G.R. No. L-58327 June 18, 1992
JESUS C. BALMADRID and MILA C. BALMADRID, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners Jesus C. Balmadrid and Mila C. Balmadrid, together with public officers Maximo Binos and Teodolo Alcantara (Superintendent and Cashier of the Catanduanes Agricultural and Industrial College or CAIC), were charged with violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 , as amended. The Sandiganbayan convicted them on July 2, 1981, based on a finding of conspiracy, for allegedly engaging in a “massive cover-up operation” by falsifying supporting documents (Request for Obligation of Allotment, Requisition and Issue Voucher, General Voucher, canvass papers, abstract of bids, purchase order, COA Inspection report) to justify the issuance of four checks totaling P9,200.00 drawn in favor of Mila C. Balmadrid as proprietor of ECBAL Enterprises for purported purchases of school supplies and materials. The Sandiganbayan sentenced each accused to an indeterminate prison term, perpetual disqualification from public office, joint and several indemnity to the government, and costs. This Court initially affirmed the conviction in a March 22, 1991 Decision, ruling that the information and evidence showed a conspiracy where the acts of the private petitioners gave semblance of legality to the transaction, causing undue injury to CAIC. The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, contending the conviction rested on conjecture and violated the rule that conviction must be based on the strength of the prosecution’s evidence.

ISSUE

Whether the conviction of the petitioners for violation of R.A. No. 3019 , Section 3(e), based on a finding of conspiracy with the public officers, is supported by proof beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The motion for reconsideration is GRANTED. The petitioners are ACQUITTED. The Court held that conspiracy must be established by positive and conclusive evidence, not by conjectures, and requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. The initial affirmance hinged on a conspiracy theory that the act of one is the act of all, but the existence of conspiracy itself was not proved to the required degree. Evidence showed there were four delivery receipts indicating deliveries of the purchased goods to CAIC, albeit at later dates due to transportation difficulties in Catanduanes. The goods were eventually received and inspected by a police station commander on November 13, 1979. The conclusion of conspiracy was improperly drawn merely from the allegations in the information, contrary to the rule that the information must be supported by facts proved beyond reasonable doubt. The information did not even allege that the petitioners conspired with their co-accused; their role was merely as seller/payee. The principle that accusation is not synonymous with guilt and the constitutional presumption of innocence must prevail. The prosecution’s evidence was insufficient to establish the petitioners’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt.