GR L 53208; (April, 1988) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-53208-53333 April 15, 1988
ANGELINA ESCANO, petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Angelina Escano, the Finance Officer of Region VII, Ministry of Public Highways, was charged before the Sandiganbayan with 126 counts of estafa through falsification of public documents. The charges stemmed from an alleged conspiracy with other officials and private contractors, resulting in the fraudulent disbursement of over six million pesos from the Danao City Highway Engineering District for “ghost” deliveries of construction materials from January to June 1978. After a joint trial, the Sandiganbayan convicted Escano and several others. The court found her criminally liable based on her approval of journal vouchers which, on their face, showed irregularities indicating fake obligations, and her recommendation for approval of monthly trial balances without checking them against underlying accounting documents like the General Ledger and Journal Vouchers. The court inferred her conspiracy from these acts of alleged negligence and from the testimony of a subordinate who claimed to have consulted her.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting petitioner Angelina Escano based on a finding of conspiracy.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the Sandiganbayan’s decision and acquitted Escano. The Court meticulously distinguished between negligence and connivance. The Sandiganbayan’s own findings established that the actual manipulation of the journal vouchers to conceal the fraudulent transactions was performed by the Chief Accountant, Mangubat, not by Escano. Her liability was premised solely on her failure to detect these manipulations by not examining the basic accounting documents before recommending approval of the trial balances. The Court held that such failure, at most, constituted negligence—a lack of due diligence—and not the deliberate, intentional act required to establish conspiracy. Conspiracy cannot be inferred from mere negligence. Furthermore, the Court noted that the preparation of the trial balances was a posterior act, summarizing transactions after the alleged fraud had already been consummated. Therefore, her action concerning these balances could not serve as proof of her participation as a co-conspirator in the commission of the crime itself. The evidence failed to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court did not address her other assigned errors regarding the Sandiganbayan’s constitutionality and ex post facto application, as her acquittal on the merits rendered them moot.