, 2009, May 11, 2009, November 3, 2009 and February 26, 2010. These are common exhibits with co-accused Cri$elda Macion previously marked as exhibits "21-Macion" up to exhibits "21-d-Macion" which accused Acharon adopted as his own exhibits

FOR ACCUSED MARCELINO E.DOSPUEBLOS

"1 & 11" Disbursement Voucher dated May 19, 2006 in the amount of PI,500,000.00 "2 & 12" Disbursement Voucher ilated June 6,2006 in the amount of PI,000,000.00 "3" Travel Order No. OMTA2006-JUN-1GST-0564 dated June 5,2006 "4" Memorandum No. OMA2006-FEB-1GST-0104 dated February 28,2006 "5" Invitation from Sining Kambayoka Cultural Arts Foundation, Inc., Los Angeles, California dated December 12,2005 6" Resolution No. 187 series of 2006 of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of General Santos City "7&7-A" Resolution No. 188 series of 2006 of the Sangguniang Panglungsod of General Santos City dated April 7, 2006 Tourism Association Inc., dated June 2, 2006 to Mayor Pedro Acharon, Jr. "9" Letter of Mayor Pedro Acharon, Jr. to Macion dated June 5, 2005 "10" Memorandum of Agree.nent between the City of General Santos and the General Santos Tourism Association dated May 12,2006 "13 & 14" Work and Financial Plan and Request for Allotment "15"15" Obligation Slip dated May 18,2006 "16"1 /:»» Demand Letters dated March 28, 2008, January 26, 2009, May 1,2009, November 3, 2009 and February 26,2010 Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 42 of77

"17" Philippine Airlines Official receipt No.009-inid33-0007028 "18 & 19" Liquidation Memo or Letter dated July 19,2007 ofthe GSC Tourism Association., Inc., to the City Account ofGSC and the accompanying receipts

FOR ACCUSED CRISELDA1. MACION

"1" Photo copy ofthe invitation letter addressed to Macion from Edgar Lopez of the Sining Kambayoka Cultural Arts Foundation "2 & 2-B" Photo-copies ofthe Board Resolution No. 188 and 187 ofthe General Santos City Sangguniang Panlungsod "3" Photo-copy of the letter of GSC Tourism Association, Inc. dated May 15, 2006 addressed to the branch manager of International Exchange Bank "4" Letter of GSC tourism Association, Inc. dated June 2,2006 to Mayor Pedro Acharon, Jr. "5" Letter of Mayor Pedro Acharon, Jr. to Macion dated June 5, 2006 "6" List of official delegates to the Tambayayong festival pier the listing of the GSC tourism Association, Inc. "7,7-A to 7-0" Liquidation Memo or letter dated July 19, 2007 of the GSC Tourism association. Inc. to the City Accountant of General -cantos City and the accompanying receipts attached thereto "8, 8-A to 8 -UU" Liquidation Memo or letter dated July 19, 2007 of the GSC Tourism association. Inc. to the City Accountant of General Santos City and the accompanying receipts attached thereto "9" Photo-copy ofI-Bank Check No.6000475233 dated July 11, 2007 in the amount ofP2I7,086.35 "10" Photo-copy ofthe voucher dated July 11,2007

In a Resolution dated October 14, 2019'^^ this Court ADMITTED Exhibits 2","4","5","6","9", "11", "13", "14" and "15" offered b| accused Ach^on, Jr. but EXCLUDED Exhibits "3","7","8" and "10^^ on Motion for Reconsideration dated November 4, 2019, Exhibits "7", *:8'' arid" 10" were eventually ADMITTED.^

Accused Macion's Exhibits "2", "4" and "5" were ADMITTED but Exhibits "1","3", "6", "7", "8", "9" and "10" were EXCLUDED.

On March 16, 2020, accused Dospueblos tendered as his evideriCC "Exhibit 3"(Travel Order)^^^ which was noted and consequently ordered to form part of the record of this case in a Minute Resolution dated JuriC 8, 2020.^^^

The prosecution manifested that it will no longer present rebuttal evidence prompting the Court to order all parties to file their respectiye Memoranda within the non-extendible period of thirty(30) days.

On June 16, 2020, accused Acharon filed through electronic mail his

Record, Vol. 6, pp. 210 to 214 Record, Vol. 6, pp. 460 to 468 Tender of Excluded Evidence dated March 2,2020, Record, Vol. 6, pp. 490 to 494 Record, Vol. 6, p. 507

/ 7 Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 43 of77

Memorandum while the prosecution filed through electronic mail its Memorandum. Both Memoranda were noted by this Court in an Order dated June 29,2020.*^^

Hence, this decision.

THE ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT

The principal issue for this Court to resolve is: whether or not accused Aioharon, Jr.^ accusedDospueblos and accusedMacion are criminally lia^/e for violation ofSection 3(e) ofRepublic Act No. 3019(RA No. 3019).

THE COURT'S RULING

All three (3) accused stand charged of the crime of violation ofSec, 3 (e)of Republic Act No. 3019(R.A. 3019), a special penal law. Said provisiop states:

''Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. In addition to acts or omissions of public pfficers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices for any public officer and are hereby declared unlawful:

XXX

(e) Causing 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 ofoffices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.

xxx"

As may be gleaned above, the elements of the crime of Violation of Section 3(e), RA 3019 are'^^:

dated June 16,2020 dated June 26,2020 Record, Vol. 7, p. 57 Roberto P. Fuentes vs. People of the Philippines, GR No. 186421, April 17,2017

/>■ Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 44 of 77

1. The accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial fimctions or official functions (or a private individual acting in conspiracy with such public officers;

2. That he acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or ^oss inexcusable negligence; and

3. That his action caused undue injury to any party, including ^e Government, or giving any private party unwarrante4 benefifs, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions.

In coming out with its findings, the Court sought guidance fi'om the following legal principles:

Fir^t^ it is to be emphasized that in a criminal case, the prosecution is burdened to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt btherwise^ acquittal must then follow in keeping with the constitutional mandate tliat^ acpused is presumed innocent until the contrary is proven beyond reasop^blp doubt.

Corollary, this heavy presumption of innocence is fleshed out by 133, Section 2 of the Revised Rules on Evidence which states that ih criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is prqypn beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean sucjj a degree of proof as, excluding possibility of error, produces absplu^ certainty, Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof whlcli produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.

This heavy duty of the Prosecution was stressed in Alex M. Valencia vs. People of the Philippines'^^ where the Supreme Court ruled that in all criminal cases, the prosecution is burdened with the duty of establishing with proof beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of an accused. The determination pf whether the prosecution has fulfilled such heavy burden is left to the trial court, which in turn, must be satisfied with moral certainty that an accused had indeed committed the crime on the basis ofthe facts and circumstances tp warrant ajudgment ofconviction. Otherwise, where there is reasonable doubt, acquittal must then follow.

Simply put, when the Prosecution fails to convince the Court through its testimonial and documentary evidence that the accused is guilty, it has no other recourse but to acquit an accused of the charge hurled against him. If, on the other hand, the prosecution successfully hurdles the strict and high standai;d in securing ajudgment ofconviction, then there is nothing to prevent the Court from handing dovm an unfavorable judgment against the accused.

169 GR. No. 206162, December 10, 2014 \ fr Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 45 of 77

Second, in every criminal prosecution, the State must prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime charged and the complicity or participation ofthe accused.^^®

fp reiterate, guided by these jurisprudential rules and taking the totality of the evidence presented by both parties, let us determine whether thp prpsecutipn was able to prove its case. On this note, let us discuss ^e presence or absence of the elements for Violation of Section 3(e), Republip Apt Np. 3019 to exist.

First Element: Accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial functions or official functions (or a private individual acting in conspiracy with such public officers.

Section 2 of RA 3019 defines Public Officers as "elective ^4 appointive officials and employees, permanent or temporary, whether ip thp classified or unclassified or exempt service receiving compensation, evpn npminal, from the government xxx." More, a public officer is defined in Revised Penal Code as "any person who, by direct provision of the law, popular election, or appointment by competent authority, shall take part in thp perform^ce of public functions in the Government ofthe Philippine Islands, or ?hall perform in said Government or in any of its branches public duti0§ a§ an employee, agent, or subordinate official, of any rank or class. Here, np doubt that accused Acharon is a public officer being the City Mayor pf General Santos City performing official fimction as such, during dip material time covered by the present case. Besides, a City Mayor falls vdthjn the jurisdiction ofthis Court.^

No doubt accused Dospueblos is also a public officer occupying the position pfExecutive Assistant IV. As such, he narrates that his duties includp reviewing supporting documents relating to all financial transactions of flip city government (referring to the City Government of General Santos), tie also performs functions delegated to him by then City Mayor, Pedro Acharon, Jr. More interestingly, while performing his functions as City Finance Administrator, he recalled having approved and signed two (2) disbursement vouchers covering the sum of Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos^ 2,500,000.00) intended for the travel ofparticipants to the

170 People ofthe Philippines vs. Zafra Maraorao y Macabalang, GR No. 174369, June 20, 2012 Amelia Carmela Constantino Zoleta vs. The Honorable Sandiganbayan(4^ Division) and the People of the Philippines, GR No. 185244, July 29,2015 Section 4(a) (1), Republic Act No. 8249 Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 46 of 77

Tambayayong Festival in Los Angeles, California sometime in June of 2006.

On the other hand, accused Macion, although a private individuail, (presidjcnt of the General Santos City Tourism Association) falls within the jurisdiction ofthis Court, she being indicted with public officers.

For emphasis, in People of the Philippines vs. Henry T. Go^^^, thp Supreme Court ruled that private persons, when acting in conspiracy yvito public officers, may be indicted and, if found guilty, held liable fpr the pertinent offenses under Section 3 of R.A. 3019, in consonance witlj ||jte avowed policy of the anti-grafl law to repress certain acts of public ofScpfs and private persons alike constituting graft or corrupt practices act or wjiiiqli may lead thereto,(emphasis supplied)

I Uie existence of the first element is therefore duly proven.

SECOND ELEMENT; Accused acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.

A reading of this second element will readily reveal that there ^e modalities by which violation of Section 3 (e), RA No. 3019 may be committed. The modes are:(a) with manifest partiality,(b) evident bad faith and (c)gross inexcusable negligence.

Ill order to evaluate whether or not the prosecution was able to proye the existence of this element, this Court deems it proper to first define terms meptioned therein.

The Supreme Court in the case of Albert v. Sandiganbayan^^^ citing the case of Demie L. Uriarte vs. People of the Philippines'^^, explained ihh^e terms in the following manner:

"Section 3(e) of RA 3019 may be committed either by dole, as when the accused acted with evident bad faith or manifest partiality, or by culpa, as when the accused committed gross inexcusable negligence. There is ^^manifest partiality*^ when there is a clear, notorious, or plain inclination or predilection to favor one side or person rather than another. **Evident badfaith " connotes not only bad judgment but also palpably and patently fraudulent and dishonest purpose to do

GRNo. 168539, March 25,2014 174 599 pj^i 439^ m Garcia v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 197204, March 26,2014, GR No. 169251, December 20, 2006 Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 47 of77

I moral obliquity or conscious wrongdoing for some perverse motive or ill will. Evident badfaith " contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or with some motive or self-interest or ill will or for ulterior purposes. Gross inexcusable negligence" refers to negligence characterized by the want ofeven the slightest care^ acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadivertently but willfully and intentionally, with conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected,"(emphasis supplied)

I As cited, it must be clarified that there are three different modes pf satisfying the second element of the crime namely,(a) manifest partiaU^, (h) evident bad faith and (c) gross inexcusable negligence. This cap gleaned by the use of a "comma" and finally, the mode of"gross inexcusal)le negligence is separated from the two other modes by the use ofthe ofthe wpri "OR." In its simplest term, the presence of one would suffice for convictipp/

A cursory study of the evidence presented shows that the spcQn

Jo be precise, accused Acharon and Dospueblos exhibited m^ifpist partiality and gross inexcusable negligence amounting to bad failh in viplatipn ofthe law,rules and regulations when they approved and disbursed the cash assistance requested by the General Santos City Tourism Association [represented by accused Macion, in her capacity as Presideht ofsaid Association] which was proven to have lost its juridical existence at the time the request for financial assistance was made and much mom? during the time of the release ofthe said financial assistance. A fact which neither accused Acharon nor accused Dospueblos was able to rebut y/itfi satisfactory evidence. Accused Macion for her part never came to the rescue of her co-accused by presenting evidence to the effect that at the time she sought financial assistance from the Local Government of General Santos City, tJie GSC Tourism Association or the association which she represents can be a worthy recipient of a financial grant because it actually and validly existed as a juridical person. Her assertion that she does not jqip^ ofthe infirmity on the legal existence of GSC Tourism Authority at the time the request was made cannot absolve her.

Let us explain our findings.

In coming out with our findings above, the Court took intp consideration the individual acts and demeanor ofthe three(3) accused which when taken together led to the release of a substantial amount of public funds which was not liquidated or even if liquidated as claimed- was not made in full and on time. Decision* People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 48 of77

For Accused Acharon:

1) He is the Local Chief Executive (City Mayor) of General S^tps City. Under Section 455 ofthe Local Government Code,among his functions are:

I 1) Exercise general supervision and control over all programs, projects, services, and activities ofthe city government, and in this connection, shall:

Xxx

(vi) Represent the city in all its business transactions and sign in its behalf all bonds, contracts, and obligations, and such other documents upon authority of the sangguniang panlungsod or ' pursuant to law or ordinance;

Xxx

(x) Ensure that all executive officials and employees of the city faithfully discharge their duties and functions as provided by law and this Code, and cause to be instituted administrative or judicial proceedings against any official or employee of the city who may have committed an offense in the performance of his official duties;

I Xxx

3) Initiate and maximize the generation of resources and revenues, and apply the same to the implementation of development plans, program objectives and priorities as provided for under Section 18 of this Code, particularly those resources and revenues programmed for agro-industrial development and countryside growth and progress and, relative thereto, shall:

I xxx

(iii) Ensure that all taxes and other revenues of the city are collected, and that city funds are applied to the payment of expenses and

/ / Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 49 of77

settlement of obligations ofthe city,in accordance with law or ordinance; x x x (emphasis supplied In People v. Pantaleon, Jr., et the Court held that a municipal mayor, being the chief executive of his respective municipality, is deemed an accountable officer, and is thus responsible for all the government funds within his jurisdiction. The Court explained that:

Pantaleon, as municipal mayor, was also accountable for the public funds by virtue of Section 340 of the Local Government[Code,] which reads:

Section 340. Persons Accountable for Local Government Funds. — Any officer of the local government , junit whose duty permits or requires the possession or custody of local government funds shall be accountable and responsible for the safekeeping thereof in conformity with the provisions of this title. Other local officials, though not accountable by the nature of their duties, may likewise be similarly held accountable and responsible for local '^^gQvemment funds through their participation in the use or application thereof.

In addition, municipal mayors, pursuant to the Local Government Code, are chief executives of their respective municipalities. Under Section 102 of the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines, he is responsible for all government funds pertaining to the municipality:

Section 102. Primary and secondary responsibility. (1) The head of any agency of the government is immediately and primarily responsible for all government funds and property pertaining to his agency.

As could be gleaned from the above, among his duties as Mayor of General Santos City is, he has the fiscal responsibility to monitor all fin^cial transactions of the City Government efficiently, effectively, honestly and economically to avoid wastage ofpublic funds and revenues. Corollary to thi$, he is expected to be more circumspect and careful in the disposition of public funds. In so doing, he is expected to see to it that public funds will only be devoted for public cause and should be given to worthy recipients only- whether they be individual persons, group of persons or a juridical entity

G.R. Nos. 158694-96, March 13,2009 also cited in Venezuela v. People, G.R. No. 205693, Febru^ 14,2018

/ Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 50 of 77

like GSC Tourism Association. In the case of the latter, a public officer has the bounden duty to determine whethor it is equipped with the necessaiy juridical capacity or personality to enter into any transaction with the government. Applying this in the present case, accused Acharon shpuld have acted with extreme care and caution before allowing the grant and the release of the financial assistance to GSC Tourism Authority. In othpr words, he could have first asked whether GSC Tourism Authority is a validly existing association and has the necessary accreditation under the laws fp be a qualified grantee of a financial grant.

In this case, four(4) questions are crucial.

I FIRST, whether GSC Tourism Association- a juridical person, is equipped with the necessary personality to ask financial assistance or grept from the local government of General Santos City, SECOND,whether GSC Tourisin Association, a non-governmental organization (NGO) has th^ necessary accreditation under the law such that, it is qualified to becpme ia grantee of a financial grant from the government and THIRD, whethet did act of grating and releasing the whole amount ofP 2,500,000.00 fm^clpl gr^t is proper when not all of the supposed participants tp thp Tambayayong Festival were granted US visa and FOURTH,whethpy the cash advance was timely and fully liquidated. Unfortunately, to all four 0) questions, the answer is in the NEGATIVE. I ■ As borne by the evidence presented by the prosecution, GSC Tourisip Association has no more juridical personality in 2006, when it requested financial assistance for the use of the supposed participants in the Tambayayong Festival in Los Angeles, Califomia, USA on June 9 to 16,2006. In fact, as early as 2003, it has no more legal existence. This notwithstanding, accused Acharon granted the request for financial assistance and Its subsequent release without bothering to inquire as to whether or not iGSjC Tourism Association can validly ask financial assistance from the Ipci^l government unit which he heads. His failure to do this bounden task cannpt be taken lightly even if say, there was inadvertence or honest mistake op his part. '

Adding to this, he together with the GSC Tourism Association entered into a Memorandum of Ag^cecment("Exhibit B-1r')v/hich expressly states that GSC Tourism Association is an accredited NGO, when there is hp concrete proof of its accreditation or verification of its status as such. His failure to check on the accreditation of GSC Tourism Authority done intentionally or unintentionally can be interpreted as reflective of his being partial and grossly negligent in dealing with those asking for public funds. It should be stressed that SEC Registration is valuable when dealing with juridical persons. In fact, it is a requirement for accreditation as NGO/PQ. Without such accreditation, an organization or association cannot be granted

/ Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CFJVI-0273 Page 51 of 77 financial assistance. 3.0 General Guidelines (3.2) of the Commission on Audit Circular 96-003 dated February 27, 1997 provides that the shall be accredited by the Government Office^^® (GO). More, 3.3.1 ofthe same COA Circular requires that a Certificate of Registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and/or with either ^e Cooperatives Development Authority(CDA) or the Department ofLabor apd Ernployment (DOLE), as the case may be, depending on the nature pf tlte service required to be rendered before an NGO/PO can be accredited.

I To stress, the defense was not able to rebut the allegation of the prosecution that the juridical existence of GSC Tourism Association revoked as early as 2003 for its failure to file its General Information Sheets and Fiij^cial Statements from 1997 to 2002. Whether this fact is knowp to accused Acharon or not, fact remains that he signed a Memorandum pf Agreement carrying an explicit statement the ^'Second Party"(referriiig tp GSC Tpurism Association)is an accredited NGO/PO of the ^Tirst Pari^" (referring to the City Government of General Santos) with GSC Tourism Association oil May 12,2006, without inquiring about the accreditation oftlje latter. It should be noted that 4.0 (4.1) also ofthe above mentioned C04 Circular mandates the GO to make a proper verification and validation pf required documents and statements before it accredits an NGO/PO,

2)He admitted during cross-examination that, the Office of the Mayor actually verified if the GSC Tourism Association can be accredited because he is aware of the rule that a non-accredited NGO/PO cannot be extendeil financial assistance. True or not, his words to this effect could not be giyep credence because it turned out that GSC Tourism Association cannot qualify as a recipient. Besides, if indeed this is true, why did he not substantiate his assertion to this effect by providing documents like verification report if^eire be any, or by presenting a witness to testify that a verification was actually done.

3)He admitted likewise during his cross examination that as a signatory in the MOA, it is incumbent upon him to see to it that the MOA would ibp implemented,including the obligation to see to it that a liquidation report must be submitted within a reasonable time, consistent with the provision in the

2.0 Definition of Terms (2.6) COA Circular 96-003- a non-profit, voluntary organization that is committed to the task of socio-economic development and established primarily for service. Such service may involve assisting citizens or people's organizations in various ways by educating, training, or giving financial assistance to them. 2.0 Definition of Terms(2.7) COA Circular 96-003- independent community and/or class-based association established to protect and ad^ ance the interest of specific causes or sectors, e.g., farmer, farmer, fishermen, woman,civic organizations. 2.0 Definition of Terms (2.4) COA Circular 96-003- any government agency whether local, national or corporate which extends financial assistance to the NGO/PO

^ )* Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 52 of77

MQA which states that "second party" (referring to GSC Tourism Association)is mandated to liquidate the amount disbursed in accordance with the accounting and auditing rules and regulation.

Having known this, the Court wonders why no liquidation report was made op time in utter violation of 5(5.1.30) of COA Circular No. 97'002 dated February 10,1997^^^ which states that liquidation of cash advances for o^cial travel shall be made within sixty (60) days after return to the Philippines in case of foreign travel.

And while he said, he kept on reminding accused Dospueblos, accused Macion and the City Accountant to liquidate, sadly, no concrete evidence of such reniinder was presented except his bare words to this effect.

4) Candidly, he admitted that no case was filed against GSC Touiisjtn Association until he finishes his tenure as Mayor contrary to what he shpuld haye dpne. As the Chief Executive of General Santos City, he could have initiated an action against GSC Tourism Association when it failed to tiniely liquidate the financial grant. His failure to initiate an action against (jSC Tourism Association is a violation of the mandate of 4(4.12) of Circular No. 96-003 which requires a government office to institute actions agaiqst NCJO/PQ for material violation ofthe provisions of the MOA.

5) He asserts that he acted in accordance with his duties under the authority given by Appropriation Ordinance No. 3 {Exhibit 10-Acharon), which in essence provides that the account under the Office ofthe City Mayor intended for Aid to GSC Tourism Association is hereby amended to Subsidy to NGOs/POs-GSC Tourism Association and the account under the Bids qnd Awards Committee for Other Maintenance and Operating Expenses is hereby amended to Other Maintenance and Operating Expenses-Unpaid. Al§p, he asserts about the import of Resolution No. 187,Series of2006{Exhibit 19Ir a; Exhibit 7- Acharon) which in essence, authorizes accused Acharon, in his capacity as City Mayor, to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement wife Sining Kambayoka Cultural Arts Foundation, Inc., wife regard to the participation and accommodation of delegates from General Santos City tp Tambayayong Festival 2006 in Los Angeles California, USA and Resolutioii No. 188, Series of 2006 (Exhibit 189-a; Exhibit 8-Acharon) which provides among others feat the Sanggunian Panlungsod authorizes fee City Mayor, Honorable Pedro B. Acharon, Jr., to enter into a Memorandum of Agreemqqt wife fee General Santos City Tourism Association, Incorporated, regarding fee participation of the City and said organization to fee Tambayayong Festival 2006 in Los Angeles, California, USA. To these assertions, what the

Restatement with amendment ofthe rules and regulations on the granting, utilization and liquidation of cash advances provided under COA Circular No. 90-331 dated May 3,1990

/ ; Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 53 of77 Court can say is, his reliance on the said ordinance and resolutions is not enough to excuse him from liability given his responsibility as a Mayor when it comes to the disposal of public funds.

It must be noted that the function of an Appropriation Ordinance is merely to authorise the use of public funds for a desired public purpose. Section 305 of the Local Government Code reads:

"SECTION 305. Fundamental Principles.- The financial affairs, transactions, and operations of local government units shall be governed by the following fundamental principles:

I (a) No money shall be paid out of the local tre^ury except in pursuance of an appropriations ordinance or law;

(b)Local government funds and monies shall be spent solely for public purposes;

X X x"

A cursory reading ofthe Appropriation Ordinance shows that it indeed allpws .the release of public funds for public purpose. And to this end, an aiithorized officer can dispose them. While this is a truism, it does not rnean however that an authorized officer has a free disposition over public funds without complying with the conditions and requirements set forth by the law ih general and COA rules and regulations in particular. Couched differentiy, the existence of an Appropriation Ordinance neither absolutely shield, nor justify or exempt any government official or employee frorn any adtninistrative, criminal or civil liability should it be found that in the perfonn^ce of his duty as guardian of public funds, he acted with negligence or his act is tainted with misfeasance, non-feasance or nialfeasance. No less than the High Court said, local government and officials are mandated to see to it that fiscal responsibility [shall] be shared by all those exercising authority over the financial affairs, transactions, and operations of the local government units.

To stress, while this Court recognizes the existence ofthe Appropriation Ordinance, accused Acharon cannot heavily rely on it. At the very le^t, it only serves as his authority to legally take out fimd from the public treasi^r subject however to the conditions that it shall be devoted to publip purpoae and it shall be disbursed according to the law, rules and regulations.

Section 305 (1), Local Government Code y ■ y Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 54 of77

As to his reliance on the two (2) Resolutions mentioned above, Ae ruling of the Supreme Court in Spouse Antonio and Fe Yusay vs. Court of Appeals, City Mayor and City Council ofMandaluyon^^^ {Yusay case) WQith noting,

In the Yusay case, the Supreme Court made a categorical distinqtipp between an ordinance and a resolution. Thus, an ordinance is a law, b^t ^ resolution is merely a declaration ofthe sentiment or opinion of a lawm^iiig body on a specific matter. An ordinance possesses a general and pemj^ept character, but a resolution is temporary in nature. Additionally, the two enacted differently ~ a third reading is necessary for an ordinance but hot for a resolution, unless decided otherwise by a majority of all the Sanggiuu^ members.

To be exact, what was expressed in Resolution No. 187, Series of200$, is the fact that accused Acharon is authorized to enter into a Memorandum pf Agreement NOT WITH GSC TOURISM ASSOCIATION but wiA pn^ SINING KAMBAYOKA CULTURAL ARTS FOUNDATION,INC. Qn other hand. Resolution No. 188, Series of2006 merely authorized him to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with General Santos City Toi^lsm Association, Inc.

Let us a look at the two Resolutions:

Figure 1. RESOLUTION NO. 187,SERIES OF 2006

GR No. 156684, April 6,2011

y ' Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 55 of77

Kl l'l HI u OJ llll I'llll U'FIM >, I; ur I III;« S.\S€.t.llNI,\N«.•'! ANI.l|.N(.>(>|) t-rf} THE MINUTES OF THE 94'^" REGULAR SESSION OF THF^ SANGGUNIANG PANtXtNGSOO, CITY OF GENERAL SM^TOS WFLO at 14' SANGGUNIANG PANLUNGSOD SESSION HALL ON THURSDAY, APRIL 27. 2006. THE

PRESENT: Hon. Shlrtyn L. Baftas-Nograles Oty Councilor and Presiding Oinccr Hon. JoiQ Oclondo R. AcHaran Oty Councilor (Boor Leader) Hon. Mmda L. Atondtdo City Councilor(7 ' Asmiant Moor LtNidcr) Hon. Mlnardo A. Avtta, Jr. City Councilor Hon. Joto Man C. NatnnOad City Councilor Hon. Oomlnador A. Lagore City Councilor If-DtSAUtM'" Hon. Ramon R. Mtitua Oty Councilor —5—t— Hon. Zollo C. Abtng, Sr. Oty Councilor Hon. Eduardo O. Loyton III City Councilor A tfifiCift Hon. Orlando A. Oco Oty Coufkcilor ' Hon. Jo«e Haruno CondAntino G. Gon/olc/ City Councilor Hon. Octia a. Raltanes Oty Councilor fiNc>v(Wrt t '>i /vp*

Hon. Floronttno i.. Cong«on City Vico Mayor (O.8.) Hon. tourdc« F. CoMbuena Oty Counolor(t" A««t«tant Floor Leader) Hon. Bnon G. 6«trenan Oty Councilor(&k Fedcratien PpcMtont)

RESOLUTION NO. 187 Sortesof 2006

—J^TIQfLalNC., m RCGARO.TO THE OF OeLCOATCS FROM GfiNERAL SANTOS cny to rAMOArArONa festival 2OO6 in LOS ANGCteS. CALIFORNIA. U.S.A.

JOINT SPONSORSHIP

WHCRCAS, for consKleraUon of ttvs SAnoffuni^ la tho propoaod Momorandum of Agrooment to Do enterod into by ond between tno Oty Government of Coneral Santoa and Stfunff AanUwoka Cutlural Art* Foundatron. Inrorporatod, in regard to tho parttctoatlon and accommodation of detogatoa from General Santos Oty to TAm^iyayanff Featival 30OA to to> Anoclcs. Calrfomaa. U.S.A.. on )un

WKCREAS. tha tofm% and conditions stnttor the «aKl accord would provldo the C«tv an opportufMtv to ahowcaao *x% tndigenoin anri and luiturai herttaoe in United Statc% and at Hie lamrr trmc! «r

WHEREAS, under RopubAr Act No. 7160. or the Local Govornmenl Code of ItMi. the City Hayur may enter mto an Agrcemant with any party upon tho authority of the AmAaijpMMt . / r r,.- • J p-i ■"

' V V'/// NOW, THEREFORE, On motion of Oty Councilor Ramon R. Molllza, lor )oinl s|X>nsor.tiip, duly seconded by Oty Councilors Minda L. Alcndkto and Jose Orlando R. Acharon, be it- RESOLVED, as It ts hereby resolved, to auttuirirc ttie City Moy«>r. Honoratilo Pedro B. Acharon, Jr., to enter imo a Memorandum ot Agrccfnent with Sining Kaml>a)Mta Cultural Arts Foundation, Inc., in regard to the participation and 'accommo3ation of dologatcs from General Santos City to Tamiiavovono Festival 2000 in Los Angeles, Califomla, U.S.A. RESOLVED, FURTHER, that the followtng amendments sliall t>e reflected in ttm final copy of the said Memorandum of Agreement: 1. Tho Second Party of the agreement is changed to Gcfioral Santo* Oty, represented by tho City Mayor, Honorable Pedro B. Acharon, Jr.; 2. The Erst *Whoroas' of the same agreement shall imiw read as "Whereas, tho Second Party upon Invitation of Ihc First Party organizes a team known as Team Gonsan Timtboyayong Festival, U.S.A., that will parttclpate and perform In ttic said festival and tieroby offer, commit Its decision and intention to participate and perform, Broiddcd )hat food, board and lodgina Including transsortation- (orouDd Los Angeles gniy) tie accorded to the tiiemborsToolciBBtes of the team during their stay in ttio United States; Provided, further, that an exhibit booth will bo given to them free of Charge as dismay stall for their Indigenous crafts and products;"; 3. The second "Whereas* of the agreement shad tie '*Whoreos, the First Party welcomes tho partlclpaUon of tho Second Party and hereiiy agrees to occeiR the team of the Second P«ty as deiegatos to the Tdmbayayong Festival 2006 and further ogroes to provide the aforesaid demands of the Second Party, providecl.3hat_all tbg membcrs/deleqates of th

Passed by the Sangguniang Panlungsod, City of General Santos, on its 94" Regular Session held on April 27, 2006. UA (e-d- OcafUiPv: CERTTPIEO COKHECT: , AP—St HV*

ATTY. ROSENOO A. ROQUE ^QCFCtary to the Sanggunian

ATTESTED BY:

SHIRLYI^tTBANAS-NOGRALES Oty Councilor and Prestding^Jfilcez LA. Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 56 of77 Figure 2. RESOLUTION NO.188, SERIES OF 2006

N. / \ ' MEPUBl-tC OF THE f-WILlPPINES " j C pICE OFTHE■IE SANGGUNIANG PAtPi JiNGSOD F C^BKiRnAi General RAMTriCSantos Oi-rvCity

(r«<- .u

EXCERPT FROM THE MINUTES OF THE 94^" REGULAR SESSION OF. THE 14'" SANGGUNIANG PANLUN6SOO, CITY OF GENERAL SANTOS. HELD AT THE SANGGUNIANG PANLUNGSOD SESSION HALL ON THURSDAY, APRIL 27, 2006. PRESENT: Sli'X . E ' /^ / Hon. Shlriyn L. BaRas-Nogralcs aty Councilor and Ffcsldlng Officer *-1' Hon. lose Orlando R. Acharon Qty Councilor (Rooi Leader) Hon. MInda L. Atcndldb City Councilor (2"" Assistant Floor Leader) Hon. Minardo A. Avila, Jr. Oty Councilor Hon. lose Marl C. Natlvidad Oty Councilor Hon. Dominacior A. Lagarc City Councilor Hon. Ramon R. Mcllira Oty Councilor j Hon. Zollo C. Abing, Sr. Oty Councilor Hon. Eduardd D. Leyson III Oty Councilor ' ^ Hon. Orlando A. Oco Oty Councilor ''p ' ' Hon. Jose Mariano Constantino G. Conraicz Oty Councilor Hon. Delia G.'Rabanos oty Councilor tiTc-vae™. z«»»'w "«*»

ABSENT; Hon. Florcntlna L. Congson Oty Vice Mayor (O.B.) Hon. Lourdes P. Casabucrta City Councilor (1'^ Assistant Floor Leader) Hon. Brian G. Estrcllan Oty Councilor (SX Federation,President) (O.B.)

RESOLUTION NOAjflS-, " Series of 2006

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MAYOR, HONORABLE PEDRO B. AO-IARON, JR., TO ENTER INTO A MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH GENERAL SANTOS CITY TOURISM ASSCXHATTON, INCORPORATED, IN REGARD TO THE PARTICIPATION OF THE CITY AND SAID ORGANIZATION TO 7>I/Ha4 >94 yCWSGFESTIVAL 2006 IN LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, U.S.A.

JOINT SPONSORSHIP

WHEREAS, for consideration of this Sanggunlan Is the proposed Memorandum of Agreement to be entered into by artd between the City Government of General Santos and General Santos City Tourism Association, Incorporated, In regard to the Intent of the City of General Santos ar^ sak) organization to participate to TSimbayayong Festival 2006 In Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.; ' WHEREAS, the proposed accord would usher strong partnership between the Oty of General Santos and said non-governmental organization in showcasing indigenous culinary arts In Lbs Angeles, California on June 8-28, 2006 with the help of migrant Filipinos as «vell as local sponsor^ and benefactors; L v .\r ^ P ■ Pitgc J fotknys -

^eftSutlon No, IBS, Scfto® o' aoOB f t — WHEREAS, under Repute o?fhe trie City Mayor may enter Into an Agreement wiin any psrvy Sanggunlang Panlungsod; NOW. THEREFORE, on nxotlon of Ater^So and'^J«w°brtan<»'r- sponadihlp, duly seconded by City Councilors MInda L. Atone .do ana joau Acharon, be It • RESOLVED# 0» R Is Norct>y resolved, to auttyH^ Santos City B. AtSl^n": Jr?,'& enter Into » City and said

Passed by tbo Sartggunlang Panlungsod. City of General Santos, Regular Session held on April 27, 2006. *-

CERTIFIED CORRECT: ?-a- OqyZ

ATTY. RD^^cJo^A- ROQUE ^ to tbo Songgunton

attested by:

SHIRLVW L. BANAS-NOGRALES City Councilor and Prosldtng Officer Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 57 of77

Without necessarily disregarding the import of the alluded resolutions particularly with Resolution No.188 Series 2006, since it directly deal? wiA GSC Tourism Authority, to the mind ofthe Court, accused Acharon also seek refuge from it- given his negligence m dealing with GSC Touri$|^ Authority. In the instant case, since accused Acharon as per said Respiutipn is empowered to enter into aMOAwith a juridical person, prudence popld have dictated him to check whether GSC Tourism Association is reajly ^ accredited grantee of public fund before he signed the MOA. At mpst^ he could haye inspected or demanded for the accreditation papers of thp §aitj association instead of relying solely on the representation as appearing ip the said MOA.

As the Local Chief Executive of the City Government of Gener^il Santos, he is expected to be more careful in scrutinizing each and %^ry contract or agreement he is entering into or should have at least verified pt h reasonable extent if each document complied with existing safeguards.

We need not discuss Resolution No. 187 Series of2006.

6)His act of designating accused Dospueblos as Finance Adipinisfr^tpj* when his official designation is that of an Executive Assistant IV and eypn allowing him to perform fiinctions not within his competence such ps "purchase orders, signing vouchers and other documents" are without legal basis.

During the trial stage of this case, this issue was the subject of injury of this Court. The Transcript of Stenographic Notes are telling:

TSN dated March 27,2019, pages 33 to 35

Xxx

CHAIRPERSON: Just one question for clarification

Mr. Dospueblos. You are a Finance Administrator?

Mr. Dospueblos: Ofthe city at that time. Your Honors.

Chairperson: Of the City. You were apparently appointed by the City Mayor during that time?

Mr. Dospueblos:

f ) Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 58 of 77

Yes, Your Honors.

Chairperson: Was that pursuant to his authority or pursuant to the Local Government Code because I cannot understand your function whether it borders on financial or as a City Administrator?

Mr. Dospueblos: Financial, Your Honors.

Chairperson: Because I've been perusing the Local Government Code but there is no such position as Finance Administrator.

Mr. Dospueblos: Actually, the position as a — (paused)

Hon. Justice Trespeses: Are you a consultant to the Mayor?

Mr. Dospueblos: I was really appointed as Finance Administrator but there is a (paused)

Hon. Justice Trespeses: But what is the official plantilla position? Because you may call it that way and probably you understand your functions but what is the official?

Mr. Dospueblos: Executive Assistant, Your Honors.

Hon. Justice Trespeses: Again, sorry?

Chairperson: Executive Assistant.

Xxx"

The authority of each Local Government Unit to to implement its opn organization structure and staffing pattern is explicitly recognized uncieT Section 76 of the Repubic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the Lo^l Government Code. Thus: ■

/ ■) Decision, People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 59 of 77

"SECTION 76. Organizational Structure and Staffing Pattern. - Every local government unit shall design and implement its own organizational structure and staffing pattern taking into consideration its service requirements and financial capability, subject to tfie minimum standards and guidelines prescribed by the Civil Service Commission.

The abpve-quoted provision was reinforced and affirme4 by jCip// Service Commission Memorandum Circular No, 19, Series of Section 4 thereof provides for the Mandatory and Optional Positions iif Local Gpyenunent Unit concerned is a City.

The follpwing are the mandatory positions:

Secretary to the Sangguniang Panlungsod b, Treasurer c. Assessor d. Accountant e, Engineer f, pudget Officer g, Plapiiing and Development Coordinator h. Legal Officer i. Administrator j, Health Officer k. Civil Registrar 1, Veterinarian m. Social Welfare and Development Officer q, General Services Officer

On the other hand, the following are the optional positions:

a, Architect b, Information Officer c, Agriculturist d, Population Officer e, Environment and Natural Resources Officer f, Cooperative Officer

From the foregoing, it appears that the position of a Fin^ce Administrator, a position to which accused Dospueblos was designated dqd by reason thereof was authorized to exercise functions [as enumerated under

guidelines and Standards in the Establishment of Organizational Structures and Staffing Patterns in Local Government Units

/ } Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 60 of77

Memorandum Circular No. OMMA2006-FEB-IGST-0104-A] is neither a mandatory or optional position.

Assuming arguendo that there is a need designate him as such,Sections 1 and 9 ofCivil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 19,Seri^ of 1992 requires that the need to create or designate as such musit identified by the local chief executive, the sanggunian and/or the Ipcdl development council concerned. Specifically, Section 1 reads:

"Section 1. The appropriate organizational structure and staffing patterns of local government units shall be determined and established in accordance with Section 17 (Basic Services and Facilities) of the Code and the priority needs identified by the local chief executive, the sanggunian and/or the local development council concerned."

XXX

"Section 9. Other offices and Positions in the organizational structure and staffing pattern not provided under Sections 3 and 4 of these guidelines may be created by local government units: Provided, that they are the priority needs as identified by the local chief executive, the sanggunian and/or the local development council concerned consistent with Section 17 of the Code. Provided further, that the mandatory positions shall have been created, and: provided finally, that the budgetary limitations under Section 325 ofthe Code have been complied with."

In the present case, accused Acharon was not able to convince this Court that the need to designate accused Dospueblos from his orig^aj designation as Executive Assistant IV to Finance Administrator was ^l|c) determined by the sanggunian and/or the local development coiinQll concerned. Other than Memorandum Circular No. OMMA2006-FEB-I,(j1ST- 01p4-A that accused Acharon issued designating accused Dospueblos ^s Finance Officer, no convincing justification with respect to the identification of the "priority needs" as identified not only by the local chief executive, but also the the sanggunian and/or the local development council concerned as required by Sections 1 and 9 of Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of1992.

Also, and as shown by accused Dospueblos' Permanent Service Record (Exhibit "N") his official designation during the material dat^s of \ Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 61 of77

this case, remains to be as an Executive Assistant IV and not as Finance Administrator. There is also no indication in his service record that he concurrently acts as Finance Administrator. Having said so, what be surmised is that, the acts he performed by virtue of Memorandum Cifcuto No. OMMA2006-FEB-IGST-0104-A, cannot in any way be recognised ^ acts done by a government employee in the discharge of his official functipps.

The importance of an Employee's Permanent Service record cannot bp be ignored since it is a public record having been issued by the Huinah Resource Management and Development Office of the Local Goyerppippt Unit of General Santos City and was admitted as evidence ofthe prosecUtipp as per this Court's Resolution dated September 17,2018.

Figure 3,EMPLOYEE'S PERMANENT SERVICE RECORD

nq>ubl

EMPLOYEE'S PERMANENT SERVICE RECORD

Dnentrrtilo.. MarcWno Cntonn Office eitv ACmtnl.WMni'. Offic. gm7PrtimiflMtftrtid..Qqngtniwciw Sex Utla Place of Birth Lenrt. Behel Bllslbtllty Crtttlml Puhlln Acceunt.nt ICPAI 0* itiorm by Itw Mrvleo rMord Mew oecli Hno. ol wMcn ore (ticpaned by acpoawn^

Bghrtce Incfctrt^ Bati flMoeBmUy/IW. LMVOCl^ naoordol Appolntiniira StKlon/PtaoocI Abionco Prorn OCataooo(Pcm^l woiioutpay Cat AOfiwiatraict - 13.030X0 ImaOR /OininOllk»Gi»c ono-ncpemni. I3S17TRT tayAOnninetrater I /raonat "itdmin Otsoo4>s(5~ BaatyAOjuittna TBzasnfTO IjeyAOfianlitraiar" ce-Tciw' TCBOZOTmoroT ~Mim!nr tio*Torm" lamooinioniff CliHVggC' TBS?" BjioryiwitmtTW ftaoawoi oaaoaooi Hxecutive ^uManfTO" iB33«oo/rootta» CMfl-flBg" HoacpoirtroCT SBISOaBOT UJUicutivo Aul*Uinn>7~ IB.33'1 00 lifionai -W5BOTB- None Koappomimcn 3y»iaflOi lixocmivo Atxixtaol IV Ce-T«np 18,291.00 rmontll" Hono Salary MtuMfflf ioaaieBT 08100/2303 Uxocitloo Asuxtaamr' Co-Term ie,792.0O rmontn Step toetenieii ssey^Dos' OfiHSOOOS coy ooyt. Oopt Head li(CUy~ 23.331.00 ymonw cTMae ^RoniSSo^ ______Trj»gii«r2___^_ JOH4/soes KatirM' nnssDos CTnaeoB city ooin. Occt. Hrad 11(City 22.921.00 /momn CTo-iSse extnmon d Scrv Tteanocr) parCSCRM.03a y.abi exectitnre/twatant IV 18J231X0 /niontn eus-fiso 07/01/2007 tLmS of Tcmi snasssBT 03/03/2003 brecvmvo Aitrttant IV 21.178.00/mo/gr — CMO-oae — BXS9005 TsgoBssr filyflo«^B»m

SITB^raOlA OaytteggSamUIOay 34,048.00 /montn &ty/UlrR!n.0Mee428e fjoRo .salary Ad|u<4i^ AdwgfttstwBOr)

Nottimg FOOOMI

0,C,. f H-J 'J

fssuotf in cc

7)He approved the release ofthe whole Two Million Five Hundrpc} Thousand Pesos (¥ 2,500.000.00) financial grant to GSC Tourispi Association knowing fully well that not all of the supposed participants ..I <) Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 62 of77

were able to obtain US visa for them to enter the US territory where the festival will take place. Since it shows that only 17 of the 37 supposed participants were granted US visa, prudence could have dictated him to lipiit the amoiint of financial assistance to the needs of those who were gr^tejj US visa and not to allow anyone [provided he/she has US visa] to benept fi'om the grant which even includes non members of GSC To^spi Association. Or,if the whole amount of P2,500,000.00 was already rele^^4, he could have asked the return of the excess if not an imm04i^tp accounting of the released fund.

For Accused Dospueblos:

1) When asked, he said he occupies the position of ]Bxecutjye Assistant IV, His ftinctions include looking at the financial transactions the Mayor(referring to Accused Acharon) may enter into and giving the l^er advice whether a financial transaction can be allowed. Appearing to haye known his functions well, why did he not advice accused Acharoii&^t GSC Tourism Association cannot qualify as grantee to the fin^ci^ assistance it is asking from the city coffers.

2) He signed Voucher Numbers. 10-06-05-4194 and 10-06-06753!73 in the counts of One Million Pesos(P 1,000,000.00) and One Milliop Five Hundred Thousand Pesos(P 1,500,000.00)respectively, relating to the travel expenses and travel grants of the festival's supposed.participants pursuant tp the authority given to him by Memorandum Circular No. OMMA2006-FEB- IGST-0104-A.^^^

Interestingly,the Court notes that accused Dospueblos does not actually have the express authority to sign a voucher containing an amount lessA^ three million pesos (P3,000,000.00) or vouchers containing an aggregate amount of less than P3,000,000.00. In fact, when he was placed to the witness stand, he admitted that there is nothing in the Memorandum Circuit No. OMMA2006-FEB-IGST-0104-A that authorizes him to sign vouchers ip the amount ofP 3,000,000.00 and below. Portions ofhis testimony are quoted hereunder:

TSN dated March 27,2019, page 45:

"x X X

HON. Justice Hidalgo: But the question of the Court is that, there is nothing fi'om the said Memorandum which shows that you are also authorized to sign vouchers less ihan 3 million in

Exhibit 5 for accused Acharon Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 63 of 77

amount relative to the travel expenses or travel benefits or travel plans that the Office ofthe Mayor gives to the people or to its constituents?

WITNESS:

I only assumed that the 3 million will c over everything, Your Honors.

HON. Justice Hidalgo:

No, no, no, you're not answering my question, Mr. Witness. From the specific functions as Finance Administrator embodied in the said memorandum, there is nothing there which tells you or authorizes you to sign vouchers in the amount of3 million and below relative to travel expenses or travel grants to constituents?

WITNESS:

Yes, Your Honors.

Xxx"

For clarity, MEMORANDUM NO. OMMA2006-FEB-IGST-0ip4-A dated February 28,2006 is incorporated herein:

Figure 4: MEMORANDUM NO.OMMA 2006-FEB-IGST-01Q4r4 dated February 28,2006

1 / Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 64 of77

REPUBt-IC OF THE RHILJ^^r»ES

^ Generau SANTOS City r /

MEMORANDUM NO. OMMA2006-FEa-IGSr-0104.A

TO t MARCEUNO C. OOSPUCBLOS ^~s fROM I THE cmr MAYOR *"*• l»TB I FEBRUARY 28,2006 P*0« o/ ^paon SUOJCCT I TO SUPERCEOE OMMA2006-PEB-IGST-010a RE: DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY

ENpeUvo March 2. 20C6, you ara appointed as Finance Admlnistratof and datooated with tha roitowitto hns/aM4(ir.manu: 1. vouchers In poymnnt of RATA and tta supportino documents; 2. Vouchors In payment dcctrlc and water bUls and eupporting documents: 3. Vouchers In payment or •elephono tiiUs and supportlirg documents; o. Vouchers for payroll ond supporttng documents; 5. Vouchers (Or payment of risnittaneo to other oovemmont aganOea Mko CSIS.' Modtcoro# etc. and its supporting documents; 6. Vouchers In payment for remittances of salary loans to various banks; 7. Purchaso Orders and vouchers and erher documents with an oooroBOta amount of not mom than P 3,000,000.00. On tranrsctlons InvolvCng enrtount of P 3,000.000.00 and obovov tho csma chould bo referred to the undorsloned; 8. Work and Fmandal Ptsns, Advico of Alleonent and Roauest for RT'o->ca of Appropriotlona; B. Authority to slon Certtflcata of AvcUatXIIly of Funds(OtPl; XO. Authority to sion Certificate of BtiolblUty; Ro: Aid to Indhrlduais In Crisis Situatloa CAICS) XX. Authority to sign Itinerary of Travels of Barsngay Captains i.Tludtno post tr**"rl raqulremonta; X2. Apfwovol of Amendatory Procurement; X3. Afhiroval of Utitlzatlon Report of various departmrmts; Xe. Approval of Waste Material Report: XS. Attendonoo to budget revlow at tho Local PInaneo Board ond tho Csngguntang Ponlungsod; X6. Fund Oontrol of the CRy Mayorls Offlco budget and CMC DMslon ond program hmds; X7. PMvlew/raoommandBtlon of tho Oty Mayors approval of prvlect design; *®* atfTcfOfic AknRppyg**"" of NGOSg and^ nooessory documents Ibr tho dltbursemont of funds fe- so. Purchaso Order proparaUon. OMMA20

This shsE rsfrsln /—•for—.R I of IdtK/ revoked. Thta eiipcrcodas OMMAaoo^ *ES>: :ST-OXC!. l«rv tf- •

' PEOflfot. A^llRON.

s©:«p.~ P o«MkmMo#fo

MEMORANDUM NO. OMMA200()-FEB-IGST-0104-A dated February 28,2006 enumerates what are the functions and/or assignments ihat he can perform as Finance Administrator. These functions can be glie^e^ from items 1 to 19. The subject of this controversy is Item Number 7..pn Purchase Orders and Vouchers and we quote:

"Effective March 2, 2006, you are appointed as Finance Administrator and delegated with following functions/assignments:

XXX

7. Purchase Orders and Vouchers and other documents with an aggregate amount of not more than P 3,000,000.00. On transactions involving amount of P 3,000,000.00 and above,the same should be referred to the undersigned.

X X x"

It appears from the cursory reading ofItem Number 7 that it does NQT

/ 7 Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 65 of 77 contain any operative word or words expressly authorizing him to sign purchase orders, vouchers and other documents ifthe value is in the aggregate amount of P 3,000,000.00 below. As compared to his other functions/assignments as enumerated under Item Numbers 9 to 14 where the words "authority to sign" or "approval of are expressly stated. Clearly, Item Ntimber 7 lacks words expressly giving him such authority even if say, sy^h was the intention. This being the case, the Court could not be faulted if it entertains doubt regarding the scope of his supposed delegated functions/assignments [assuming without admitting that his authority is valid] when he approved and signed Voucher Numbers. 10-06-05-41?4 and 10-06-06-5375 in the amounts of One Million Pesos ^ l,000,0bQ.pP) and One Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos(P 1,500,000.P0) whipjb caused injury to the government.

In addition, and although this can pass as a product of confusion, the Court also observes the inconsistency in his answers on the questions regarding the aggregate amount ofthe vouchers which he can sign assuming that his authority is valid. Is it, three million pesos (P 3,000,000.00) 6r below, or above P 3,000,00.00?'^^

Regardless, it can only be assumed that accused Dospuebloes authorized by accused Acharon to sign and approve the disbursetneni vouchers intended for the travel of participants to die Tambayoyong Festiy^l in Los Angeles, California, USA.'^^

For accused Macion:

"\^^ith respect to accused Macion, the prosecution's evidence point to the following facts which she was not able to rebut with concrete evidence. 1) she represented an association which has already lost its Jegaj standing;

2) she asked for financial grant/assistance for would be participant? without ascertaining how many can surely attend and;

3) she failed to liquidate the cash advance in full and on time

Taken altogether, what could be surmised is, all three accused failed to act in accordance with their respective duties as required by the MOA iand pertinent COA Circulars in safeguarding public funds. Simply put, all these acts demonstrate accused' gross inexcusable negligence amounting to bad

TSN dated March 27,2019, page 45 Judicial Affidavit ofPedro B. Acharon, Jr., Q&A 5,6, 9, and 10

f Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 66 of 77

faith in the performance of their duties.

THIRD ELEMENT: Accused's action caused undue injury to any party, including the Government,or giving any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference ip the discharge of his functions.

In the pase of Librado M. Cabrera, et aL vs. The Honorable Sandiganbayan^^^, the Supreme Court defined "unwarranted" as lac^n| adequate or official support; unjustified; unauthorized; or withoutjustificafipp or adequate reasons. "Advantage" means a more favorable or improved position or condition; benefit or gain of any kind; benefit fi'om somrsp pf action. "Preference" signifies priority or higher evaluation or desirability; choice or estimation above another.

Injury, on the other hand, has been contn:ed to mean as "any wrong or damage done to another, either in his person, or in his rights, reputatipp or proper^; the invasion of any legally protected interests of anothep" It pipst be more than pecessary or are excessive, improper or illegal. It is required that the undue injury caused by the positive or passive acts of the accused be quantifiable ^d demonstrable and proven to the point of moral certaip^^ Undue injury cannot be presumed even after a wrong or a violation of a ri^t has beep established.^®^

More,the Supreme Court clarified that there are two(2) ways by whicli a public official violates Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019 in the performance of his functions, namely:(a) by causing undue injury to any party, including ijie Government; or (b) by giving any private party any unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference. The accused may be charged under either mode or under both.^^® The Court further explained that the use ofthe disjunctive tepn "or" connotes that either act qualifies as a violation of Section 3(e) of RA No, 3019.^^^ • ■

On the basis of the foregoing jurisprudence, this Court rules that accused Acharon and accused Dospuebos gave unwarranted benefits to GSC Tourism Association when they granted cash advances as financial support for its participation in the Tambayayong Festival. As discussed above, GSC Tourism Association is not technically qualified to biecome a beneficiary pf

GRNo. 162314-17, October 25,2004 ^89 id '^id Elias C. Quibal and Antonio U. Deniega vs. The Honorable Sandiganbayan (Second Division) and the People of the Philippines, GR No. 109991, May 22,1995

f 1 Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 67 of 77

the financial grant from the Local Government Unit of General Santos because its juridical existence was already revoked as early as 2003.

To reiterate, only legally existing organization or association c^ qualify as beneficiary under COA Circular 96-003. This requirement imppsed by COA Circular 96-003 and other pertinent COA Circulars is intended to ensure that public funds will land into the hands of legally qualified grated? only. Wiat accused Acharon and accused Dospueblos did in this case did granting of financial assistance to a non-qualified NGO/PO, and the ^ct bf accused Macion in applying to be a grantee ofcash assistance and the eventual accept^ce of the grant knowing fully that it is not qualified or is not accredited NGO/PO, constitute an utter disregard of what the law says whicji eventually produced a consequence grossly prejudicial to the government, which is precisely what Republic Act No. 3019 seeks to prevent.

In People ofthe Philippines vs. Sandiganbayan (4^^ Division), Jessie Castillo, Melencio Arciaga and Emerenciano Arciaga'^^ citing AlejandjtQ vs. People^^^, the Supreme Court explained that undue injury requires proof of actual injury or d^age. x x x it was held that "undue injury in Sec. 3 [e] cannot be presumed even after a wrong or a violation of a right has been established. Its existence must be proven as one of the elements of the cdb^b? In fact, the causing of undue injury or the giving of unwarranted benefit^, advantage or preference through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or ptpis inexcusable negligence constitutes the very act punished under this secfipn. Thus, it is required that the undue injury be specified, quantified and proyen to the point of moral certainty.

On this score, it was observed that the accusatory portion of Ijie Information states that the government was injured in the amoupt of P2,500,000.06, representing the amount that was not liquidated. Althpuj^ during the course ofthe trial, there were testimonies and documentaiy exhibits showing that the government was not actually injured in the total amount of P2,500,000.00 since there were two partial liquidations that were subniittpd, again to the mind of the Court, the disparity in the amount of damage a§ appearing in the Information and the amount not liquidated will not substantially affect the findings of guilt against all three accused. If at all, the disparity occurs due to an error in mathematical computation considering the partial liquidations made. The reason is simple,the crime is not dependent on proving the correct amount of damage *^but more on proving thefact df giving unwarranted preference or benefit to another with evident badfaith, manifest partiality or gross inexcusable negligence. And because of this, damage was caused to the government. '92 GRNo. 160619, September 9,2015 '93 GRNo. 81031, February 20,1989 '9"* Alex M. Valencerina vs. People ofthe Philippines, GR No. 206162, December 10, 2014

fi- Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 68 of77

In this case, the prosecution convincingly showed that, the suspensipn order was issued because of the discrepancy between the amount of c^h advance and the amount actually liquidated. The fact that there Ayqrp liquidations made in the amounts ofP 217, 096.35 [which was refunded to the City Government] and P 375, 923.96 [actually liquidated on loc^ expenses], does not change the fact that the full amount of cash advj^c^ w^ not liquidated. To be more precise, witness Jumilla clarified that thie amount to be liquidated is still in the amount of P 1,906,979.69-subjept pf their Notice of Disallowance as shown m Exhibits "E"and 'E-185. Verily, this unliquidated amount critically pointed to the foreign travel itself wUph the was reason, in the first place, why the amount was disbursed.

From Exhibit "E", it would thus appear that the unliquidated amount i? P 1,906,979.69, which may run contrary to the allegation in the Infonriatipn that the amount which the accused failed to liquidate is P 2,500,000,00.

The variance in the amount alleged and in the amount proven, howeyer, is not fatal.

The general rule is that a variance between the allegation ip the information and proof adduced during trial shall be fatal to the crintinal pase if it is material and prejudicial to the accused so much so that it affects bi§ substantial rights. In this case, however, all three accused knew from the outset that they had to liquidate the full amount P 2,500,000.00, being the obligated amount. That the amounts of P 217, 096.35 [which was reflmded to the City Government] and P 375, 923.96 [actually liquidated on iPpal expenses] were partially liquidated are not even contested. The variance in the amount did not even affect the nature of the charge. Inevitably, thp discrepancy in the amount as alleged in the Information and that which \yas proven to be unliquidated is insignificant in the final appreciation ofthis ca^p.

Finally, it bears stressing that the separate acts or omissions of all thp accused in the present case contributed to the end result of causing damage fp the government. Had these acts or omissions not committed, the end reisujt would not have been achieved.

THE CONCEPT OF CONSPIRACY AND ITS APPLICATION IN THE PRESENT CASE

As gleaned from the Information, the People ofthe Philippines through the Office of the Ombudsman ascribed that all three accused conspired with

TSN dated February 1,2017, p.41 Testimony of Herman Billiones Jumilla, TSN dated February 2,2017, pp. 95 to 97

197 Andaya v. People^ G.R. NO. 168486, June 27,2006 Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 69 of77 one another in granting the release of cash advances in the total amount of Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (F2,500,000.00) from the government coffers and in giving said amount to the GSC Tourism Association purportedly for the use ofthe thirty seven(37) participants in the "Pagana Dinner Show and Tambayayong Festival" in Los Angeles, California, United States of America on June 9-16, 2006, when in facf seventeen (17) were able to participate in the said festival causing the subsequent failure to liquidate ^e said amount thereby causing undue injury to the Government,

The concept ofconspiracy is not novel. A conspiracy is deemed to arise when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commissipri ofa felony and decide to commit it. It may be deduced from the mode, method and manner by which the offense was perpetuated, or inferred from the acts of accused persons themselves when such acts point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest.

In order to establish the existence of conspiracy, unity of the pu^pse and unity in the execution of an unlawful objective are essential to establish the existence of conspiracy. Direct proof is not essential to prpVe conspiracy for it may be deduced from the acts of accused before, diiring and after the commission of the crime charged, from which it may hp indicated that there is a common purpose to commit the crime.^^? It is enough that there be proof that two or more persons acted towards thp accomplishment of a common unlawful objective through a chain of circumstances, even if there was no actual meeting among them,(emphasi^ supplied)

In order to determine whether conspiracy exists between herein all tltree (3) accused, it is best to test the evidence presented by the prosecution taldng into consideration the jurisprudential rules mentioned above.

In this case, the prosecution insists that conspiracy exists. And, this could be inferred from accused Acharon and Dospueblos gross negligence in performing their respective functions not to mention their being partial when they granted and released the financial assistance to GSC Tourisni Association, a non- qualified grantee, therefore, violating Section 3(b) of RA 3019. Worthy to note that in the case of Edna J. Jaca v. Republic of the Philippines and the Sandiganbayan^^\ the Supreme Court ruled thpt Violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 can be committed through gross inexcusable negligence which can be inferred from the silence or inaction of

Juanita A. Aquino vs. Teresita B. Paiste, GR No. 14''782, June 25, 2008 People ofthe Philippines vs. Eduardo Jorge y Ramirez, GR No. 99379, April 22,1994 People of the Philippines vs. Roberto Esperanza Jesalva, GR No. 227306, June 19, 2017 201 GR Nos. 166967, 166974,167167, January 28,2013 /w f f % Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 70 of77 the perpetrators to act on matters which necessitate their attention or Jo respond to the callings of their respective functions. More so, when there more rigid rules and regulations which must be followed like ip the disbursement and/or disposal of public funds.

To borrow the words of the Supreme Court in the Jaca case^ "ps fte City Accountant, foremost of her duties is to ensure that the local funds put pf which the salaries of local government employees would be paid are prpperlj^ accounted for, [Thus], if the setup then prevailing in the Cebu gpvemment directly conflicts with the COA regulations, Jaca should hayp, at the very least, informed the City Mayor of the risk in the process pf disbursement pflocal funds or at least she should have set up an internal ppdit system - as her duty to cheek against possible malversation offunds by tlt^ paymaster."(emphasis ours)

'^ile it may be true that the Jaca case is not in four squares wi|lj the present case, because the former deals with the negligent acts of tlje City Accountant, City Administrator and City Treasurer of Cebu City in allowing a cashier to obtain/avail cash advances although she has preyipus unliquidated cash advances, in violation of existing rules and regulations while the latter deals with the acts of accused Acharon and Dospueblps \n granting cash advances and signing vouchers respectively in favpr of OlS(3 Tourism Association, [a legally non existing association and a npn^ accredited NGO] represented by accused Macion, the ruling in the Jacp case convicting all three (3) accused for violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. 3019earibe applied by analogy in this case, for obviously, in both cases, (1) all' accused are public officials and (2) they were all negligent in discharging their functions of safeguarding public funds.

More,the High Court found the three accused in Jaca citing Sistqzfii v, Desiertq^^^ to have conspired with each other in committing the crime charged and this could be inferred from their silence and inaction amounting to grp^s inexcusable negligence in the performance of their respective iuncfipn?. Notably, in the Jaca case, none of the accused objected to the granting pr release of the cash advance in favor of a cashier with existing unliquidated cash advances which is prohibited under the law. Instead, all three(3) accused therein through their silence or inaction acquiesced to the granting ofthe cash advance in utter disregard to existing rules relating to the disposition ofpublic funds, thereby impressing a concerted action of approval if not acquiescence to an unlawful act. The Supreme Court ruled that such silence and inactipp proves conspiracy among the accused, thus:

In Sistoza, the Court already intimated on the possibility of committing a violation of Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019 through gross and "

202437 Phil. 117(2002;

/ Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 71 of 77

inexcusable negligence, and of incurring collective criminal responsibility t|irough a conspiracy. ... As we have consistently held, evidence of guilt must be premised upon a more knowing, personal and deliberate participation of each individual who is charged with others as part of a conspiracy. Furthermore, even ifthe conspiracy were one ofsilence and inaction arising from gross inexcusable negligence, it is nonetheless essential to prove that the breach of duty borders on mdice and is characterized by flagrant, palpable and willfiil indifference to consequences insofar as otiier persons may be affected. As earlier discussed, considering that the gravity of negligence required by law for a violation of Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019 to exist falls short ofthe degree of bad faith or partiality to violate the same provision, a conspiracy of silence and inaction arising from gross inexcusable negligence would almost always be inferred only from the surrounding circumstances and the parties' acts or omissions that, taken together, indicate a common understanding and concurrence ofsentiments respecting Ae commission of the offense. The duties and responsibilities that the occupancy of a public office carry and the degree of relationship of interdependence of the different offices involved here determine the existence of conspiracy where gross inexcusable negligence was the mode of commission ofthe offense. For emphasis, the petitioners are all heads oftheir respective offices that perform interdependent functions in the processing of cash advances. Ihe petitioners' attitude of buck-passing in the ^ace of the irregularities in the voucher (and the absence of supporting documents), as established by Ae prosecution, and their indifference to their individual and collective duties to ensure that laws and regulations are observed in the disbursement of the fiinds of the local government of Cebu can only lead to a finding of conspiracy of silence and inaction, contemplated in Sistoza}^^

Apparently, same demeanor of silence or inaction amounting to grp^s inexcusable negligence was displayed in this case.

Fpr particularity, the following facts, as proven by the prpsecution^ support such summation.

1) Accused Acharon, as Mayor of General Santos City, and thus, hpad of the local government unit, is immediately and primarily responsible for all govemment funds and property pertaining to his agency.^®"^ He has the fiscal responsibility to monitor all financia] transactions of the city govemment. Accused Dospueblos, as admitted by him in his judicial affidavit, occupies the position of

Supra at 201. Section 102, Govemment Auditing Code of the Philippines

/ Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 72 of77

Executive Assistant IV. His position notwithstanding, he was designated as City Finance Administrator by accused Acharon. As such, his duties include inquiring supporting documents relating to all financial transactions of the city government and performing functions delegated by accused Acharon. It was in this capacity thaX he APPROVED and SIGNED two (2) disbursement voucher? covering the sum of Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P2,500,000.00 intended for the use of the supposed participants tp Ae Tambayayong Festival in Los Angeles, California on June § to 16, 2006. This was approved by accused Acharon, having signi^d the Disbursement Vouchers.

2) The cash advance was given to GSC Tourism Association in 20Q6 or at a time when the association's legal existence was already revoked for its failure to file its General Information Sheet ^d Financial Statements for the years 1997-2002.

3) Accused Acharon and accused Dospueblos never made verificatjpn regarding the legal existence of GSC Tourism Association npr bothered to check on the accreditation of the Association to determine whether it can qualify as a grantee under the law.

4) That despite of the revocation of the legal existence of Tourism Association, accused Acharon • representing GeperqJ Santos City, entered intoaMOAdatedMay.l2,2016, with accuse^ Macion, representative of GSC Tourism Authority, in u^gf disregard to the SEC Requirement for Accreditation.^®^

5) The 3^^ WHEREAS CLAUSE" ofthe MOA states that"The Second party (referring to GSC Tourism Association) is an accrpdife^ NGO/PO of the First Party (referring to the City Government pf General Santos) when there is no evidence of its accreditation,

6) Accused Acharon attested that a non-accredited NGO/PO cannot be extended a financial assistance and that his office made a verification as to the accreditation of GSC Tourism Associatipn. (TSN dated May 29, 2019,pp. 21 to 22)If indeed he did so, prudence could have dictated him to inquire further on the legal status ofGSC Tourism Association.

7) Accused Dospueblos processed the documents for the release ofthe financial assistance and accused Acharon eventually signed the MOA and,thereafter, allowed the release ofthe financial assistance

205 Testimony of witness Jumilla, TSN dated July 12,2017, pp. 14-18

/ 7 Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 73 of 77

in the total amount ofP 2,500,000.00.

8) Neither accused Acharon nor accused Dospueblos asked accused Maqion to return the excess of the P 2,500.000.00 cash adyanqe when they came to know that not all ofthe 37 supposed participate were able to obtain US Visa. Instead, they allowed people wi^ US yisa who are not even members ofthe GSC Tourism Association to partake in the cash advance. And,

9) Accused Macion never bothered to return the excess of the ca^h advance when not all of the supposed participants were ableip obtain US visa. She failed also to make an accounting on how was actually spent jfrom the cash advance. And,if true, that acqpse^ Acharon demanded her to liquidate, she did not heed to the deipanj^. Or, if she liquidated as claimed, she did not liquidate the qash advance in full and on time.

To reiterate, since it was established that GSC Tourism Association i§ a legally non-existent association, it cannot be considered as an accre4itqd NGO/PQ and thus, cannot become a qualified recipient of any financial grant from the government. The failure of accused Acharon and Dospueblos to check or yerify this matter whether intentionally or unintentionally is ffowned by the law, for it reflects not only their gross negligence in the performgnpe oftheir duties but also the failure to diligently observe the proper and efScieftt use of fynds for which they were intended- a clear violation of the Sec^piir^ (a), Republic Act No. 6713.^^^

Jurisprudence holds that, absent any showing of bad faith and malicq, thpre is a presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties, However,this presumption fails if in the performance of official duties, there are explicit laws, rules and regulations that were violated.

Moreoyer, the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Reynp vs^ is precise when it said, public officers are still liable notwithstanding their proffered claims of good faith, since accused violated an explicit rule ih the Credit Facility Proposal(CP?)- a standard and prepared form provided by the Land Bank main office to be used in the loan application as mandated by the Field Operations Manual. The Supreme Court observed that: (1) thp supposed Annex "I" does not contain a stipulation authorizing a pre-paymeht scheme but still pre-payment was authorized; and (2) [petitioners] clearly violated the procedure of releasing loans contained in the Bank's Manual ph Field Office Guidelines on Lending Operations (Manual on Lending

supra at Note 176 Sambo and Abila vs. Commission on Audit, GR No. 223244, June 20,2017 208 GR NO. 167219, February 8, 2011 r Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 74 of77

Operations).

In similiar regard, the High Court in Casal v. sustained the liability of certain officers of the National Museum who again, notwithstanding their good faith participated in approving and authorizing incentive award granted to its officials and employees in violation of AO Ko§. 2$8 and 29 which prohibit the grant of productivity incentive benefits or Qth6f allowances of similar nature unless authorized by the Office ofthe President It was fiarther i^uled that even if the grant ofthe incentive award was not for a dishonest purpose, the patent disregard of the issuances of the President ^d the directives of the COA amounts to gross negligence, making the "approving officers" liable for the refund of the disallowed incentive aw^4.

In this connection, it is unfortunate, that the good faith of all three (3) accuseti, if such was the case, cannot be considered as a defense. This Gouit in applying by analogy the R^na and Casal cases observes that the failure of accused Acharon and accused Dospueblos to follow all COA issuaiices regarding the safeguarding of public fimds cannot be considered as a rpere lapse ofjudgment. Their failure to faithfully discharge their respective duties and to exercise the required diligence which resulted in the irreg^uj^ disbursement of public funds, are not in any way consistent with th^ presumption of good faith.

Accused Macion,for her part cannot be spared too. It should be stressed that had she been prudent enough, she could have ensured first that QSG Tourism Association is a legally existing association before she even asked for financial assistance. More importantly, she could have liquidated what she received from the local government unit of General Santos City. Therefor^, like her co-accused, she cannot not hide imder the cloak of good faith even Jf^ she is, thus making her claim that it was only later when she came to l^oW about the infirmity on the legal existence of the Association not exempting,

In sum, the negligent acts of all the three accused cannot be tolerated especially so fiiat what was disposed ofis public fund- which at all times mqst be safeguarded and to be given only to qualified recipients after laws'^4 regulations relating to their disbursement are properly followed and observed, It is for this reason that the Court will not side with the three (3) accused. And, given how accused Macion managed to request financial assistance fi*om the local government despite the legal infirmity on the existence of the Association she represents, and the gross negligence of accused Acharon and accused Dospueblos in the performance of their respective duties, the Court could not be faulted if it finds that there is a unity of purpose between them, leading to a conclusion that they actually

GRNo. 149633, November 30, 2006

/ ■) ■ Decision People vs. Acharon et al. SB12-CRM-0273 Page 75 of 77 confederated, connived with, and mutually helped one another in causing undue injury to the government by not safeguarding public funds.

That while all three (3) accused may argue that, it was never their intention to cause injury to the government or they never planned to violate any law on disbursement of government funds, unfortunately, the evidence adduced by them or their defenses consisting of(1) they merely acted in gop4 faith in the discharge of their official functions,(2) the P2,500,000.0Q released in two tranches due to accused Dospueblos' efforts to protect §^id fimd, and (3)they exhausted all means in order to liquidate the cash adyance, cannot be given more weight than what was presented and established by ftie prosecution.

The proper penalty

Under Section 9 of RA No. 3019, the penalty for violation of Secdop 3(e) of RA No. 3019 is imprisonment for not less than six (6) years and one (1) month nor more than fifteen (15) years, and perpetual disqualification from public office. Pursuant to Section 1 ofthe Indeterminate Sentence if the offense is punished by a special law, the accused is punished with m indeterminate sentence the maximum of which does not exceed the maxiinuin fixed by the law violated, and the minimum is not less than the minimum term prescribed by the law violated.^^®

Accordingly, the Court finds it proper to impose upon each of tlie accused an indeterminate penalty ranging from SIX(6) YEARS and ONE(1) MONTH, as minimum, to NINE (9) YEARS, as maximum, and to spffer perpetual disqualification from holding public office.

WHEREFORE, in light of all the foregoing, accused PEDRO ACHARON,JR., y BUSGANO, accused MARCELINO DOSPUEBLQS y ESPLANA and accused CHRISELDA I. MACION y CLARISA are found GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of Violation pf Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, and each is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of SIX (4) YEARS and ONE (1) MONTH, as minimum, to NINE (9) YEARS, maximum, and to suffer perpetual disqualification from holding public office.

SO ORDERED.

GEORGINl hidalgo Asso( te Justice 210 Reyes vs. People, GRNos. 177105-06, Lugust4,2010 /;■ Decision People vs. Acharon, et al SB12-CRM-0273 Page 76 of77

WE CONCUR:

MA.THERESA DOLORES C. GOMEZ-ESTOESTA Associate^stice, Chairperson

ZA^Y V. TjrfS^ESES ^ Associate Justice

K Decision People vs. Acharon, et ai SB12-CRM-0273 Page 77 of77

ATTESTATION

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.

MA.THERESA DOM)RES C. GOMEZ-ESTOESTA Chairperson, Seventh Division

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, and Division Chairperson's Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Resolution were reached in consultation before the case assignedi to the writer of the opinion ofthe Court's Division.

PARO Presiding