SERTIVIED TRUE XEROX COP REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ESTELA TERN ITA ©, Roser SANDIGANBAYAN Executive Cleft: of Court IL > Bivst Pivision /)/) QUEZON CITY orl FIRST DIVISION PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintif, - versus - CRIM. CASE NO. 21851" ANASTACIO M, LIMBO JR. ESTRELLA C. GORICHO, AND CATALINA LAVINA, Accused. PRESENT: DE CASTRO, J., Chairperson PERALTA & ONG, JJ. PROMULGATED: DECISION PERALTA, J.: The Charge Anastacio M. Limbo Jr., Estrella C. Goricho and Catalina Lavina, are charged with violation of Section 3 (e) of R. A. 3019 in an Information docketed as Criminal Case No. 21851, quoted in pari materia as follows. “That in or about December 1990, or immediately prior and subsequent thereto, in Cagayan de Oro City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused: Anastacio M. Limbo, Jr., being the Regional "This case was inherited rom the former First Division, none of the present members of which were members of the said division. onCrim. Case No. 21851, 2 “sion, Page 2 Director, Estrella C. Goricho, Chief Agrarian Reform Officer all of the Department of Agrarian Reform , Region X, in the discharge of their official duties, conspiring and confederating with a certain Catalina Lavina , with evident bad faith and manifest partiality, did then and there wilfully and unlawfully, give unwarranted benefit, advantage and/or preference to the said Catalina Lavina by paying the latter a crossed check in the total amount of P290,000.00 as payment for the ten thousand (10,000) printed copies of CARP Implementing Rules and Regulations at the time of printing was only P6.95 per copy or a total overprice of P222,500.00, and that the accused Catalina Lavina had no authority to represent the National Printing Office and thereafter, facilitate the encashment of the check by deleting the bars/cross therein, issued to the latter, thereby causing damage and prejudice to the government. CONTRARY TO LAW.” On May 8, 1998, accused Anastacio M. Limbo, Jr., and Estrella C. Goricho, both assisted by Atty. Victor G. Reyes of the Public Attorney's Office, were arraigned but instead of entering their pleas. both accused disclaimed any liability thus, the Court entered a plea of “not guilty" in their behalf. Accused Catalina Lavina did not appear on the date of arraignment The prosecution and the defense submitted a partial joint stipulation of facts,’ followed by a supplemental stipulation of facts* upon which the Pre-trial Order of August 19, 1998 was based, to wit “Stipulation of Facts” “1. That when the subject transaction took place, ATANACIO M. LIMBO, JR., was the Regional Director while ESTRELLA C. GORICHO was the Chief Agrarian Reform Officer of the Department of Agrarian Reform, Region-10. “2. That accused ESTRELLA C. GORICHO requested the printing of 10,000.00 copies of Book IV, CARP Implementing Rules and Procedures and the pertinent Requisition and Issue Voucher (RIV) was ' Dated August 17, 1993 7 ae ? Dated August 18, 1998Crim. Case No. 21851, 0 sion, Page 3 stamped and received purportedly by the National Printing Office on December 28, 1990. “3, That the purchase Order (PO) addressed to the National Printing Office (NPO) was prepared and issued, which was likewise stamped received purportedly by the NPO “4, That 10,000 copies of the said CARP Implementing Rules and procedures were delivered and inspected by MARIBEL DELA CRUZ with her note enfaced in the inspection report ‘inspected as to quantity only’, “5. That said 10,000 copies CARP Implementing Rules and Procedures Book IV were accepted by SAMUEL M. BARDILLAS, Supply Officer Il Department of Agrarian Reform, Region -10, as appearing in the document. “6. That a canvass was conducted by Thelma Harayo, Audit Auditor of the Department of Agrarian Reform, Region -10 and ALFRED PRINTERS offer for the requisitioned item was 6.75 per copy, or a total cost of P 67,000,00. “ That consequently, the transaction or disbursement was disallowed and DIR. LIMBO (now accused) was required to refund the total amount of P290,000.00. “8. That said respondent refunded the amount of P290,000.00 per Official Receipt No. 4580347 dated July 8, 1992 and Official Receipt No. 4580337 dated May 28, 1992 pursuant to the 5th Indorsement by the COA Regional Director dated June 17, 1992. “9, That the copy of the book will be jointly marked as exhibit by the parties. “40. That per record, only 1,720 copies of the book were left as of February 1995, all Books were completely distributed. “11, That the Department of Agrarian Reform dismissed the administrative charge against accused ESTRELLA GORICHO arising out of the same event or transaction. Ly‘sion, Page 4 "42. That the accused ANASTACIO M. LIMBO, JR. and ESTRELLA GORICHO submitted their counter affidavits. Accused Goricho also filed an “Urgent Motion for Reconsideration and /or to Drop Estrella C. Goricho as Party Accused’, before the Office of the Special Prosecutor. “13, That Disbursement Voucher for the payment of said 10,000 copies of CARP Implementing Rules and Procedures in the amount of P290,000.00 with the National Printing Office (NPO) as claimant was prepared by DELMA ZAMORA and certified as to funds availability, propriety of expenditures with supporting legal and proper documents by EDUARDO D. TORNIADO, Accountant, and likewise the expenses were certified to by ATTY. SANTIAGO CATUBIG, Director Ill to be necessary, lawful and incurred under his direct supervision. Thereafter, the said voucher was approved by ANASTACIO M. LIMBO, JR. “14. That accused CATALINA LAVINA received the check No. 069092 and consequently issued Official Receipt No. 18276595 dated August 30, 1991 pursuant to her undated Authority signed by LUCITA C. SANCHEZ, Director IV, NPO. “15. That the check was then encashed by CATALINA LAVINA and the payment was guaranteed by DIR. ANASTACIO M. LIMBO JR.” “Supplemental Stipulation of Facts” “1. That the undated authority purportedly signed by Lucita Sanchez, Director IV, National Printing Office (NPO) and the O.R. issued by Catalina Lavina, were later denied by the NPO per letter of Lucita Sanchez dated September 6, 1991 “2. That prior to said denial by the National Printing Office accused Limbo and Goricho were of the belief that it was the National Printing Office which was transacting with the DAR, Region X, in relation the subject purchase “3. That on October 25, 1991, Director Anastacio Limbo Jr., wrote a letter to NPO requesting an estimate Gin (lage A. xCrim, Case No, 21851, D ‘sion, Page 5 of the unit cost of the printing of book subject matter of this case. “4. That the COA disallowance in connection with the transaction subject matter of this case was already lifted last September 15, 1992 per certificate of Settlement and Balances Issued by Thelma C. Harayo. “5. That the crossed LBP Check No. 069092 dated August 30, 1991 in the amount of P290,000.00 with NPO as payee was uncrossed with the initials of Amelia Mercado and accused Anastacio Limbo, Jr. with a note from Director Limbo quoted as follows; “Release check to Catalina Lavina". The pre-trial was terminated on August 19, 1998, on the understanding by both prosecution and accused that the said stipulations will be finalized and submitted to the court on August 21, 1998 An additional stipulation was jointly submitted by the prosecution and the accused on August 20, 1998, to wit: “Second Supplemental Stipulation of Facts” “4. That Exhibit “W" for the prosecution and Exhibit "24" for the defense, the letter of Amelita T Mercado Regional Cashier, dated August 30, 1991, to the NPO Director requesting confirmation of Official Receipt No. 1827659 S, is admitted as to the fidelity of its reproduction and the authenticity of the document.” On August 26, 1998, this Court noted the submission of the foregoing stipulations. EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION Aside from the stipulations of the parties, the prosecution sought to establish its case by presenting Samuel Bardillas, Supply Officer Il of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), Regional Office No. 10 Cagayan de Oro City, whose testimony is summed oO as follows: M 2Crim. Case No. 21851, D sion, Page 6 During the last week of December, 1990 around 10:00 o'clock a.m., in his office, Samuel Bardillas, supply officer of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Regional Office No. X, was summoned by Regional Director Anastacio Limbo Jr., one of the accused, to report to the latter's office. Upon reaching the director's office, he was instructed by Director Anastacio Limbo to order ten thousand (10,000.00) copies of CARP Implementing Rules and Procedures Book IV from the National Printing Office. According to accused's Limbo's information, a certain director of Region 4 has already purchased the item for P29.00. For lack of price quotation from the National Printing Office as basis for the purchase, Bardillas proceeded to Caridad Munsayac, Administrative and Finance Officer of DAR Region X, to whom he expressed his doubts regarding the preparation of the documents as instructed by Director Limbo Ms. Munsayac then told Bardillas that she would talk to accused Director Anastacio Limbo Jr., and would convince him that there was lack of basis for the preparation of the papers. Since Ms. Munsayac was aoprised by Bardillas, he did not anymore hear any word from Ms. Munsayac. Despite the order of accused Limbo, Bardillas did not proceed with accused's Limbo’s instructions in the meantime. On August 30, 1991, while Mr. Bardillas went on leave, his staff, namely, Delma Zamora, Supply Clerk and Gualberto Calonia Jr., Buyer, went to his rented residence and informed him that the purchase of the booklets was already made and delivered. To facilitate the payment, the two brought with them documents, like the Requisition and Issue Voucher (RIV)? the Purchase Order (PO)*, the acceptance slip,® and the disbursement voucher® for signature of Mr. Bardillas. After ascertaining from the documents that they were verified and signed by the accountant, Edgardo D. Tormiado; recommending officer, Atty. Santiago Catubig; budget officer Ma. Luzviminda M. Balian; and the approving authority, Anastacio Limbo; and received by the National Prining Office, Mr. Bardillas affixed his signature. IDENCE FOR THE ACCUSED In defense, accused Estrella Goricho and Anastacio Limbo testified on their behalf and also presented Amelita Mercado, cashier; * Exhibit “A” for the prosé * Exhibit "B" for the pr i je a * Exhibit “D" for the pros ® Exhibit *O* for the prosCrim, Case No. 21851, Devision, Page 7 Santiago Catubig, former Assistant Regional Director, Edgardo Domaon Torniedo, Accountant Ill; all of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Regional Office No, X; and Atty. Amado Baul, former Director of the Commission on Audit, of Region 10, Cagayan de Oro City, whose testimonies are summed up as follows Accused Estrella C. Goricho was the Chief Agrarian Reforms Officer of the Department of Agrarian Reforms Region X since January 1975, assigned at the Information and Education Division on February, 1990. Since then, she took charge not only of the education and training of personnel, farmer beneficiaries region wide, but was also involved in the information campaign and farmer's affairs. Relative to her functions, it was part of the standard operating procedure in the office that she signed requisition and issue vouchers (RIVs) and purchase orders (POs), for purchases concerning her division In view of the effectivity of the CARP Implementing Rules and Procedures,’ which modified the implementation and expanded the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, there was a need to purchase badly needed copies of said law for distribution and dissemination to more or less 17,000 farmer beneficiaries, officers and members of Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee, NGO support groups, and local government officials Thereafter, upon the instructions of accused Director Limbo, she was made to sign an requisition and issue voucher dated December 28, 1990. The form was brought to her by the Accounting Office wherein she affixed her signature and filled up the items at an estimated price of P290,000.00, upon the advise of the Supply Office, for the approval of accused Anastacio Limbo Jr., in his capacity as Regional Director. Normally for purchases made by her office, a canvass is conducted. However, since the acquisition of these materials was from the National Printing Office, also a government agency, no bidding was required Accused Goricho was also informed by the finance officers that the booklets to be purchased would be charged to the accounts payable from savings for 1990, thus accused Goricho also signed the Purchase Order® dated December 28, 1991, but actually affixed her signature on December 29, 1991 F the prosecution and Exhibit “9” for the defense. for the prosecution and Exhibit *2" for the defense. q T Exhibit * ExhibitCrim. Case No. 21851, P sion, Page 8 At the time she affixed her signature on the Requisition Issue Voucher and the Purchase Order, she had no knowledge that the Requisition Issue Voucher and the Purchase Order were both received by the National Printing Office on the dates that she signed them. Said documents did not contain the rubber stamp mark indicating receipt thereof by the National Printing Office. She further claimed that it is a part of the standard operating procedure in the office that she signs two documents, the Requisition Issue Voucher and the Purchase Order, for purchases concerning her division Ms. Goricho likewise testified that she does not know accused Lavina, and that when the booklets were delivered, she did not have the chance to see accused Lavina as accused Goricho was attending a seminar in another place two hours drive away from Cagayan De Ore City. It was only sometime September 1991, after payment and delivery of the booklets that accused Goricho discovered that the printing of copies of CARP Implementing Rules and Procedure booklets was not undertaken by the National Printing Office, when Amelita Mercado, the cashier of the Department of Agrarian Reform Region 10 received a letter dated September 6, 1991 from National Printing Office Regional Director Lucita C. Sanchez disowning the receipts issued by accused Catalina Lavina. Said letter also confirmed that accused Lavina is not an employee of the Bureau of Printing The booklets were initially distributed by the Department of Agrarian Reforms Office in the last quarter of 1991, until it stopped in 1993 because of a case filed in connection with the purchase of said booklets, with around one thousand seven hundred twenty (1,720) copies left On the other hand, accused Anastacio M. Limbo testified that he rose from the ranks since 1959 as an Agricultural Assistance Officer until he became Director IV of the Department of Agrarian Reform Region X, Cagayan de Oro City. As District Officer, he became exposed to government transactions with various entities and became familiar with procedures involving transactions. Sometime in December 1990, his office had a transaction with the National Printing Office regarding the purchase of Book IV Implementing Rules and Regulations of CARP, pursuant to a clamor of the Regional Development Council to have more information on the CARP. On or about December 20, or 21, 1991, a person not known to him from the start and identified later as accused Catalina Lavina, LL.Crim. Case No. 21851, Decision, Page 9 approached accused Limbo and introduced herself as representing the National Printing Office. Accused Lavina showed certifications that she is connected with the National Printing Office. Because accused Anastacio Limbo Jr., was then entertaining some visitors at that time, he referred Ms. Lavina to the Assistant Regional Director for Administration, Atty. Santiago Catubig Thereafter, accused Limbo was asked to approve and did approve certain Requisition Issue Voucher (RIV) and the Purchase Order (PO) dated December 28,1991. Both documents were signed by accused Limbo for the purchase and delivery of 10,000 copies of CARP Implementing Rules and Procedures. Accused Limbo also signed the voucher’ evidencing that the purchased orders were delivered. He identified the signatures of Accountant Edgardo Torniado and Assistant Director Atty. Santiago Catubig as persons under his direct supervision in the disbursement voucher. The payment was prepared in the form of a check"? dated August 30, 1991, prepared by Amelita Mercado, the cashier of the Department of Agrarian Reform Region 10, and was made payable to the National Printing Office in the sum of Two Hundred Ninety Thousand (P290,000.00) Pesos after the delivery of the booklets. On August 30,1991 Amelita Mercado prepared a crossed check"' payable to the National Printing Office involving the purchase therefrom of certain booklets particularly CARP Implementing Rules and Procedures. Accused Catalina Lavina went to her office claiming the check. As Amelita Mercado asked for her credentials or authority to receive the check, or plane ticket, accused Catalina Lavina said she lost her bag containing the same. Amelita did not release the check not being sure that Ms. Lavina was connected with the National Printing Office. At this point accused Lavina cried because she just delivered a two month old baby and that she needed money to go back to Manila. Since Amelita could not decide by herself whether the check should be released to Lavina, she brought accused Catalina Lavina to accused Director Anastacio Limbo, Jr. Accused Catalina Lavina promised accused Director Catalino Limbo Jr., to send an authorization from the National Printing Office that she is authorized to collect the check later. Director Limbo agreed. Thereafter accused Catalina Lavina received the check from Amelita Mercado and issued a corresponding official receipt'® numbered 1827659-s. Accused Limbo, in his capacity as director, then instructed Amelita Mercado to release the check through a ° Exhibit "O" for the prosecution and Exhibit 15 for the defense. i '° Exhibit "P" for the prosecution and Exhibit "46" for the defense. “Exhibit "P" for the prosecution and Exhibit 16" for the defense. ” Exhibit “Q” for the prosecution and Exhibit “17" for the defense, qyCrim. Case No. 2185) eeision, Page 10 and for her to write a letter'* to the firmation of O.R. No 1827659 ee sed Catalina Lavina in acknowledgment of the payment o aiomes (DAR, Region 10) in the amount of P290,000.00, for the 10,000 copies of CARP Implementing Rules and Procedure. Aside from the letter, Amelita Mercado also tried to contact the Bureau of Printing Office in Manila but the line was busy. note’ dated August 30, 1991 National Printing Office for cont As the check was crossed and could not be encashed by accused Lavina as it was for deposit only, accused Limbo testified that he agreed to uncross the check for humanitarian reasons. The check was uncrossed by the signature of accused Anastacio Limbo Jr., and the initials of Amelita Mercado on the face of the check. ‘Amelita Mercado was assured by the Land Bank cashier that only P 10,000.00 was taken by accused Lavina, and the remaining Two Hundred Eighty Thousand (P280,000.00) was deposited to the National Printing Office through telegraphic transfer. After the release of the check, accused Lavina failed to submit the necessary credentials, hence, Amelita Mercado, the cashier of DAR Region X, sought acknowledgment of payments from the National Printing Office, which however, informed Mercado that the official receipt issued did not emanate from said office and that accused Lavina was not authorized to transact to represent the National Printing Office nor was she an employee thereof. Thereafter, based on the alleged anomalous transaction relative to the purchase of the copies of the CARP implementing rules and procedures, Thelma Harayo, State Auditor Ill of the Commission on Audit, conducted a special audit of the transaction Auditor Thelma Harayo also made a canvass of the price per copy of the CARP booklet through a letter’ addressed to a certain Alfred Cagayan Printers Inc. in Cagayan de Oro City, which quoted the amount of (P6.75) per piece, or a total of Sixty Seven Thousand Five Hundred (P67,500.00) Pesos for the reproduction of ten thousand (10,000) pieces of CARP Implementing Rules and Procedure. On the basis of the said audit examination, accused Limbo received a notice of disallowance’ dated November 7, 1991 from COA Auditor Thelma Harayo, requiring accused in his capacity as Director, together with Atty. Santiago Catubig, in his capacity as Assistant Director, accused Estrella Goricho, in her capacity as Chief Exhibit "U" for the prosecution and Exhibit *21" for the defense. '* Exhibit "W" for the prosecution and Exhibit “23” for the defense. Ww *° Exhibit “E” for the prosecution and Exhibit "5" for the defense, © Exhibit " F* for the prosecution and Exhibit "6" for the defense. %Crim. Case No, 21851, cision, Page 11 m Program Officer, Edgardo Torniado in his capacity ee aInERe and-Samuel Bardillas in his capacity as Supply Officer, to jointly and severally settle immediately the said disallowance amounting to Two Hundred — Ninety Thousand (P290,000.00) Pesos. Said notice also informed accused Anastacio Limbo, Jr., that accused Catalina Lavina was a usurper’” falsely represented herself as representative of the National Printing Office Confronted by the notice of disallowance, accused Limbo sent a letter dated October 25, 1991" addressed to the National Director of the National Printing Office requesting for an estimate of unit cost of printing the Implementing Rules and procedures. In a letter dated October 31, 1991"? received by the accused Limbo on the same day through fax machine, National Printing Office Director Lucita C. Sanchez responded to Director Limbo informing him that the estimate cost for the printing of the CARP Implementing Rules and Procedures is thirty (P30.00) Pesos per booklet. This was forwarded by accused Limbo to Thelma Harayo, however this was not included in her report. Under threat that accused Limbo’s salary will be suspended, he sought the advise of COA Regional Director Baul, who advised him to refund the entire P290,000.00, since the disbursement was illegal. Accused Limbo offered to pay back in installment but was rejected, prompting him to write a letter to accused Catalina Lavina, whose address was found at the back of the check and appealed to her to refund the whole amount of P290,000.00. Lavina issued several checks all in the amount of One Hundred Fifty Thousand (P 150,000.00) Pesos” which initially bounced but after some time, the last check issued by Lavina for the same amount was honored by the bank. To complete the amount needed to be refunded, accused Limbo borrowed One Hundred Forty Thousand (140,000.00) Pesos! and effected the refund in the amount of two hundred ninety thousand pesos (P290,000.00), before the instant case was filed. The suspension of accused Limbo's salary was lifted by the Commission on Audit through Atty. Baul”? so he thought that everything will be forgotten. Accused Limbo testified that he did not institute a legal action against accused Catalina Lavina after writing her a letter to refund the whole amount of Two Hundred Ninety Thousand (P290,000.00) Pesos. "” Exhibit “F" for the prosecution and Exhibit "6-A" for the defense. LY ° Exhibit “V" for the prosecution and Exhibit “22” for the defense. * Exhibit “24” for the defense. % Exhibit “G-1" for the prosecution and Exhibit *7-A" for the defense. * Exhibit for the prosecution and Exhibit for the defense. ® Exhibit "L* for the prosecution and Exhibit "12" for the defense. yCrim. Case No, 21851 ecision, Page 12 Atty. Santiago Catubig, retired Assistant Director for Administration, of DAR, Region X, testified that his function was mainly to get administrative assistance and funding of the operations of the regional office including projects for the purchase of supplies, materials and other things needed by the office. On December 1991, a woman, later identified as accused Catalina Lavina went to his office offering printing needs which he referred to accused Goricho, who headed the Training and Education Division of DAR, Region X. He further testified that sometime December 28, 1991, his signature was sought in a voucher’® for the payment of printed booklets of CARP Implementing Rules and Procedure. He went over the voucher, the supporting papers attached, or the RIV, the PO, and he noted that the same was already signed by the accountant and the budget officer and he assumed that the papers went through a usual pre-audit since there was no footnote or comment from the unit auditor. After he signed the voucher, the same went to the office of the Regional Director Anastacio Limbo , Jr. for final approval Atty. Catubig further testified that in connection with the printing of the 10,000 copies of CARP Implementing Rules and Procedures booklets priced at P29.00 per booklet, an administrative charge was filed against him and supply officer Samuel Bardillas allegedly for overpricing. Thereafter, he sought the price quotation per booklet from the Bureau of Printing which responded that a booklet cost P30 each In view thereof, Atty. Catubig and Bardillas were subsequently exonerated of the administrative charge as there was no proof that the transaction with respect to the 10,000 CARP booklets was irregular. Edgardo Torniedo, Accountant Ill, of the Department of Agrarian Reform Region 10, testified that his function was to see to it that there are available funds, account codes are possible and that every transaction of the office is properly supported with documents. As signatory of the disbursement voucher on the purchase of the CARP, booklets, he testified that such transaction was regular since it passed through all agencies and sections until it was paid He identified his signature on the disbursement voucher and testified that before affixing his signature, he checked all the supporting documents and submitted it to the COA, since said purchase is accounts payable. He further testified that the voucher 23 Exhibit “O° for the prosecution and Exhibit "16" for the defense. (Wh LUW/ Exhibit "24" for the defenseCrim. Case No, 21851, “elsion, Page 13 passed the COA for verification and pre-audit in view of the signature of auditor Thelma Harayo appearing therein. After Torniedo received the voucher from the COA he submitted it to the accused Regional Director Limbo for approval Atty. Amado C. Baul, testified that he is a retired Regional Director Commission on Audit. He was in charge with the proper implementation of auditing rules and regulations and evaluates reports from field or unit auditors, if it is proper for filing in court Sometime August 1991, he came to know of a certain alleged anomalous purchase of 10,000 booklets of CARP Implementing Rules and Procedure in a fraud audit report of unit auditor Mrs. Thelma Harayo, assigned with the DAR Regional Office No. 10. After proper evaluation of the report by his office, it was found out that the transaction involved was badly needed by the DAR regional office and that it passed through the normal processes, from the filing of the RIV up to its payment. For this reason, in his indorsement of his evaluation sent to the Chairman of the Commission,”° Atty. Baul ruled out the existence of conspiracy between the accused Limbo and accused Catalina Lavina. However, despite his finding, he required a reimbursement from accused Anastacio Limbo Jr. as part of his civil liability for having approved the said purchase to pay the full amount of Two Hundred Ninety Thousand (P290,000.00) Pesos. In compliance accused Anastacio Limbo, Jr., tendered the amount of One Hundred Forty Thousand (P140,000.00) Pesos, since the other accused Catalina Lavina already issued a check to reimburse the sum of One Hundred Fifty thousand (P150,000.00.) Pesos to complete the amount of P290,000.00. Atty. Baul | because the pu Printing Office. wise testified that there was no bidding conducted hase was procured directly from the National ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS In view of the accused Anastacio Limbo, Jr.'s death on September 16, 2002, this Court, on December 4, 2002, resolved to dismiss the instant criminal case filed against him, while the other accused Catalina Lavina was never arraigned and thus, the Court has not acquired jurisdiction over her person. The issue left to be resolved therefore, is whether or not the accused, Estrella Goricho, is liable for the crime charged against her. ye * Exhibit “F" for the prosecution and Exhibit “12” for the defense 5 %Crim. Case No. 21851 Yecision, Page 14 Section 3 (2) of Republic Act No. 3019 of the Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act provides that “Sec. 3. Corrupt practices of Public Officers.- In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and they are hereby declared unlawful: *(a) 0x *(b) x00 "(c) xxx “(d) 00 “(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official, administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices of government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.” SSX OO es The elements of violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, are: (1) the accused is a public officer or a private person charged in conspiracy with the former; (2) the said public officer commits the prohibited acts during the performance of his or her official duties or in relation to his or her public positions; (3) that he or she causes undue injury to any party, whether the government or private party; (4) such undue injury is caused by giving unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference to such parties; and (5) that the public officer has acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence”. For an accused to be liable, concurrence of the foregoing elements must be established beyond reasonable doubt. From the evidence culled from the records, the Court holds that the prosecution was able to establish the first and second elements of the crime as accused Goricho was admittedly a public officer, she being the chief agrarian reforms officer of DAR Region X at the time the instant charge was allegedly committed in relation to her office or while in the performance of her official duties. f *° Garcia vs. Office Of (ie Ombudsman 325 SCRA 667. 7Crim, Case No. 21851 Decision, Page 15 However, as regards the third, fourth, and fifth elements of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019, the prosecution failed to establish the same with proof beyond reasonable doubt in view of the following: First. There is no showing that accused Goricho caused undue injury to any party, whether the government or a private party. Her signatures appearing on the purchase order and the requisition and issue voucher for the purchase of ten thousand (10,000) booklets of CARP implementing rules and regulations which later turned out to be printed by an unauthorized person cannot serve as proof that she caused undue injury to the government or to any party. All she did, in fact, was simply to sign the same as part of standard operating procedure to signify her recommendation for approval of the requisition as she was informed by accused Limbo that there was a demand for distribution of more copies of the CARP implementing rules and regulations. In a recent decision, the Honorable Supreme Court held that: “In truth, it is sheer speculation to perceive and ascribe corrupt intent and conspiracy of wrongdoing for violation of Sec 3 (e), of the Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, as amended, solely from a mere signature on a purchase order, although coupled with repeated endorsements of its approval to the proper authority, without more, where supporting documents along with transactions reflected therein passed the unanimous approval of equally accountable officers and appeared regular and customary on their face.”2” Second. As the requisition and issue voucher and purchase order bore the signatures of other officials of DAR Region X in the processing thereof, accused Goricho had no reason to doubt the validity thereof, especially since the requisition and issue voucher and the purchase order passed through the regular channels. The COA auditor, in fact, did not hold her responsible for reimbursement of the amount P290,000.00 that was paid for printing the CARP booklets as it was only accused Limbo, Jr. who was made to do so. And, with accused Limbo's reimbursement of the entire amount of 290,000.00 (the P 150,000.00 having been returned by the accused Catalina Lavina and the amount of P140,000.00 having been put up by accused Limbo, Jr.) to the government even before the instant case was filed, no undue injury can be ascribed to accused Goricho. (Fh 7” Pedro Sistosa vs. Aniano Desierto, GR No 144784, September 3,2002 4Crim. Case No. 21851, Decision, Pe In Llorente vs. Sandiganbayan,”* the Honorable Supreme Court held that it is required that the undue injury be specified, quantified and proven to the point of moral certainty. Where, as in the instant case, there has been reimbursement of the entire amount of the disallowance, there is no basis from which undue injury or damage can be measured. Moreover, the return or reimbursement of the amount of 290,000.00, which represents the alleged undue injury and damage caused to the government, by accused Limbo immediately after he was given notice of the disallowance shows that he was not actuated by bad faith. The return of the amount before the institution of the complaint disproves the existence of undue injury which is one of the essential elements of the offense charged. Necessarily, therefore, accused Goricho, whose alleged participation was limited to signing the requisition and issue voucher and the purchase order, should benefit from this act of accused Limbo and should be cleared from liability, whether criminal, civil or administrative Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that there was no reimbursement or return of the amount of P290,000.00, the accused Goricho could not still be held liable as the other essential elements of the crime, which are discussed in the immediately succeeding paragraphs were not proven convincingly. Third. The prosecution failed to prove that accused Goricho acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence in giving unwarranted benefits or advantage to accused Lavina or that she acted in conspiracy with her co-accused. As herein discussed, accused Goricho's sole participation in the purchase of CARP booklets was to affix her signature on the requisition and issue voucher and the purchase order. She had no participation, whatsoever, in the payment or in the negotiation with accused Lavina. Accused Goricho, in fact, only knew of the anomaly when her office was informed that accused Lavina was not authorized to cause the printing of the CARP booklets or to receive payments therefore. She is presumed to have acted honestly when she depended upon the reasonable assurance of a subordinate, who first signed the requisition and issue voucher and purchase order, that everything was in order. Reliance in good faith by a head of office on a subordinate upon whom primary responsibility rests negates an imputation of conspiracy by gross inexcusable negligence to commit graft and corruption.” (YM 2° 287 SCRA 382 g * Magcusi vs. Sandiganbayan, 240 SCRA 13 %weision, Page 17 CERTIFIED TRUE XEROX COR Crim, Case No, 2851. ‘ESTELA THRESITA C. ROSET Executing Clerk of Court IL Lastly, as the charge of conspiracy against accused eiafon a, 7 rests only upon her signature on the requisition and issue voucher and the purchase order, the same must necessarily fail as evidence of guilt must be premised upon a more knowing, personal and deliberate participation of each individual who is charged with others as part of a conspiracy. In this tenor, the Supreme Court has held that the mere fact that certain officials performed interrelated functions does not necessarily prove conspiracy All told, the prosecution failed to overcome the presumption of innocence in favor of accused Estrella Goricho, hence her exoneration is in order. WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused, ESTRELLA C. GORICHO, NOT GUILTY for violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019 for failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The cash bond posted by the accused is hereby ordered released subject to the usual accounting and auditing procedure. The hold-departure order dated March 5, 1998 against her is recalled and rendered functus officio, This judgment, however, is only insofar as accused Estrella Goricho is concerned and does not affect accused Anastacio Limbo, Jr. , whose case was dismissed because he died during its pendency, and accused Catalina Lavina, over whom this Court has not acquired jurisdiction as she has not been arraigned and remains at-large. In view thereof, let warrant of arrest issue against accused Catalina Lavina for her immediate apprehension and pending her apprehension, let the case against her be archived in the meantime No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. Associatt Justice WE CONCUR: ene CASTRO GREGORY S. ONG Associate Justice Associate Justice ChairpersonCrim, Case No, 21851, “cision, Page 18 | attest that conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division. TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Chairperson, First Division CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Article Vill, Section 13 of the Constitution, and the Division Chairman's Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division: dhhg, G. SANDOVAL Acting Presiding Justice