TABUENA VS SANDIGANBAYAN

GR NOS. 103501-03 FEBRUARY 17, 1997

FACTS
President Marcos instructed Tabuena, general manager of MIAA, over the phone to
pay directly to the presidents office and in cash what the MIAA owes the Philippine
National Construction Corporation(PNCC). Tabuena received from Mrs. Fe RoaGimenez, then private secretary of Marcos, a Presidential Memorandum reiterating
the verbal instruction. In obedience to the verbal instruction, Tabuena, with the aid
of Dabao and Peralta, assistant general manager and acting finance services
manager respectively, caused the release of 55 Million PHP of MIAA funds by means
of withdrawal. Tabuena delivered the money to Mrs. Gimenez and it was only upon
the last delivery that Mrs. Gimenez issued a receipt for all the amounts she received
from Tabuena. Prosecution alleges that there were no outstanding obligations in
favor of PNCC at the time of the disbursement of the 55 Million PHP which the
petitioner rebuts by claiming that he was merely complying with Marcos
memorandum.

ISSUE
Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to the justifying circumstance of acting in
obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose thus absolving
him from the crime of malversation

RULING
Yes. Defense of good faith is a valid defense in a prosecution for malversation for it
would negate criminal intent on the part of the accused. Tabuena had no other
choice but to make the withdrawals, for that was what the Marcos Memorandum
ordered him to do. He could not be faulted if he had to obey and strictly comply with
the presidential directive. Marcos was his superior being the president who
exercised control over government agencies such as MIAA and PNCC directing
payment of liability of one entity to another and the manner in which it should be
carried out.
Thus, even if the order is illegal if it Is patently legal and the subordinate is not
aware of its illegality, the subordinate is not liable, for then there would only be a
mistake of fact committed in good faith. Tabuena ac ted under the honest belief that
the 55 million PHP was a due and demandable debt and that it was just a portion of
bigger liability to PNCC.
Moreover, he did not have the luxury of time to observe all auditing procedures of
disbursement considering the fact that the Marcos Memorandum enjoined his

immediate compliance with the directive that he forward to the presidents office
the 55 million in cash.