G.R. No. 191219 ; July 31, 2013
SPO1 RAMON LIHAYLIHAY AND C/INSP. VIRGILIO V. VINLUAN, Petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Acting on a special audit report, the Philippine National Police (PNP) investigated alleged “ghost” purchases of combat, clothing, and individual equipment (CCIE) worth ₱133,000,000.00 from the PNP Service Store System (SSS) for delivery to the PNP General Services Command (GSC). An Information was filed before the Sandiganbayan charging ten PNP officers, including petitioners Virgilio V. Vinluan (Chairman, Inspection and Acceptance Committee, PNP GSC) and Ramon Lihaylihay (Inspector, Office of the Directorate for Comptrollership, PNP), with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The charge alleged that in January 1992, the accused public officers, conspiring and confederating, through evident bad faith, caused undue injury to the government by making it appear that there were purchases and deliveries of CCIE to the GSC, using funds for personal services and splitting invoices into amounts not exceeding ₱500,000.00 each to avoid higher review, resulting in government payment of ₱8,000,000.00 for non-existent purchases. After some accused died or were dropped, only petitioners, along with others, stood trial. They pleaded not guilty.
The Sandiganbayan, in its Decision dated August 8, 2008, found petitioners and one other accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt. It held that all elements of the crime were present: (a) petitioners were public officers discharging administrative functions; (b) they acted with evident bad faith, as shown by: (1) erasures/superimpositions on seven of sixteen Requisition and Invoice Vouchers (RIVs) to make transactions appear dated 1992 instead of 1991; (2) lack of details in Reports of Public Property Purchased, indicating no actual inspection; and (3) “splitting” of transactions into ₱500,000.00 each to avoid higher authority review and fit within a signing authority; and (c) they failed to refute the prosecution’s claim that the CCIE items were never received by the GSC Supply Accountable Officer or delivered to end-users, causing an ₱8,000,000.00 loss. Petitioners’ motions for reconsideration were denied in a Resolution dated February 12, 2010.

ISSUE

Whether or not petitioners’ conviction for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 was proper.

RULING

The petition lacks merit. The Supreme Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s conviction.
On appeal, only questions of law may be raised. Issues on proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, presumption of innocence, establishment of conspiracy, or appreciation of good faith are questions of fact, and absent recognized exceptions, the Sandiganbayan’s findings are conclusive.
The essential elements of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 are: (a) the accused is a public officer discharging administrative, judicial, or official functions; (b) he acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence; and (c) his action caused undue injury to any party, including the government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits.
All elements are present:
(a) Petitioners were undisputedly public officers discharging administrative functions.
(b) They acted with evident bad faith. Vinluan, as Chairman of the Inspection and Acceptance Committee, signed 16 certificates of acceptance, inventory, and delivery despite their incompleteness or lack of material dates. Lihaylihay certified the correctness of Inspection Report Forms even though no deliveries were made. Their claim that the items were received is belied by the absence of proof of delivery dates. The Sandiganbayan properly rejected claims of deliveries to other units as pertaining to different end-users.
(c) Their actions caused undue injury to the government in the amount of ₱8,000,000.00.
The Court also found conspiracy adequately alleged in the Information and proven. Petitioners’ reliance on the “Arias doctrine” (that heads of office cannot be held liable for conspiracy merely for approving documents without detailed examination) is misplaced, as it does not apply where, as here, the official’s duties require a higher degree of caution due to the nature of the documents being certified, or where on their face, the documents would put a reasonable person on guard. Petitioners, by certifying to deliveries and inspections they knew or should have known did not occur, were active participants in the scheme.
Thus, the Sandiganbayan correctly found petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019.