G.R. No. L-57333-37 September 16, 1986
CECILIA C. BARRETTO and ROBERT SORIANO, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, FIRST DIVISION, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners Cecilia Barretto, Chief of the Project Compassion Office in Batangas, and Robert Soriano, a casual employee, were charged before the Sandiganbayan with five counts of Estafa Through Falsification of Public Documents. The informations alleged that, in conspiracy with co-accused Esperanza Magadia, they caused the preparation of falsified Time Book and Payroll documents to make it appear that a separated employee, Leticia Austria, rendered services. Using these documents, they allegedly secured the release of government funds totaling P520.00, which were then misappropriated. After trial, the Sandiganbayan convicted both petitioners, relying heavily on the testimony of Magadia, who had been discharged to become a state witness.
The petitioners appealed, arguing that their conviction was based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of a co-conspirator. The Supreme Court initially affirmed the conviction but later granted a motion for reconsideration and gave due course to the petition, leading to a review of the evidence.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting the petitioners based primarily on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice who was discharged to become a state witness.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted the petitioners. The legal logic centers on the mandatory requirement for corroboration under Section 9(c), Rule 119 of the Rules of Court, which stipulates that the testimony of a discharged accused utilized as a state witness must be substantially corroborated in its material points. The Court found that the testimony of Esperanza Magadia failed to meet this essential condition. Her account implicating Barretto and Soriano stood uncorroborated by any other evidence. For instance, her claim that Barretto ordered the falsification was not supported, and evidence showed Barretto lacked appointing power. Her assertion that Soriano received and delivered the money was mere speculation.
The Court emphasized that testimony from a polluted source, such as a co-conspirator with a strong motive to exculpate herself, cannot alone sustain a conviction. It noted that Magadia had given two statements to the NBI; her first statement did not implicate Barretto, suggesting her later testimony was tailored to shift blame. While trial court findings are generally respected, the Sandiganbayan overlooked these material facts. Without Magadia’s uncorroborated testimony, there was no evidence linking petitioners to the crime. Consequently, the judgment of conviction was set aside for lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt.