G.R. No. 103501-03 and G.R. No. 103507, February 17, 1997
LUIS A. TABUENA and ADOLFO M. PERALTA, Petitioners, vs. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Luis Tabuena and Adolfo Peralta were convicted by the Sandiganbayan for malversation of public funds through negligence. The case stemmed from their actions in 1985-1986, when Tabuena, as General Manager of the Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA), and Peralta, as Acting Assistant General Manager for Finance, facilitated the withdrawal and transfer of millions of pesos from MIAA funds. This was done pursuant to a memorandum order from then President Ferdinand Marcos, which directed the immediate payment of a claimed obligation to the Bureau of Treasury. The prosecution established that the disbursements were made with extreme haste, bypassing standard auditing and procedural requirements, and that the funds were ultimately diverted.
The majority of the Supreme Court acquitted the petitioners. The ponencia ruled that they acted in obedience to an order from a superior for a lawful purpose under Article 11(6) of the Revised Penal Code, that they acted in good faith, and that the Sandiganbayan justices violated the petitioners’ due process rights through their active participation in questioning witnesses. This digest presents the dissenting opinion of Justice Davide, Jr., who voted to affirm the conviction.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioners are criminally liable for malversation despite having acted pursuant to a directive from President Marcos, and whether the Sandiganbayan violated their right to due process.

RULING

Justice Davide, in his dissent, argued vigorously for the affirmance of the Sandiganbayan’s decision. On the due process issue, he held that the petitioners’ failure to assign the Sandiganbayan’s questioning as an error constituted a waiver, and the Court should not raise it sua sponte to benefit the appellants. He emphasized that a judge’s active questioning to clarify facts and ascertain truth is a recognized judicial function, not indicative of bias, citing United States v. Hudieres.
On the core issue of criminal liability, the dissent rejected the defense of “obedience to a superior’s order.” Justice Davide contended that the order from President Marcos, while regular on its face, did not and could not lawfully command the suspension of mandatory budgeting, accounting, and auditing rules. The petitioners, as experienced government managers, had a positive duty to ensure the lawfulness of the disbursement process. Their failure to observe these fundamental safeguards, evidenced by the irregular and hasty manner of the withdrawal, constituted gross negligence amounting to malversation. The dissent further argued that the majority’s ruling effectively grants immunity to all who claim compelled obedience to Marcos, thereby obliterating the meaning of the EDSA revolution and impeding the recovery of ill-gotten wealth. Justice Davide concluded that the Sandiganbayan correctly found the petitioners liable for malversation through negligence.