G.R. No. 88475 -96 August 5, 1993
CRESENCIA L. TAN, petitioner, vs. THE SANDIGANBAYAN AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Forty-six cases for Estafa Through Falsification of Public Documents were filed against officials and employees of the Ministry of Public Highways, Region VII, and the Siquijor Highway Engineering District (SHED), along with private contractors/suppliers. The Informations alleged a conspiracy to defraud the government through the issuance of fake Letters of Advice of Allotment (LAAs), leading to the preparation of falsified documents like Requisition Issue Vouchers, Purchase Orders, and General Vouchers, and the eventual encashment of Treasury Checks. Petitioner Cresencia L. Tan, the District Accountant of SHED, was found guilty by the Sandiganbayan in 22 of these cases. The prosecution’s evidence, primarily from COA auditors, showed that SHED received both regular LAAs (covered by Sub-Allotment Advices from Manila and recorded in the Regional Office logbook) and fake LAAs (not covered by SAAs, not in the logbook, and lacking accounting release stamps). Disbursements were made based on these fake LAAs. Petitioner’s duties included certifying the availability of funds on Requisitions for Supplies or Equipment (RSEs) and Request for Obligation of Allotment (ROAs), and signing and pre-auditing General Vouchers (GVs) for payment. The Sandiganbayan convicted her based on conspiracy, finding that her certifications and signatures on documents related to the fake LAAs facilitated the fraud.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner Cresencia L. Tan conspired to commit Estafa Through Falsification of Public Documents.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court ACQUITTED petitioner Cresencia L. Tan on grounds of reasonable doubt. The Court found that conspiracy was not established by clear and convincing evidence. Petitioner performed her duties as District Accountant by certifying the availability of funds based on the LAAs presented to the district office. The LAAs, even if later determined to be fake, appeared regular on their face as they bore the signatures of responsible regional officials. Petitioner had no duty or authority to verify the authenticity of the LAAs at the regional level; her role was purely ministerial in relying on these documents. The Court held that merely signing or initialing vouchers as part of a processing chain does not automatically make one a conspirator. There was no direct evidence showing petitioner participated in a scheme to defraud or had criminal intent. The anomaly was hatched at the regional level, and petitioner merely followed standard operating procedures. Since guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, the decision of the Sandiganbayan was set aside insofar as it convicted petitioner.