G.R. Nos. 76203-04 December 6, 1989
ENRICO PEREZ y DE LA MERCED, petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Enrico Perez, a COA Technical Property Inspector, was convicted by the Sandiganbayan for Violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft Law (R.A. 3019) in Criminal Case No. 8287. The case involved an anomalous transaction where supplier Leticia Baltazar was paid P43,776.00 by the Philippine National Railways (PNR) for welding rods allegedly worth that amount, but only P100.00 worth was supposedly delivered. The Supreme Court initially affirmed Perez’s conviction, ruling that a conspiracy existed among the supplier and involved PNR officials, including Perez. The Court found that Perez, by signing an Inspection Report attesting to the delivery of the full amount of welding rods, performed a vital act in the conspiratorial chain that enabled the fraudulent disbursement.
Perez filed a motion for reconsideration. He argued that no competent evidence proved the existence of a conspiracy or his participation therein. He highlighted that other key individuals involved in processing the transaction—such as those who prepared the purchase request, conducted the bidding, and performed the pre-audit—were either not charged or were acquitted by the Court. Perez contended that without these alleged co-conspirators, the “conspiratorial chain” was broken, and his isolated act of preparing the Inspection Report, which was regular on its face, was insufficient to establish conspiracy.

ISSUE

Whether the evidence presented is sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner Enrico Perez conspired with others to commit the crime under the Anti-Graft Law.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the motion for reconsideration and acquitted Enrico Perez. The Court held that the evidence failed to establish conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt. The legal logic centers on the stringent standard of proof required for conspiracy, which must be as clear and convincing as the proof of the crime itself. The Court found Perez’s criminal liability confined merely to preparing an Inspection Report after inspecting the delivered welding rods at the PNR Caloocan receiving office. The defense evidence, notably the testimony of receiving clerk Arlie Cruz, established that Perez physically inspected the delivery and found the items in order as specified. The Inspection Report only attested to what was inspected at Caloocan; it did not certify what was ultimately received at the PNR office in Manila.
The responsibility for any discrepancy between the delivery in Caloocan and the receipt in Manila lay with other PNR officials who were either not prosecuted or were acquitted. The single act of preparing a regular report, without evidence that Perez knowingly participated in a scheme to defraud, is insufficient to convict based on conspiracy. Since the required proof beyond reasonable doubt was not met, and in line with the presumption of innocence, the Court reversed its previous decision. The acquittal of other accused individuals further weakened the prosecution’s theory of a concerted criminal scheme involving Perez.