REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Sandiganbayan Quezon City THIRD DIVISION PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Crim. Cases No. 28062, 28064- Plaintiff, 28067 For: Estafa thru Falsification of Public Document Crim. Cases No. 28237-23238, 28240-28242 For: Violation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, as amended Present - versus - CABOTAJE-TANG, P.J., Chairperson FERNANDEZ, SJ, J. and FRANCISCO S. SENOT, ET AL. FERNANDEZ, B,* J. Accused. Promulgated: Juve 4 DECISION FERNANDEZ, SJ, J. : Accused Francisco S. Senot, Chief of the Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP), and Florante M. Cruz, Chief of the Finance Service Unit (FSU) of the BFP, are charged with five (5) counts of Estafa thru Falsification of Public Document for allegedly: a) Falsifying disbursement vouchers and the supporting documents attached thereto, by making it appear that two vehicles owned by the BFP, namely a Kia Besta van and an * 1. Maries was 2 member ofthe 3 Division a the time the present cases were submited for decision In view of his appointment as Associate Juste in the Supreme Court on Mach 2, 2047, 3. Femander, 8, AS the junior member ofthe 3° Divison, participated in the decision inthe present cases. (Revised Internal Aules ofthe Sonaiganbayan. Rule X, Sec. 3) * Under art. 315 and Art. 171, respectively, ofthe Revised Penal CodeDECISION People. vs. Senot, et al. Criminal Cases No. 28062, 28064-67, 28237-38, 28240-42 Page 2 of 86 Isuzu Elf truck, were repaired, when they knew fully well that no such repairs were made; and, b) Thereafter, relying on such falsified documents, causing the issuance of checks and, encashing and misappropriating the proceeds thereof for their own personal use and benefit. Both accused are also charged with five (5) counts of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (R.A. No. 3019) for making it appear that the proper allocation came from the comptroller and were duly approved and there were repairs made on the two vehicles when they knew that the same were ghost repairs, to the damage and prejudice of the government. Criminal Cases No. 28062 and 28238 involve the overhaul of the Kia Besta van on or about June 15, 2001. Criminal Cases No. 28064 and 28240 involve the overhaul of the Kia Besta van on or about August 23, 2001. On the other hand, Criminal Cases No. 28065 and 28241 involve the body repair of the Isuzu Elf truck on or about October 1, 2001; Criminal Cases No. 28066 and 28242, involve the repair of the drop sides of the same Isuzu Elf truck on November 7, 2001; and Criminal Cases No. 28067 and 28237 involve the repainting of the Isuzu Elf truck on December 8, 2001 The accusatory portion of the Information in the present cases read (Kia Besta van, June 15, 2001) In Crim. Case No. 28062 (For: Estafa thru Falsification of Public Document) That on June 15, 2001, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in Quezon City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused Francisco S. ‘Senot, a high-ranking public official, being the Chief of the Bureau of Fire Protection with Salary Grade 27, and Florante M. Cruz, Chief of the Finance Service Unit of the Bureau of Fire Protection with Salary Grade 25, and JOHN DOES, whose true names are yet unknown, while committing the offense in relation to their office, and taking advantage of their official positions, acting with unfaithfulness and abuse of confidence, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another with intent to defraud the government, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, forge and falsify or cause to be forged and falsified Disbursement Ww aDECISION People. vs. Senot, et al. Criminal Cases No. 28062, 28064-67, 28237-38, 28240-42 Page 3 of 86 x Voucher No. 101-2001-06-3605 and its supporting documents by making it appear that KIA Besta Van with Plate No. SEV-539 underwent repairs at the Alchit Motor Shop and thereafter, cause the issuance of Land Bank Check No. 279316 dated June 15, 2001 in the amount of Fifty-One Thousand Nine Hundred Forty-Eight Pesos (P51,948.00), in payment thereof, which check was covered by funds held by above-named accused public officials in trust and for administration, and which check was released by the Bureau of Fire Protection relying on said forged documents, when in truth and in fact, the accused knew fully well that there was no repair made on the said vehicle, and once in possession of the said check, said accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally take, encash, convert and misappropriate the proceeds thereof for their own personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of the government and the public interest in the aforesaid sum. CONTRARY TO LAW. In Crim. Case No. 28238 (For: Violation of Section 3(e), RA No. 3019) That on June 15, 2001, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in Quezon City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused Francisco S. Senot, a high-ranking public officer, being the Chief of the Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP), with Salary Grade 27, and Florante M. Cruz, likewise a public officer, being the Chief, Finance Service Unit, also of the Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP), with Salary Grade 26, together with John Does, whose identities are not yet known, conspiring, confederating and helping one another, while committing the offense in relation to their office, and taking advantage of their official positions, acting with evident bad faith or at the very least, gross inexcusable negligence, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally cause undue injury to the Government by making it appear that proper allocations came from the comptroller and were duly approved and that there were repairs made on Kia Besta Van with Plate No, SEV-539, when in truth and in fact, as the accused fully well knew, that these are ghost repairs in the total amount of Fifty One Thousand Nine Hundred Forty Eight Pesos (P51,948.00), Philippine Currency, to the damage and Prejudice of the Government in the aforestated amount. CONTRARY TO LAW. / MhDECISION People. vs. Senot, et al. Criminal Cases No. 28062, 28064-67, 28237-38, 28240-42 Page 4 of 86 (Kia Besta van, August 23, 2001) In Crim. Case No. 28064 (For: Estafa thru Falsification of Public Document) That on August 23, 2001, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in Quezon City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused Francisco S. Senot, a high-ranking public official, being the Chief of the Bureau of Fire Protection with Salary Grade 27, and Florante M. Cruz, Chief of the Finance Service Unit of the Bureau of Fire Protection with Salary Grade 25, and JOHN DOES, whose true names are yet unknown, while committing the offense in relation to their office, and taking advantage of their official positions, acting with unfaithfulness and abuse of confidence, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another with intent to defraud the government, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, forge and falsify or cause to be forged and falsified Disbursement Voucher No. 101-2001-08-6133 and its supporting documents by making it appear that KIA Besta Van with Plate No. SEV-539 underwent repairs at Card Motor Shop and thereafter, cause the issuance of Land Bank Check No, 309736 dated August 23, 2001 in the amount of Sixty Seven Thousand Five Hundred Pesos and Seventy Three Centavos (67,500.73), in payment thereof, which check was covered by funds held by above-named accused public officials in trust and for administration, and which check was released by the Bureau of Fire Protection relying on said forged documents, when in truth and in fact, the accused knew fully well that there was no repair made on the said vehicle, and once in possession of the said check, said accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally take, encash, convert_and misappropriate the proceeds thereof for their own personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of the government and the Public interest in the aforesaid sum. CONTRARY TO LAW. In Crim. Case No. 28240 (For: Violation of Section 3(e), RA No. 3019) That on August 23, 2001, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in Quezon City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused Francisco S. Senot, a high-ranking public officer, being the Chief of the Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP), with Salary Grade 27, and Florante M. Cruz, likewise a public officer, being the Chief, Finance Service Unit, also of the Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP), with Salary Grade 26, together with John Does, whose identities are not yet known, conspiring, confederating and helping one another, while commiting the offense in relation to their office, and taking 4/ Al wy?DECISION People. vs. Senot, et al. Criminal Cases No. 28062, 28064-67, 28237-38, 28240-42 Page 5 of 86 advantage of their official positions, acting with evident bad faith or at the very least, gross inexcusable negligence, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and criminally cause undue injury to the Government by making it appear that proper allocations came from the comptroller and were duly approved and that there were repairs made on Kia Besta Van with Plate No. SEV-539, when in truth and in fact, as the accused fully well knew, that these are ghost repairs in the total amount of Sixty Seven Thousand Five Hundred Pesos and Seventy Three Centavos (P67,500.73), Philippine Currency, to the damage and prejudice of the Government in the aforestated amount. CONTRARY TO LAW. (Isuzu Elf truck, October 1, 2001) In Crim. Case No. 28065 (For: Estafa thru Falsification of Public Document) That on October 1, 2001, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in Quezon City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused Francisco S. Senot, a high-ranking public official, being the Chief of the Bureau of Fire Protection with Salary Grade 27, and Florante M. Cruz, Chief of the Finance Service Unit of the Bureau of Fire Protection with Salary Grade 25, and JOHN DOES, whose true names are yet unknown, while committing the offense in relation to their office, and taking advantage of their official positions, acting with unfaithfulness and abuse of confidence, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another with intent to defraud the government, did then and there wilifully, unlawfully and feloniously, forge and falsify or cause to be forged and falsified Disbursement Voucher No. 101-2001-09-71-51 and its supporting documents by making it_appear_that_Isuzu Eif with Engine No. 451886 and Chassis No. M 913464 underwent repairs at Card Motor Shop and thereafter, cause the issuance of Land Bank Check No. 85586 dated October 1, 2001 in the amount of Twenty Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00), in payment thereof, which check was covered by funds held by above-named accused public officials in trust and for administration, and which check was released by the Bureau of Fire Protection relying on said forged documents, when in truth and in fact, the accused knew fully well that there was no repair made on the said vehicle, and once in possession of the said check, said accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally take. encash, convert and misappropriate the proceeds thereof for their ‘own personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of the government and the public interest in the aforesaid sum. CONTRARY TO LAW, 7DECISION People. vs. Senot, et al. Criminal Cases No. 28062, 28064-67, 28237-38, 28240-42 Page 6 of 86 In Crim. Case No. 28241 iolation of Section 3(e), RA No. 3019) That on October 1, 2001, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in Quezon City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused Francisco S. Senot, a high-ranking public officer, being the Chief of the Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP), with Salary Grade 27, and Florante M. Cruz, likewise a public officer, being the Chief, Finance Service Unit, also of the Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP), with Salary Grade 26, together with John Does, whose identities are not yet known, conspiring, confederating and helping one another, while committing the offense in relation to their office, and taking advantage of their official positions, acting with evident bad faith or at the very least, gross inexcusable negligence, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and criminally cause undue injury to the Government by making it appear that proper allocations came from the comptroller and were duly approved and that there were repairs made on Isuzu Elf with Engine No. 451886 and Chassis No. M- 913464, when in truth and in fact as the accused fully well knew, that these are ghost repairs in the total amount of Twenty Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00), Philippine Currency, to the damage and prejudice of the Government in the aforestated amount. CONTRARY TO LAW. (Isuzu Elf truck, November 7, 2001) In Crim. Case No. 28066 (For: Estafa thru Falsification of Public Document) That on November 7, 2001, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in Quezon City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused Francisco S. Senot, a high-ranking public official, being the Chief of the Bureau of Fire Protection with Salary Grade 27, and Florante M. Cruz, Chief of the Finance Service Unit of the Bureau of Fire Protection with Salary Grade 25, and JOHN DOES, whose true names are yet unknown, while committing the offense in relation to their office, and taking advantage of their official positions, acting with unfaithfulness and abuse of confidence, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another with intent to defraud the government, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, forge and falsify or cause to be forged and falsified Disbursement Voucher No. 101-2001-10-7896_and its supporting documents b making it appear that Isuzu Eff with Engine No. 451886 and Chassis No. M 913464 underwent repairs at Card Motor Shop and thereafter, cause the issuance of Land Bank Check No. 87196 dated November 7, 2001 in the amount of Twenty Two Thousani Nine Hundred Pesos (P22,00.00), in payment thereof, whichy/ 4 KyDECISION People. vs. Senot, et al. Criminal Cases No. 28062, 28064-67, 28237-38, 28240-42 Page 7 of 86 check was covered by funds held by above-named accused public officials in trust and for administration, and which check was released by the Bureau of Fire Protection relying on said forged documents, when in truth and in fact, the accused knew fully well that there was_no fepair made on the said vehicle, and once in possession of the said check, said accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and_criminally take, encash, convert_and misappropriate the proceeds thereof for their own personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of the government and the public interest in the aforesaid sum. CONTRARY TO LAW. In Crim. Case No. 28242 (For: Violation of Section 3(e), RA No. 3019) That on November 7, 2001, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in Quezon City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused Francisco S. Senot, a high-ranking public officer, being the Chief of the Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP), with Salary Grade 27, and Florante M. Cruz, likewise a public officer, being the Chief, Finance Service Unit, also of the Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP), with Salary Grade 26, together with John Does, whose identities are not yet known, conspiring, confederating and helping one another, while committing the offense in relation to their office, and taking advantage of their official positions, acting with evident bad faith or at the very least, gross inexcusable negligence, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally cause undue injury to the Government by making it appear that proper allocations came from the comptroller and were duly approved and that there were repairs made on Isuzu Elf with Engine No. 451886 and Chassis No. M- 913464, when in truth and in fact, as the accused fully well knew, that these are ghost repairs in the total amount of Twenty Two Thousand Nine Hundred Pesos (P22,900.00), Philippine Currency, to the damage and prejudice of the Government in the aforestated amount. CONTRARY TO LAW. (Isuzu Elf truck, December 18, 2001) In Crim. Case No. 28067 (For: Estafa thru Falsification of Public Document) That on December 18, 2001, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in Quezon City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named accu: Al hyDECISION People. vs. Senot, et al. Criminal Cases No. 28062, 28064-67, 28237-38, 28240-42 Page 8 of 86 Francisco S. Senot, a high-ranking public official, being the Chief of the Bureau of Fire Protection with Salary Grade 27, and Florante M. Cruz, Chief of the Finance Service Unit of the Bureau of Fire Protection with Salary Grade 25, and JOHN DOES, whose true names are yet unknown, while committing the offense in relation to their office, and taking advantage of their official positions, acting with unfaithfulness and abuse of confidence, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another with intent to defraud the government, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, forge and falsify or cause to be forged and falsified Disbursement Voucher No. 101-2001-12-8647_and its supporting documents by making it appear that Isuzu Elf with Engine No. 451886 and Chassis No. M 913464 underwent repairs at Card Motor Shop and thereafter, cause the issuance of Land Bank Check No. 87601 dated December 18, 2001 in the amount of ‘Twenty Four Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Five Pesos Pesos (P24,675.00), in payment thereof, which check was covered by funds held by above-named accused public officials in trust and for administration, and which check was released by the Bureau of Fire Protection relying on said forged documents, when in truth and in fact, the accused knew fully well that there was no repair made on the said vehicle, and once in possession of the said check, said accused did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and criminally take, encash, convert and misappropriate the proceeds thereof for their ‘own personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of the government and the public interest in the aforesaid sum. CONTRARY TO LAW. In Crim. Case No. 28237 (For: Violation of Section 3(e), RA No. 3019) That on December 18, 2001, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in Quezon City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused Francisco S. Senot, a high-ranking public officer, being the Chief of the Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP), with Salary Grade 27, and Florante M. Cruz, likewise a public officer, being the Chief, Finance Service Unit, also of the Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP), with Salary Grade 26, together with John Does, whose identities are not yet known, conspiring, confederating and helping one another, while committing the offense in relation to their office, and taking advantage of their official positions, acting with evident bad faith or at the very least, gross inexcusable negligence, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally cause undue injury to the Government by making it appear that proper allocations came from the comptroller and were duly approved and that there were repairs made on Isuzu Elf with Engine No. 451886 and Chassis No. M-913464, when in truth and in fact, as the accused fully wellknew, that these are ghost repairs in the total amount of Twenty Four / a ailDECISION People. vs. Senot, et al. Criminal Cases No. 28062, 28064-67, 28237-38, 28240-42 Page 9 of 86 Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Five Pesos (P24,675.00), Philippine Currency, to the damage and prejudice of the Government in the aforestated amount. CONTRARY TO LAW.? When arraigned, the accused separately entered their pleas of “Not Guilty”? During the Pre-trial,* the parties stipulated as follows: 1. That both accused Senot and Cruz admit their personal and individual identities in all the Informations filed in Criminal Case Nos. 28062, 28064-28066, 28237-28238 and 28240 to 28242.5 2. That at all times material to the instant cases, accused Francisco S. Senot and Florante M. Cruz were then public officers holding the position of the Chief of the Bureau of Fire Protection and Chief of BFP Finance Service Unit, respectively. 3. That at all times material to the instant cases, the following motor vehicles described as follows: a. Besta Kia, color Gray with Engine No. VN146411, Chassis No. KNHTP736W6223188 and Plate No. SEV 539, and b. Isuzu Elf truck with Engine No. 451886, Chassis No. M1M91-3464-C and Plate No SDM-360 were the service vehicles of the Bureau of Fire Protection and were issued to accused Florante M. Cruz and Danilo Dizon, respectively. The parties also agreed that the issues to be resolved are as follows: ‘A. Common Issues of the Prosecution and Defense For Criminal Case Nos. 28062, 28064, 28065 and 28066: 2 ? Underscoring supplied 2 p. 264 (accused Senot);p. 265 (accused Cru), Record, Vol. 1 ‘Trial Order dated February 2, 2010; pp. 308-320, Record, Vol. 2, * !tappears that Crim, Case No. 28067 was omitted from the enumeration Joint Stipulation of Facts, pp. 308-308, Record, Vol. 2 ” Itappears that Crim. Case No. 28067 was omitted from the enumerationDECISION People. vs. Senot, et al Criminal Cases No. 28062, 28064-67, 28237-38, 2240-42 Page 10 of 86 x- 1. Whether or not accused Senot and Cruz, being the Chief of the Bureau of Fire Protection and the Chief of the Bureau of Fire Protection Finance Service Unit, respectively are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Estafa thru Falsification of Public Documents as charged. For Criminal Case Nos. 28238, 28240, 28241, and 28242 and 28237: 2. Whether or not accused Senot and Cruz, being the Chief of the Bureau of Fire Protection and the Chief of the Bureau of Fire Protection Finance Service Unit, respectively are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019. B. Issue of the Defense 1, Whether or not there was conspiracy between accused Senot and Cruz in the commission of the offenses charged EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION The prosecution presented as witnesses Nelson G. Feliciano, Renato M. Molina,” Danilo A. Dizon,"' Hyacinth N. Grageda,'? Juliferd L. Hilay,"® and Francisca N. Ramilo."* Nelson G. Feliciano’ testified as follows: a. He was the Chief of the Procurement Office of the Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP), National Office from May 2001 to May 2002." ‘Among his responsibilities as Chief of the Procurement Office were overseeing the conduct of the canvass upon receiving requests for the procurement of supplies and repair of £ * pp. 327-328, Record, Vol. 2 TSN, April 28, 2010, uly 12, 2010, July 13, 2010 1°TSNs, September 13, 2010, September 14, 2010, September 15, 2010, December 1, 2010, December 2, 2010 BTN, January 26, 2011, March 16, 2011 2. 75N, March 17, 2011 2 7SN, May 23, 2011 TSNs, August 4, 2012, October 5, 2011, October 6, 2011, January 24, 2012 He died before he could be cross-examined. (p. 179, Record, Volume I; p. 23, Prosecution’s Memorandum) ¥ p.6, TSN, April 28, 2010DECISION People. vs. Senot, et al. Criminal Cases No. 28062, 28064-67, 28237-38, 28240-42 Page 11 of 86 vehicles, as well as the preparation of purchase orders and work orders."7 ¢. In 2001, the prescribed procedure for the procurement of services for the repair of service vehicles of the BFP is as follows i The end user submits a request to the Logistics Division, which forwards the same to the Procurement Office."® ji, The Logistics Division requests the Procurement Office to conduct a canvass with at least three (3) accredited suppliers of the BFP. "® iii, The Procurement Office prepares a Memorandum for the approval of several officials, namely, the Chief Directorial Staff (CDS) for Operation, the Assistant Chief Directorial Staff (ACDS) for Comptrollership, the Assistant Chief Directorial Staff for Logistics, and finally, the Fire Chief 2° iv. The approved Memorandum is forwarded to the ACDS for Concurrency for the issuance of the Advice of Sub- allotment. The Advice of Sub-allotment is forwarded to the Logistics Division, then to the Procurement Office?" v. The Procurement Office checks the supporting documents to determine the mode of procurement. If the amount involved is above P50,000, it will be done through public bidding. If the amount is less than 50,000.00, it will be done through shopping or canvass method. 22 vi. If the procurement will be done by bidding, the documents are forwarded to the PBAC. vii, If the procurement will done by shopping, they conduct a canvass of three (3) suppliers and choose the supplier offering the lowest price for the services. The Procurement Office prepares a Memorandum stating that the canvass method will be adopted, for th 2 p.7, T3N, April 28, 2010 4 We * p. 8, TSN, April 28, 2010 | ® p.8, TSN, April 28, 2010 ® p.9, TSN, April 28, 2010 24 p.9, TSN, April 28, 2010 # pp. 9-10, TSN, April 28, 2010 ® p.9, TSN, July 12, 2010DECISION People. vs. Senot, et al. Criminal Cases No. 28062, 28064-67, 28237-38, 28240-42 Page 12 of 86 x- vii xi xii approval of the Fire Chief. Supporting documents are attached to the Memorandum. After the Fire Chief approves the Memorandum, the Procurement Office prepares the Work Order, again, for the approval of the Fire Chief 25 ‘After the Fire Chief approves the Work Order, the same is forwarded to the supplier or contractor, who will sign the same.® The contractor then begins the repair of the vehicle.” After the repairs are done, a technical inspector conducts an inspection to determine if the repairs were done in accordance with the conditions and stipulations in the Work Order. If in the affirmative, the technical inspector issues a Certificate of Inspection, which is forwarded to the Acceptance Committee of the BFP.2* The Acceptance Committee conducts another inspection and issues a Certificate of Acceptance.”® The aforementioned documents are forwarded to the Supply Accountable Officer for the preparation of the Disbursement Voucher. After approval of the Disbursement Voucher by the Fire Chief, a check covering the payment for repairs is issued to the supplier. In the course of the performance of his official functions, he ‘came across the documents pertaining to the repairs of the Kia Besta van (Besta van) with Plate No. SEV 539 issued to the Finance Service Unit of the BFP.*! The said repairs were dated June 13, 2001 and August 13, 2001. The head of the Finance Service Unit is Florante Cruz (accused Cruz).* / 9 % p10, TSN, April 28, 2010 % p. 10, TSN, April 28, 2010 %p.11, TSN, April 28, 2030; p. 10, TSN, July 12, 2010 2 p11, TN, July 12, 2010 % p11, TSN, April 28, 2010 % 11, TSN, April 28, 2010 * pp. 11-22, TSN, April 28, 2010 5% p.12, TSN, April 28, 2010 ® p.13, TSN, April 28, 2010 % p.13, TSN, April 28, 2010DECISION People. vs. Senot, et al. Criminal Cases No. 28062, 28064-67, 28237-38, 28240-42 Page 13 of 86 Crim. Cases No. 28062 and 28238 a, For the repairs made on June 13, 2001, a certain Edward Reston, a BFP employee assigned at the office of accused Cruz, came to his office and asked him to sign Work Order LW00613-01-11 dated June 13, 2001 (Exhibit “J") and the Certificate of Reasonableness of Price dated June 13, 2001 (Exhibit “O"), upon the instructions of accused Cruz. b. He refused to sign the Work Order because it was not prepared by his office and no supporting documents were attached.** The documents that should have been attached were the Memorandum for the repair of the van, the Official Canvass Form and the Advice of Sub-Allotment.2° ©. He also refused to sign the Certificate of Reasonableness of Price because his office did not conduct a canvass, and hence, could not determine if the price was reasonable.*” d. Accused Cruz later came to his office and demanded him to sign the documents,** e. Thereafter, he went to the Office of the Resident Auditor to ask for guidance. The Resident Auditor asked accused Cruz to come to her office. There, he and accused Cruz had a heated discussion regarding the said documents. Accused Cruz told him, “ang tigas-tigas ng ulo mo ipatatanggal kita."=* f. Later, he was summoned to the office of accused Senot, who instructed him to sign the documents.“ 9g. After explaining to accused Senot the irregularities in the documents, the latter still insisted that he sign the same.** h. Accused Senot threatened to reassign him to Mindanao or dismiss him from the service. He eventually signed the Work Order and the Certificate of Reasonableness of Price to end the antagonism in the Bureau.‘? i. He deliberately altered the stokes in his signature to signify | / that he was only forced to sign the documents in case wa Wf? ¥p.13, TSN, April 28, 2010 % p14, TSN, April 28, 2010, % p.14, TSN, April 28, 2010, » p15, TSN, April 28, 2010 % p15, TSN, April 28, 2010 ® pp. 15-36, TSN, April 28, 2010 “© p.16, TSN, April 28, 2010, *p.17, TSN, April 28, 2010, "p17, TSN, April 28, 2010DECISION People. vs. Senot, et al. Criminal Cases No. 28062, 26064-67, 28237-38, 28240-42 Page 14 of 86 x= would be an inquiry on the irregular transactions in the future.“ He noted the following irregularities in the pertinent documents: i. Disbursement Voucher No. _101-2001-06-3605 (Exhibit “A’), to which the Work Order was attached, was reviewed for tax purposes on June 4, 2001— earlier than the date of completion of the repairs. It means that the transaction was paid despite the lack of necessary supporting documents. Box A of the said disbursement voucher was signed by Felix R. Rodil. Box B was signed by Ludivina P. Quinto and Box C, by accused Senot.4> The Memorandum for the request dated May 16, 2001 (Exhibit “B’), did not go through the complete staff work (CSW). * | “Complete staff work” means that the memorandum request of the end-user went through the Office of the Deputy Fire Chief for Operation, the CDS, and the ACDS for Logistics and Comptrollership.” The Memorandum Request is not proper because the requesting office submitted it directly to the Fire Chief, instead submitting it to the Logistics Division. The date of approval of the request was also not indicated.*® The Pre and Post Inspection Report (Exhibit “C’) used the DILG 2000 logo. Moreover, the defect indicated - “damaged spare parts,” was too general. The defect should have been more specific so the supplier could determine the necessary items or the amount of the budget.“° |. In the Post Inspection Report portion, the date of the inspection appears to have been altered with the use of correction fluid °° The Canvass Proposals*' issued by Alchit Motor Shop (Exhibit “D”), Great Country Motor Work (Exhibit “E”) anc * p, 18, TSN, April 28, 2010 Lo? pp. 21-22, TSN, July 12, 2010 %p. 22, TSN, July 12, 2010DECISION People. vs. Senot, et al. Criminal Cases No. 28062, 28064-67, 28237-38, 28240-42 Page 15 of 86 Polaris Motor Shop (Exhibit “F") did not use the BFP letterhead, and were not signed by the procurement officer and official canvasser of the Procurement Office. viii, The Certificate of Emergency Repair (Exhibit “H") is not in the prescribed form because it is undated, and bears the BFP 2000 logo. It certifies that the delay in the repair of the Besta van would cause detriment to public service. However, the said vehicle was only the service vehicle of accused Cruz. He could have temporarily used other vehicles in the absence of his service vehicle.** ix. The Certificate of Wear and Tear dated June 19, 2001 (Exhibit ‘I’) is dated after the date of approval of the Work Order. In the ordinary course of procedure, it should be prepared before the Work Order. x. Work Order No. LW00613-01-11 is improper because the repair of the vehicle was not an emergency repair. The supporting documents were not attached and the date of the approval of purchases was not indicated. He deliberately altered the stroke of his signature to indicate that he was only forced to sign the document. xi, The dates in Sales Invoice Nos. 0712 and 0714 (Exhibits “K’ and “K-1") appear to have been altered. The customer's signature was left blank for both. As a matter Of procedure, the Sales Invoice should be issued after repairs are completed, but before payment. xii. In the Certificate of Acceptance (Exhibit “M"), only one invoice was indicated ~ Sales Invoice No. 0172. The other invoice was not indicated. There is also no signature above the name of the Chairman. Payment should not have been made if one of the members did not certify that the vehicle was delivered in good running condition.*7 xi, The form used for the Summary of Expenses (Exhibit "N") was not proper and its date of issuance was not indicated. The date, amount and O.R. number are different from that of the receipt issued by Alchit Motor Shop. The receipt wW * Repair Cost Estimate issued by Alchit Motor Shop, Job Estimates issued by Gres ‘and Polaris Moto Shop ® p.24, TSN, July 12, 2010 5 p.26, TSN, July 12, 2010 %p.27, TSN, July 12, 2010 55 pp, 30-32, TSN, July 12, 2010 5 pp. 35-36, TSN, July 12, 2010 * p.37, TSN, July 12, 2010DECISION People. vs. Senot, et al. Criminal Cases No. 28062, 28064-67, 28237-38, 28240-42 Page 16 of 86 x- issued by Alchit Motor Shop (Exhibit “S") was O.R. No. 0154, in the amount of P51,948, dated June 15, 2001.5° The dates in the Report of Waste Materials (Exhibit “P") were altered.* Crim. Cases No. 28064 and 28240 Oman Jonson, a BFP employee assigned at the Office of accused Cruz, requested him to prepare a canvass proposal, purportedly upon the instructions of accused Cruz.®° He asked the official canvasser to prepare the canvass proposal. Oman Jonson returned a few weeks later and asked him to sign a Work Order, again, upon the instructions of accused Cruz. He refused to sign the Work Order because he did not personally prepare it and because the official canvass, memorandum for request and the Advice of Sub-allotment were not attached thereto.®* He, as Procurement Officer, was responsible for preparing the Work Order. Less than an hour after his refusal, accused Cruz called him and berated him. In response, he explained that the Procurement Office was responsible for preparing the Work Order. Accused Cruz did not accept his explanation and angrily told him, “Ang tigas- tigas ng ulo mo, ipatatanggal kita."*® A few months later, he was summoned to the office of accused Senot. There, accused Cruz handed to him the folder containing the documents that pertained tp the repair of the Besta van being used by accused Cruz.” f / pp, 37-38, TSN, July 12, 2010 y * p. 39, TSN, July 12, 2010 ‘® p. 42, TSN, July 12, 2010 © p. 43, TSN, July 12, 2010 © pp, 43-44, TSN, July 12, 2010 * p. 45, TSN, July 12, 2010 ” pp. 45-46, TSN, July 12, 2010DECISION People. vs. Senot, et al. Criminal Cases No. 28062, 26064-67, 28237-38, 28240-42 Page 17 of 86 x i. He explained to accused Senot and Cruz that he could not sign the documents because they were improperly prepared. j. Accused Senot insisted that he should sign the documents because it was necessary for the post-audit of the COA Accused Senot threatened him with, “Pumili ke. Ano ang gusto mo? Pirmahan mo ‘yan o matanggal ka sa serbisyo."** k. He signed the documents against his will to stop the antagonism and because he thought about his family’s welfare.”° He deliberately altered the stroke of his signature to indicate that he was only forced to sign the document.” |. He observed the following irregularities in the supporting documents: Work Order No. LW00813-01-17 (Exhibit “HH"), though approved by the Logistics Division, did not follow the prescribed procedure because it did not originate from his office.”? ii. The Certificate of Reasonableness of Price dated August 13, 2001 (Exhibit "NN') was not prepared by his office. His office prepares the said document before payment to the contractor is made. The said document certifies that the price obtained was the lowest in the market at the time.” iii, Disbursement Voucher No. 101-2001-08-6133 (Exhibit ’) was already paid. Proof of payment was attached and it was indicated that payment was received by a certain J.N. Jonson.” iv. The disbursement voucher was undated and correction fluid was used in Box A. The voucher was reviewed for tax purposes on August 2, 2001 — well ahead of the preparation or submission of the supporting documents.” © pp. 47-48, TSN, July 12, 2010 © pp. 50,61, TSN, July 12, 2010, pp. 53, 61, TSN, July 12, 2010 7 pp. 63-64, TSN, July 12, 2010; pp. 5-6, TSN, July 13, 2010 % pp. 48-51, TSN, July 12, 2010 p. 52, TSN, July 12, 2010 %p.16, TSN, July 13, 2010 * pp. 7-8, TSN, July 13, 2010DECISION People. vs. Senot, et al. Criminal Cases No. 28062, 28064-67, 28237-38, 28240-42 Page 18 of 86 x- vi. vii viii. xi 7 p.57, TSN, July 12, 2010 ‘iso in the disbursement voucher, the claimant of the check was Oman Jonson, a BFP employee, rather than Nieves Bal-lasiw, the owner of the repair shop. No document showing Jonson's authority to receive the check was attached to the voucher.” The amount involved in the transaction is 70,000.00. The mode of procurement was that for emergency cases.”” The scope of work for the repair performed in August 2001 was the same as that made on June 13, 2001.”° The mode used was improper because emergency repair or purchase can be adopted only when there is an immediate need that may cause imminent danger to life and property. The vehicle involved was only the service vehicle of accused Cruz, and not a fire truck or ambulance.”? The form used for the Pre and Post Inspection Report (Exhibit “Y") was improper because it still used the DILG 2000 logo, which was intended to be used for transactions in the year 2000. The complaints and defects were not indicated in the Pre Inspection Report. On the other hand, in the Post Inspection Report, there is an erasure on the lower portion below “CERTIFIED CORRECT,” over which the name and signature of Hector M. Agadulin appear. The Canvass Proposals dated July 30, 2001 (Exhibits “Z," “AA.” and “BB") were not prepared by any of the official canvassers.®" The Memorandum request (Exhibit “X") dated July 30, 2001 did not go through CSW. It was improbable that it was approved the next day, on July 31, 2001 Processing of the request usually took 3 weeks, or sometimes, months before reaching the office of the Fire Chief. The Advice of Sub-Allotment (ASA) dated May 17, 2001 (Exhibit “DD") shows that the disbursement was not authorized. Only 5,000.00 was allowed for the. ® p. 58, TSN, July 12, 2010 © pp. 13-14, TSN, July 12, 2010 © pp. 17-18, TSN, July 12, 2010 pp, 12-13, TSN, July 13, 2010 ™ p. 62, TSN, July 22, 2010 whDECISION People. vs. Senot, et al. Criminal Cases No. 28062, 28064-67, 26237-38, 28240-42 Page 19 of 86 x maintenance of vehicles assigned to the FSU. The actual transaction involved more than P70,000.00.% The comptroller should have issued another ASA intended for the amount requested in the Memorandum.®* xii, The form used for the Certificate of Emergency Repair dated August 9, 2001 (Exhibit "EE”) bore the year 2000 logo. The date of accused Senot's approval was not indicated.® xiii Certification of Wear and Tear dated August 9, 2001 (Exhibit "FF") bore the year 2000 logo, and states that the defects of the vehicle were caused by wear and tear, and not due to the fault or negligence of the official user. Such statement is contrary to the statement in the Certificate of Emergency Repair.% xiv. The date the contractor affixed his signature was not indicated. Without the said date, the start of the 15- day contract period cannot be determined.” xv. The Certification of Warranty issued by Card Motor Shop dated August 10, 2001 (Exhibit "LL") was dated ahead of the issuance of the Work Order on August 13, 2001. In the normal course of procedure, the Work Order is issued before the Certification of Warranty because it is not yet known if the contract will be awarded to that contractor.° xvi. Card Motor Shop does not appear to be registered with the BIR. The TIN is not indicated in Sales Invoice Nos.0026 (Exhibit “II"), 0027 (Exhibit “JJ") and 0028 (Exhibit “KK") dated August 5, 2001. The sales invoices are dated earlier than the date of the Work Order, meaning that the contractor proceeded with the preparation of the supporting documents, even without the Work Order.®? xvii. There is an alteration on the date of Sales Invoice No. 0026 oN —_____,9! VE ®p. 18, TSN, July 13,2010 € p.19, TSN, July 13, 2010 * pp, 21-22, TSN, July 13, 2010 % p.24, TSN, July 13, 2010 " p.27, TSN, July 13, 2010 ® pp, 32-33, TSN, July 13, 2010 *® pp. 39-40, TSN, July 13, 2010 %p.41, TSN, July 13, 2010DECISION People. vs. Senot, et al. Criminal Cases No. 28062, 28064-67, 28237-38, 28240-42 Page 20 of 86 x- One of the members of the Acceptance Committee did not sign the Certificate of Acceptance dated August 17, 2001 (Exhibit “MM”).°1 The Acceptance Committee was composed of Supt. Marchel Pangilinan, as Chairperson, and Sr. Insp. Renato Molina and-Hector M. Agadulin, as members.% The form used for the Pre and Post Inspection Report bore the year 2000 logo. The portion for “COMPLAINTS AND DEFECTS:” was left blank and the actual date of post inspection was not indicated.° No dates were indicated in the Report of Waste Materials (Exhibits “OO” and “OO-1).% The replaced parts should be tumed over to the supply accountable officer after the completion of the repair, upon the delivery of the repaired vehicle. As a matter of practice, it is usually done before payment is processed.®° The property inspector did not indicate on the certificate what happened to the materials that were turned over.® The were no entries in the portion ERTIFICATE OF INSPECTOR.”” If the emergency mode of procurement is resorted to, the Procurement Office is stil responsible for conducting the canvass. In particular, the canvass should be conducted by the official canvassers - NUP Juliferd Hilay, NUP Nicanor Quinones and NUP Elizabeth Ripoco. He was responsible for signing the invitation to submit sealed offers.°° It was also stated in the Memorandum request that the vehicle was used in flooded areas in Metro Manila but in the Certificate of Emergency Repair, it was stated that the defects were caused by wear and tear.°? already affixed their signatures thereto."° He was the last to sign the documents. is signatories A 7 5 p, 43, TSN, July 13, 2010 % p49, TSN, July 13, 2010 5 p51, TSN, July 13, 2010 p53, TSN, July 13, 2010 % p. $3, TSN, July 13, 2010 % p, 54, TSN, July 13, 2010 © p.55, TSN, July 13, 2010 °° pp, $9-60, TSN, July 12, 2010 % p.22, TSN, July 13, 2010 % p, 66, TSN, July 12, 2010DECISION People. vs, Senot, et al. Criminal Cases No. 28062, 28064-67, 28237-38, 28240-42 Page 21 of 86 x p. He was not a signatory to the Disbursement Voucher." q. The defects in the engine were caused by negligence because the driver should have known that it was improper to use the vehicle in flooded areas." '. Accused Cruz reported that the vehicle was flooded to justify the need for an engine overhaul. All mechanics know that using a vehicle in a flooded area would cause damage to the engine, s. There was no report showing that the vehicle was actually used in flooded areas.‘ t. General repairs, as opposed to emergency repairs, should have been done by bidding. The transaction was made to appear as an emergency repair to circumvent the requirement of public bidding. °° u. | For shopping method, the appropriate circular was Executive Order 302, Series of 200.1% Crim. Cases No. 28065, 28066, 28067, 28237, 28241, and 28242 a. The Isuzu Elf truck (Elf truck) with Engine No. 451886 and Chassis No. M91-3464 was the vehicle issued to the Logistic Support Service Unit?” The vehicle was the subject of the repairs dated October 7, November 7 and December 18, all in year 2001.1 ¢, Oman Jonson came to his office upon the instructions of accused Cruz and asked him to prepare a canvass proposal for the request of the fund for the repair of the said vehicle." He asked Juliferd Hilay, the canvasser of the Procurement Office, to prepare the canvass proposals. ''9 He then informed Jonson that the Procurement Office would conduct the canvass.""! 42 pp, 24-25, TSN, July 13, 2010 2 pp, 25-26, TSN, July 13, 2010, 2p. 26, TSN, July 13, 2010 % p, 28, TSN, July 13, 2010 2p. 31, TSN, July 13, 2010 497 p, 58, TSN, July 13, 2010 48%, 59, TSN, July 13, 2010 4% p. 59, TSN, July 13, 2010 19 p59, TSN, July 13, 2010 +1 60, TSN, July 13, 2010DECISION People. vs. Senot, et al. Criminal Cases No. 28062, 28064-67, 28237-38, 26240-42 Page 22 of 86 x- ‘Accused Cruz berated him for his refusal to sign the Canvass Proposals dated July 25, 2001 (Exhibits “UU,” “WV,” and "WW'). He explained that the Procurement Office is responsible for conducting the actual canvass of accredited suppliers. Accused Cruz did not accept his explanation and insisted that he hand over the prepared canvass proposals. 1? He gave the unsigned canvass proposals to accused Cruz."' Less than a month later, he was summoned to the office of accused Senot. When he arrived, accused Senot and Cruz were there. Accused Senot handed him the folder of documents pertaining to the repair made on the Elf truck.'"* There, accused Senot instructed him to sign the canvass proposal and threatened, “Mamili ka, pirmahan mo yan 0 matanggal ka serbisyo."""® He refused to sign because there were irregularities in the documents. He eventually signed the canvass proposals but he deliberately altered the stroke of his signature to indicate that he was only forced to sign the document." Renato M. Molina testified as follows: Crim. Cases No. 28238, 28062, 28064 and 28240 He was the Chief of the Supply Accountable Office of the Bureau of Fire Protection National Office in 2001.1"7 His responsibilities as Chief of the Supply Accountable Office include: (a) being in charge of the receiving, and the issuance of supplies, materials and equipment procured by the BFP National Office and (b) overseeing the Supply ‘Accountable Office warehouse of the BFP National Office. At that time, he was also designated as one of the members of the Acceptance Committee.""® There were two repairs made on the Besta van. The first was ‘on June 13, 2001, in the amount of P51, 948.00. The second was on August 13, 2001, in the amount of 67,500.73. The 2 pp, 60-61, TSN, July 13, 2010, 4, 61, TSN, July 13, 2010 25 p, 62, TSN, July 13, 2010 1p, 63, TSN, July 13, 2010 4 p.8, TSN, September 13, 2010 ‘3p. 12, TSN, September 13, 2010DECISION People. vs. Senot, et al. Criminal Cases No. 28062, 26064-67, 28237-38, 28240-42 Page 23 of 86 x cost of both repairs was paid for by the BFP National Office." d. The repairs were approved by then Acting Fire Chief Francisco Senot. The Besta van was issued (Exhibit “Q") to the Finance Service Unit headed by Supt. Florante Cruz, who had accountability of the said vehicle. e. Oman Jonson, a BFP employee assigned at the Finance Service Unit, came to his office and asked him to sign documents upon the instructions of accused Cruz, "21 f, The documents brought by Oman Jonson were the Certificate of Acceptance dated June 19, 2001 (Exhibit “M") and the Report of Waste Materials dated June 19, 2001 (Exhibit "P”), pertaining to the repair made on June 13, 2001; and the Requisition and Issue Voucher dated July 31, 2001 (Exhibits "GG" and “GG-1”) and Certificate of Acceptance dated August 17, 2001 (Exhibit "MM") pertaining to the repair made on August 13, 2001.12 @. He refused to sign the Certificate of Acceptance for the repair made on June 13, 2001 because no repairs were actually made." He refused to sign the Report on Waste Materials for the August 13, 2001 repair because no waste materials were tured over to him for inspection." He refused to sign the Requisition and Issue Voucher for August 13, 2001 because no repairs were actually made. "2° h. Thereafter, he was summoned to accused Senot's office. When he arrived, both accused Senot and accused Cruz were there. Accused Cruz handed to him the documents and said, “Pare, pirmahan mo na ‘yan, kailangan na ‘yan sa jtaas." He replied, “I will not sign that because no repair was made on the vehicle.” Accused Senot became angry and shouted at him, “Pirmahan mo na ‘yan. Kung hindi ka man lang makatulong sa akin mabuti pa umalis ka na sa Bureau."?7 oy L? 9p, 14, TSN, September 13, 2010 8° pp, 15-16, TSN, September 13, 2010 pp, 19-20, TSN, September 13, 2010 18 pp. 21-22, TSN, September 13, 2010 85 p, 22, TSN, September 13, 2010 4%. 23, TSN, September 13, 2010 %%p. 23, TSN, September 13, 2010 8 pp. 24-25, TSN, September 13, 2010 8 p.25, TSN, September 13, 2010DECISION People. vs. Senot, et al Criminal Cases No. 28062, 28064-67, 26237-38, 2240-42 Page 24 of 86 x The documents were undated when they were handed to him.28 He signed the documents against his will because he was afraid that his continued refusal would lead to harassment and dismissal from the service. Previously, an employee of the BFP, a certain Elizabeth Paguinto, accountant, was re-assigned to Region VII after she refused to sign the documents, as demanded by accused Senot. He did not see the document signed by accused Senot, assigning Paguinto to Region VII." He was able to talk to Paguinto. She refused to comply with the assignment order and did not report to Region VII.'" He was afraid of being reassigned because his two sons were still studying. Considering the expense involved in relocation, reassignment to another region might interrupt his children’s studies. The Certificate of Acceptance should be signed by the three (3) members of the Acceptance Committee. The signatures validate that the repair was actually made and that the vehicle is in good running condition.’ The Certificate of Acceptance dated June 19, 2001 was not signed by Supt. Marche! V. Pangilinan, Chairperson of the Acceptance Committee. The transaction should not have been paid. "5 The Acceptance Committee puts the date on the said document." Jeroul Lingaolingao, being the lowest in rank, was the first to sign the Certificate of Acceptance dated June 19, 2001. He was the second, and Marchel Pangilinan, being the Chairperson, was the last to sign."37 No inspection was condycted on the materials because no repairs were ay 198 8p. 35, TSN, September 13, 2010 1 pp, 25-26, TSN, September 13, 2010 p27, TSN, September 13, 2010 3p. 20, TSN, September 14, 2010 2 pp, 7-8, TSN, September 14, 2010 4p. 6, TSN, December 2, 2010 4p, 31, TSN, September 13, 2010 5p, 31.32, TSN, September 13, 2010 4p, 21, TSN, September 14, 2010 © pp. 25-27, TSN, September 14, 2010 *p. 30, TSN, September 14, 2010,DECISION People. vs. Senot, et al. Criminal Cases No. 28062, 28064-67, 28237-38, 28240-42 Page 25 of 86 x s. He did not ask Lingaolingao if he inspected the items listed in the Certificate of Acceptance. He also did not ask Lingaolingao why he signed the document.'2° t. He concluded that no repairs were made because no waste materials were tured over.'4° If the materials were lost, the end user should make a certification." u. Aniceto Herrera, Jr. was the first to sign the Report of Waste Materials. He was the next to sign. Jeroul Lingaolingao was the last to sign."#2 v. He personally inspects the waste materials tumed over.“ W. Aniceto Herrera signs the Report of Waste Materials because he also conducts an inspection. 4 x. The Reauisition and Issue Voucher dated July 31, 2001 (Exhibit “GG") was first signed by him, then by Logistics Division ACDS, Senior Superintendent Manuel Baduria, and thereafter, it was transmitted to the office of accused Senot. 5 y. Payment was made for the repair of the Besta van. The pre- audit was conducted by the Financial Management Division." No post-audit was conducted. The COA did not file a case against the perpetrator." 2. He does not know why the auditor accepted the Certificate of Acceptance dated June 13, 2001 during the pre-audit, considering that there was an irregularity, ie. it lacked the signature of the Chairperson. “® Crim. Cases No. 28065, 28066, 28067, 28237, 28241, and 28242 a. The Elf truck with Engine No. 451886 and Chassis No. M1M91-3464-C was assigned to SFO4 Danilo Dizon.“ ay Ve 8 p. 31, TSN, September 14, 2010 © pp. 31-32, TSN, September 14, 2010 % p. 33, TSN, September 14, 2010 pp. 36-37, TSN, September 14, 2010 © p.38, TSN, September 14, 2010 +p, 43, TSN, September 14, 2010 6 pp. 41-42, TSN, September 14, 2010 * pp. 7-8, TSN, December 1, 2010 7p. 9, TSN, December 1, 2010 Mp. 10, TSN, December 1, 2010 ™*p. 47, TSN, September 13, 2010; Exhibit EEEDECISION People. vs. Senot, et al. Criminal Cases No. 28062, 28064-67, 28237-38, 28240-42 Page 26 of 86 x- Three repairs were made on the vehicle. The first was on October 1, 2001, in the amount of 25,000.00. The second was on November 7, 2001, in the amount of P22,900.00. The third was on December 18, 2001, in the amount of 24,675.00.19 ‘The BFP National Office paid for the cost of the repairs. The said payments were approved by accused Senot.'51 Oman Jonson came to his office and asked him to sign some documents, upon the instruction of accused Cruz. These documents were an undated Report of Waste Materials pertaining to the repair made on October 1, 2001 (Exhibit “DDD’); an undated Report of Waste Materials pertaining to the repair on November 7, 2001 (Exhibit “RRR’); and the Certificate of Acceptance dated December 14, 2001 (Exhibit “EEEE’) pertaining to the repair for which payment was made on December 18, 2001." He refused to sign Reports of Waste Materials for the repairs made on October 1 and November 7, 2001 because there was no actual turnover of materials for inspection, and because no repairs were actually made." After he refused to sign, he was summoned to the office of accused Senot, There, accused Cruz handed to him the documents and said, “You sign that because the higher-ups need that.” Accused Senot became angry and shouted at him, “Sign that. If you would not be able to help me, it is much better for you to resign from the Bureau.""** He signed the documents against his will because he was afraid.'55 The documents were undated when they were presented to him." By signing the Certificate of Acceptance, the members of the Acceptance Committee Attest that the vehicle is in good running condition. "7 8p, 39, TSN, September 13, 2010 tp, 40-81, TSN, September 13, 2010 8p, 41, TSN, September 13, 2010 484 pp, 42-43, TSN, September 13, 2010 5p, 43, TSN, September 13, 2010, 458 p44, TSN, September 13, 2010 7p. 44, TSN, September 13, 2010DECISION People. vs. Senot, et al. Criminal Cases No. 28062, 28064-67, 28237-38, 28240-42 Page 27 of 86 x j. After the repair, the waste materials, or replaced parts, should be tuned over to the Supply Accountable Office. The Report of Waste Materials covers those waste materials turned over, and is submitted to the Finance Management Division. "* k. There was no tumover of waste materials to the Supply Accountable Office for the repairs made on October 1, 2001 and November 7, 2001."59 | He filed the cases against accused Senot on September 2, 2002. He (witness Molina) was still Chief of the Supply Accountable Office at the time. 6° m. He filed the cases against accused Senot because he wanted to stop his anomalous activities." n. Aniceto Herrera was the first to sign the Report of Waste : Materials, then him, and Renato Plantado was the last.‘©2 ©. There were no signatures in the Certificate of Acceptance when accused Senot presented it to him. He was the first to sign, then Marchel Pangilinan followed. "®3 p. He is not very knowledgeable about the bidding procedure and the procedure for the procurement of supplies and materials." q. Only the Report of Waste Materials is prepared by the Supply Accountable Office. The Certificate of Acceptance is prepared by the Acceptance Committee, of which he is a member. 165 rt. The Report of Waste Materials is prepared in three sets. After the transaction is paid, one set goes to the Finance Service Unit. Another goes to the Accounting Unit. The third set is retained by his office."®® s. The Finance Department issues the check while the Accounting Unit records the transaction. 1°” w Je M7 ‘8p, 52, TSN, September 13, 2010 =® pp. 54-55, TSN, September 13, 2010 “© pp. 8.9, TSN, September 14, 2010 °'p.17, TSN, September 14, 2010 %p.6, TSN, September 15, 2010 % p.8, TSN, September 15, 2010 pp. 8, TSN, September 15, 2010 4 pp. 14-15, TSN, September 15, 2010 4 pp. 17-18, TSN, September 15, 2010 4p. 18, TSN, September 15, 2010DECISION People. vs. Senot, et al. Criminal Cases No. 28062, 28064-67, 28237-38, 28240-42 Page 28 of 86 x- sp 1p, mp mp. t. He did not consult the resident COA auditor when he realized that there were irregularities because they (the auditor) were conducting the post audit. "6° u. The COA only conducts post-audit. It does not conduct pre- audit.’ He does not know if there were any COA reports declaring the particular transactions irregular or illegal." v. It was more than a year later, or on September 2, 2002, that he, Engr. Tan and Major Feliciano filed the Complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman because they first went to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), which advised them to file the case before the Office of the Ombudsman. ‘7! Danilo A. Dizon testified as follows: a. In 2001, he was the driver (Exhibit “TTTT”) of an Elf truck ‘owned by the BFP (Exhibit "EEE”)."” His salary was around 9,000.00.'7 b. The said Elf truck was assigned to the BFP until 2004. When it was assigned to him, it was newly bought, second-hand.17* c. As driver/mechanic, he drove the Elf truck, and sometimes brought waste materials to the warehouse. performed other functions, as directed by superiors."”5 d. The said Elf truck was exclusively used by him,"76 e. A certain Sgt. Herrera, the Supply Accountable Officer, approached him and forcefully asked him to sign the He also Certificate of Emergency Repair dated August 13, 2001 (Exhibit “YY") and the Certifications of Wear and Tear dated August 13, 2001 (Exhibit “ZZ") and December 10, 2001 (Exhibit “AAAA’) upon the orders of accused Cruz.” f. He refused to sign the documents because he knew that the vehicle was not defective and did not need repairs. He knew 15, TSN, December 1, 2010 415, TSN, December 1, 2010 16, TSN, December 1, 2010 .23, TSN, December 1, 2010 P.5, TSN, January 26, 2012, . 24, TSN, January 26, 2011 P.6, TSN, March 16, 2011 P.6, TSN, January 26, 2011, 7, TSN, March 16, 2011 9, TSN, January 26, 2012, aDECISION People. vs. Senot, et al. Criminal Cases No. 28062, 28064-67, 28237-38, 26240-42 Page 29 of 86 x that the vehicle did not need repairs because he was responsible for driving and maintaining the said vehicle.'”® g. Thereafter, accused Cruz instructed him to go to his office. When he arrived at the office of accused Cruz, he saw accused Senot and accused Cruz.17° Accused Senot's office was adjacent to the office of accused Cruz, 8° i. Accused Cruz angrily asked him why he did not sign the documents and told him that he will be transferred to Mindanao. Accused Senot glared at him."®! j. He was afraid of being transferred to Mindanao so he signed the documents against his will.'® He did not want to be separated from his family and he was the only one supporting his family. 1 k. During a conference held on January 13, 2011, he learned that the Disbursement Voucher Nos. 101-2001-09-7151 (Exhibit "RR’), 101-2001-10-7896 (Exhibit “III") and 101-2001 12-8647 (Exhibit "UUU’) falsely stated that he made a request for reimbursement for payment of the repair of the Elf truck. He also learned that Check Nos. 0000085586 (Exhibit “FFF”), 0000087196 (Exhibit “SSS") and 0000087601 (Exhibit “FFFF") falsely stated that he was the payee.’ |. He never asked for reimbursement for the payment for repairs of the Elf truck. Neither did he receive any check, or any sum in the amount of the check. 1° m. He does not know whose name and signature appear at the bottom part of Disbursement Voucher Nos. 101-2001-09- 7181 and 101-2001-10-7896."® He does not recognize the signatures at the back of the checks. He did not sign any check, "®” /? 2p. 10, TSN, January 26, 2011 ™ p,10, TSN, January 26, 2011 *p.10, TSN, March 16, 2011 8p. 11, TSN, January 26, 2011 2p. 12, TSN, January 26, 2011 5. 11, TSN, January 26, 2011 pp. 15-16, TSN, January 26, 2011, 1p, 16, TSN, January 26, 2011 ° pp. 17-18 TSN, January 26, 2011 pp. 21-23, TSN, January 26, 2011DECISION People. vs. Senot, et al. Criminal Cases No. 28062, 28064-67, 28237-38, 28240-42 Page 30 of 86 x He did not encash the checks. He did not know what happened to the proceeds. '®° From the time the Elf truck was assigned to him, until December 2001, no repairs were made on the said vehicle.'®° Hyacinth N. Grageda testified as follows: ‘She was the Chief of the Internal Affairs Services (Exhibit 'UUUU’) of the BFP National Headquarters from August 24, 2005 up to Jun 15, 2010.1 As Chief of the Intemal Affairs Services, she acted as overall prosecutor of the BFP, conducted investigations on administrative cases filed against BFP officers and personnel, and conducted monitoring and inspections on suppliers and dealers dealing with the BFP."°" She issued the certification dated August 26, 2005 (Exhibit *QQQQ°), " stating that Jan Construction and Trucking Services was the accredited motor repair shop of the BFP for the period June to December 2001." The certification was based on the records from the BFP database and the Certificate of Accreditation issued by the Accreditation Committee of the BFP to Jan Construction and Trucking Services (Exhibit “VWWV").1* ‘An accredited dealer means that the dealer is legitimate, and can deal with the BFP."® Suppliers or dealers that are not accredited are not supposed to deal with the BFP.'% Since Jan Construction and Trucking Services was the only accredited supplier or dealer, the BFP should exclusively deal with it.197 Suppliers and dealers apply for accreditation. After receiving the required documents, they go to the establishments to verify their existence. Applications are evaluated by the 8 p10, TSN, March 16, 2011 9p. 6, TSN, March 16, 2011 °° p. 8, TSN, March 17, 2011 %%p.12, TSN, March 17, 2012, 4% pp. 13-14, TSN, March 17, 2011 1p. 19, TSN, March 17, 2011, 4 p14, TSN, March 17, 2011 % p.17, TSN, March 17, 2011, 2p. 20, TSN, March 17, 2012, 7p, 20, TSN, March 17, 2011,DECISION People. vs. Senot, et al. Criminal Cases No. 28062, 28064-67, 28237-38, 26240-42 Page 31 of 86 x Internal Affairs Services, and approved by the Committee on Accreditation. "9° h. The Office of intemal Affairs is not involved in procurement, or in the enforcement of policies and regulations. Its concerns are limited to administrative matters and determining the legitimacy and existence of a supplier." i. She is not familiar with the present cases.2° Juliferd L. Hilay testified as follows: Crim. Cases No. 28064 and 28240 a. In 2001, he was one of the Canvassers (Exhibit ‘WWWW’) at the Procurement Section of the BFP.?>" b. As Canvasser, he obtained price lists of materials or supplies and services upon the request of different offices of the BFP. He also prepared the canvass proposals that were given to suppliers 2° ©. Canvass Proposals are prepared by Canvassers in the Procurement Section after the Procurement Section receives requests for repair services, supplies and/or materials. Thereafter, the Canvass Proposals are given to suppliers, who indicate therein their price quotations for the items or services sought.2%° d. The signatories in the Canvass Proposal are the supplier or its representative, the Canvasser and the Procurement Officer. The Canvasser signs the document after conducting an actual canvass.7% e. A certain Oman Jonson, a BFP employee assigned at the office of accused Cruz, approached him, and upon the instructions of accused Cruz, asked him to sign canvass proposals (Exhibits °Z,” "AA" and “BB") for the emergency epair of the Besta van. The spare parts needed were already indicated when the canvass proposals were shown to him. 205, w —___i+—_ pp, 17-18, TSN, Math 17, 2011 Lf? 2% pp. 25-26, TSN, March 17, 2011 2p. 28, TSN, March 17, 2011, 21.5, TSN, May 23, 2011 %p. 7, TSN, May 23, 2011 3 pp, 10-11, TSN, May 23, 2012 5.11, TSN, May 23, 2011 % pp. 10, 12, TSN, May 23, 2011,DECISION People. vs. Senot, et al, Criminal Cases No. 28062, 28064-67, 28237-38, 28240-42 Page 32 of 86 x He has little knowledge about how vehicles are maintained. When preparing a canvass for the repair of vehicles, he merely copies the contents of the requisition.2°° At first, he refused to sign the canvass proposals because he did not actually confer with the supplier and conduct a canvass for the said repair, and because based on the records, the same vehicle was repaired just two months prior 27 He eventually signed the documents because it was in accordance with the instruction of accused Cruz. He did not want to antagonize accused Cruz, who was one of his superiors. After he signed the documents, Jonson went to the office of Maj. Feliciano.209 He does not know if repairs were actually done on the vehicle because his function was limited to the conduct of the canvass.?"0 Crim. Cases No. 28065, 28241, 28066, 28242, 28237 and 28067 a. In another instance, Oman Jonson, upon the instructions of accused Cruz, asked him to sign the Canvass Proposals dated July 25, 2001 (Exhibits “UU,” "VV" and “WW’"), October 3, 2001 (Exhibits “LLL,” *MMM" and "NNN") and December 6, 2001 (Exhibits “WWW,” "XXX" and “YYY"), pertaining to the epairs of the Elf truck assigned to the Logistics and Procurement Unit of the BFP. The payment for the said repairs were dated October 1, November 7 and December 18, 2001.2" He initially refused to sign the canvass proposals because he did not actually confer with the supplier and conduct the canvass for the said repairs, and also because based on the records, the said vehicle was repaired only around two months prior. 212 After his refusal to sign the documents, Oman Jonson called accused Cruz by phone. Jonson handed the phone to him and accused Cruz berated him, angrily saying, “putang ina ayusin nyo ang papel dyan ang fagal kasi kailangan ra. *p, 32, TSN, May 23, 2011, A ® pp. 12-13, TSN, May 23, 2011 ® p13, TSN, May 23, 2011, ® p. 14, TSN, May 23, 2011, #9 p33, TSN, May 23, 2011 2 pp. 18-19, TSN, May 23, 2011 *2 p20, TSN, May 23, 2011DECISION People. vs. Senot, et al. Criminal Cases No. 28062, 26064-67, 28237-38, 28240-42 Page 33 of 86 kailangan ko yan.” He was shocked and replied to accused Cruz, “sige po sir’ because he did not want to antagonize the latter.2"5 d. He signed the Canvass Proposals after his phone conversation with accused Cruz.?"* He did not see accused Cruz but he knew that he was talking to accused Cruz because he was familiar with the latter's voice 2" e. After he checked the requirements, he forwarded documents to the procurement officer, Nelson Feliciano, who signed the said documents after the same were handed to him. He saw Feliciano sign the canvass proposals.*"° f. He does not know if the vehicle was actually repaired. His knowledge was based on the records of the Procurement Office.2"7 9. He is not very familiar with the procedure for procurement beyond the point where the documents reach the Finance Division.21* The testimony of Karlo Almonidovar was dispensed with after the parties stipulated as follows:2"° 1) In 2004, he was the COA resident Auditor assigned at the BFP National Office. He was the custodian of the originals of certain documents; 2) The said documents were submitted to the Office of the Special Prosecutor in compliance with the subpoena. Francisca N. Ramilo testified as follows: a. In 2001, she was designated as Chief of the Financial Management Division (Exhibit "XXXX") of the BFP National Office. 220 b. One of her duties as Chief of the Financial Management Division was superising the execution of the budget by_/ A) 28 pp, 20-21, TSN, May 23, 2011 2p 21, TSN, May 23, 2011, 25 pp, 50-51, TSN, May 23, 2011 26 pp, 46-47, TSN, May 23, 2011 27 pp, 34-35, TSN, May 23, 2011 38. 43, TSN, May 23, 2011, 2p. 4, TSN, August 3, 2011, 7p, 9, TSN, August 4, 2011,DECISION People. vs. Senot, et al. Criminal Cases No. 28062, 28064-67, 28237-38, 28240-42 Page 34 of 86 seeing to it that all transactions are properly covered by bond, and by issuance of Advice of Sub-allotment based on the approved programs 21 She held the position of Financial Management Officer Il but she was assigned to the office of the OIC from 1996 until 2001.2 She continued to hold her position but actually performed the functions of a Senior Executive Assistant 22° ‘She was relieved from the Financial Management Division in 1996 because of allegations of ghost repairs in the regional offices, 4 She was still assigned to the Office of the OIC when accused ‘Senot assumed his position as Head of the BFP.225 The Advice of Sub-Allotment for the quarter ending June 30, 2001 dated May 17, 2001 was one of the supporting documents attached to Disbursement Voucher No. 101-2001- 08-6133 (Exhibit “W"). The said Advice of Sub-allotment is one of those which did not pass through her office for processing and approval 22° She received a subpoena in connection with the present cases. She attended the conference wherein she examined some documents.?27 ‘Among the observations on Disbursement Voucher No. 101- 2001-08-6133 and its supporting documents are the following i. Her signature-approval does not appear at the back of the voucher, particularly, in the encumbrance of the availability of funds (Exhibit "W-5"), which signifies that funds are available for the intended purpose. In the Advice of Sub-Allotment (Exhibit “DD"), the purpose indicated is “To support maintenance of BFP Vehicles assigned at National Office.” Maintenance refers to tasks such as changing the engine oil. The disbursement voucher was for repairs, not merely the maintenance of ronan za 2% pp, 10-11, TSN, August 4, 2011 32 pp.8-9, TSN, January 24, 2012 2B pp. 44-45, TSN, October 6, 2011 2p. 46, TSN, January 24, 2012 25 p47, TSN, October 6, 2011 2% pp, 12-13, TSN, August 4, 2011 27 pp. 13-14, TSN, August 4, 2011 7% pp, 15-16, TSN, August 4, 2011 9 pp. 18-21, TSN, August 4, 2011DECISION People. vs. Senot, et al. Criminal Cases No. 28062, 28064-67, 28237-38, 28240-42 Page 35 of 86 Also in the Advice of Sub-allotment, the amount allocated for the Finance Service Unit is only 5,000.2 The Advice of Sub-allotment dated May 17, 2001, was prepared way ahead of the approval of the Memorandum of request for repair. The request should come before the Advice of Sub-allotment because the Advice is based on the program or the approved request.2" ‘The Advice of Sub-allotment was issued ahead of the Work Order dated August 13, 2001.2 The Disbursement Voucher was reviewed for tax purposes on August 2, 2001, before the dates of the supporting documents.2°> ‘The procedure for making requests for repairs is as follows: i. The end user prepares a request in the form of a memorandum.24 ‘The memorandum goes through CSW, meaning that it passes through the ACDS for Logistics to verify ownership of vehicle, then to ACDS for Comptrollership to determine availability of funds, then to the Chief of the Directorial Staff for Concurrence, then approved by head of committee.2°5 The Advice of Sub-allotment prepared by NDC for Comptrollership, particularly by the Project Section, then reviewed by the Chief of Financial Division for certification of correctness by the head of Comptroliership.2° After its issuance, the Advice of Sub-allotment is approved by the head of the agency.?3” The Office of the ACDS prepares the Work Order based on the canvass done by the shop owner.?°8 ™ pp. 6-7, TSN, October 5, 2011 ® p, 9, TSN, October 6, 2011 4p. 8, TSN, October 5, 2011. 8 pp. 8-9, TSN, October 5, 2011 2p, 9, TSN, October 5, 2011 27 pp. 9-10, TSN, October 5, 2011,DECISION People. vs. Senot, et al. Criminal Cases No. 28062, 26064-67, 28237-38, 28240-42 Page 36 of 86 x- The Work Order is approved, and the Advice of Sub- allotment, obligated.2° ‘The procurement unit secures from the ACDS the work order which acts as notice to proceed.#° The motor shop commences the repair work.2** After the repairs, the vehicle is returned to the BFP for inspection and acceptance. The repair shop issues the sales invoice together with the waste materials. After the conduct of the inspection, the BFP issues a Certificate of Inspection and a Certificate of Acceptance. The supporting documents are collated and the disbursement voucher is prepared. The following are attached thereto: (a) approved request (b) Advice of ‘Sub-allotment (c) Canvass by at least 3 repair shops (d) Work Order (e) Obligation of Allotment (f) sales invoices (g) Report of Waste Materials (h) Post Inspection Report and (i) Acceptance Report. The disbursement voucher and the attached supporting documents are submitted to the Finance Service Unit to determine the amount of tax to charge for the transaction. At that time, the FSU was headed by accused Cruz, The FSU reports to the Office of Budget and Finance headed by accused Senot ° The disbursement voucher and the attached supporting documents are then submitted to the Accounting Office for the preparation of journal entries and the certification of the accountant.#° After the approval of the disbursement voucher by the head of aggncy, the FSU issues the check to the motor shop oo 4 >. p10, TSN, October 5, 2011 I L 9p. 10, TSN, October 5, 2011 3p. 10, TSN, October 5, 2011 2%, 11, TSN, October 5, 2011 ¥2 11, TSN, October 5, 2011 2 p.11, TSN, October 5, 2011, 4p. 12, TSN, October 5, 2012, 5 pp, 12-13, TSN, October 5, 2011 pp. 13-14, TSN, October 5, 2011 p14, TSN, October 5, 2011DECISION People. vs. Senot, et al. Criminal Cases No. 28062, 28064-67, 28237-38, 28240-42 Page 37 of 86 j. Sales invoices and Certifications of Warranty are issued after payment has been made.#® k. For Disbursement Voucher No. 101-2001-06-3605, she observed that the supporting documents such as the Certificate of Acceptance, the Certificate of Warranty and the Report of Waste Materials were dated later than the date of the tax review, which indicates that the payment may have been processed despite the absence of supporting documents. 1. She does not know who perpetuated the irregularities for the June repair 25° m. One of her subordinates signed the document. The irregularity could have emanated from her office.?5! n. The Disbursement Voucher (Exhibit "W") passed through pre- audit. She does not know why Elegio Mendoza proceeded with the transaction despite the absence of her signature.*? ©. There is no stamp of availability of funds in the Disbursement Voucher. It should not have passed the pre-audit.25° p. The pre-audit was conducted by two (2) personnel under the Financial Management Division. q. She does not remember if there were adverse findings on the transactions by the COA.2° She does not know if the repairs were actually performed but she knows that payment was made.2° All the documentary exhibits offered by the prosecution were admitted in evidence.°7/ ve f7 348 p, 15, TSN, October 6, 2011 hy 9 pp. 17-18, 20, TSN, October 6, 2011, 9 p22, TSN, January 24, 2012 1 pp, 24.26, TSN, January 24, 2012 %2 pp, 28-29, TSN, January 24, 2012 5p, 36, TSN, January 24, 2012 *4 39, TSN, January 24, 2012 5p. 41, TSN, January 24, 2012 2p, 4g, TSN, January 24, 2012 7p, 298, Record, Vol. 3 (Resolution dated August 29, 2012)DECISION People. vs. Senot, et al. Criminal Cases No. 28062, 28064-67, 26237-38, 26240-42 Page 38 of 86 Criminal Cases No. 28062 and 28238 Description Disbursement Voucher No. 101-2001-06-3605 ‘Memorandum on the request for repair dated May 16, 2001 Pre and Post Inspection Report Repair Cost Estimate of Alchit Motor Shop Job Estimate of Great Country Motor Works Job Estimate of Polaris Moto Shop Advise of Sub-Allotment No. 0000805 for the Quarter Ending June 30, 2011, dated June 11, 2011 Certificate of Emergency Repair Certificate of Wear and Tear dated June 19, 2001 ‘Work/Job Order No, LW006%3-01-11 dated June 13, 2007 ‘Alchit Motor Shop Sales Invoice No. 0712 and 0714 dated June 49, 2001 Certification of Warranty dated June 19, 200% issued by Alchit Motor Shop Certificate of Acceptance dated June 19, 2001 ‘Summary of Expenses dated June 20, 2001 Certificate of Reasonableness of Price dated June 13, 2001 Report of Waste Materials dated June 19, 2001 Memorandum Receipt for Equipment and Non-Expendable Property dated Aug. 7, 2000 Land Bank Check No. 279316 dated June 15,2001 Alchit Motor Shop Official Receipt No. 0154 dated June 15, 2001 Criminal Cases No. 28064 and 28240 Description Disbursement Voucher No. 101-2001-08-6133 Memorandum on the request for repair dated July 30, 2001 Pre and Post Inspection Report ‘Canvass Proposal from Card Motor Shop dated July 30, 2001 ‘Canvass Proposal from Alchit Motor Shop dated July 30, 2001 ‘Canvass Proposal from Mega Motor Shop dated July 30, 2001 Request for Obligation of Allotments Advice of Sub-Allotment for the Quarter Ending 30 June 2001, dated May 17, 2001 Certificate of Emergency Repair dated August 9, 2001 Certification of Wear and Tear dated August 9, 2001 "| Requisition and Issue Voucher dated July 31, 2001 ‘Work Order No. LW00813-01-17 dated August 13, 2001 Card Motor Shop Sales Invoi 1026 dated August 5, 2001 ‘Card Motor Shop Sales Invoice No. 0027 dated August 5, 2001 | Card Motor Shop Sales Invoice No. 0028 dated August 5, 2001 Card Motor Shop Certification of Warranty dated August 10, 2001 Certificate of Acceptance dated August 17, 2001 Certificate of Reasonableness of Price dated August 13, 2001 r 7DECISION People. vs. Senot, et al Criminal Cases No. 28062, 28064-67, 28237-38, 28240-42 Page 39 of 86 ee ‘00 | Report of Waste Materials [PPT Land Bank Check No. 0000309736 dated August 23, 2001 QQ | Card Motor Shop Official Receipt No. 017 dated August 24, 2001 Criminal Cases No. 28065 and 28241 Exhibit Description : RR Disbursement Voucher No. 101-2001-09-7151 . SS___[ Memorandum on the request for repair dated July 27, 2001 TT__| Pre and Post Inspection Report ‘UU | Canvass Proposal from Card Motor Shop dated July 25, 2001 W___| Canvass Proposal from Alchit Motor Shop dated July 25, 2001 | Ww nvass Proposal from Mega Motor Shop dated July 25, 2001 XX | Advice of Sub-Alllotment No. 0001116 for Quarter Ending 3 __| September 2001, dated July 31, 2001 YY __| Certificate of Emergency Repair dated August 13, 2001 ZZ__| Certification of Wear and Tear dated August 13, 2001 ‘AAA _| Card Motor Shop Sales Invoice No. 0034 dated August 8, 2001 BBB __| Card Motor Shop Sales Invoice No. 0040 dated August 13, 2001 ‘CCC__| Card Motor Shop Certification of Warranty dated August 13, 2007 DDD | Report of Waste Materials EEE | Memorandum Receipt for Equipment and Semi-Expendable and Non-expendable Property dated 06 February 2001 FFF | Land Bank Check No. 0000085586 [GGG | Card Motor Shop Official Receipt No. 024 dated August 13, 2001 HHH | Card Motor Shop Official Receipt No. 022 dated August 13, 2001 Criminal Cases No. 28066 and 28242 Exhibit Description MUL Disbursement Voucher No. 101-2001-10-7896 Jd Pre Inspection Report for Repair of BFP Equipment dated L September 28, 2001 KKK [Post Inspection Report for Repair of BFP Equipment dated October 17, 2001 LLL | Canvass Proposal from Card Motor Shop dated October 3, 2007 —MMiM_[ Canvass Proposal from Mega Motor Shop dated October 3, 2007 [NNN | Canvass Proposal from Alchit Motor Shop dated October 3, 2001 000 [Card Motor Shop Sales Invoice No. 0051 dated October 17, 2001 _ PPP | Card Motor Shop Sales Invoice No. 052 dated October 17, 2001 QQQ_ | Card Motor Shop Certification of Warranty dated October 17, 2007 RRR _| Report of Waste Materials SSS | Land Banly Check No. 0000087196 dated November 7, 2007 TIT Card Moir Shop Official Receipt No. 0051 dated October 17, 2001 y¥ 5 | /? MDECISION People. vs. Senot, et al. Criminal Cases No. 28062, 28064-67, 28237-38, 28240-42 Page 40 of 86 Criminal Cases No. 28067 and 28237 Exhibit Description UUU | Disbursement Voucher No. 101-20001-12-8647 Post Inspection Report of BFP Equipment dated December 13, 2001 ‘Canvass Proposal of Card Motor Shop dated December 6, 2001 ‘Canvass Proposal of Alchit Motor Shop dated December 6, 2004 ‘Canvass Proposal of Mega Motor Shop dated December 6, 2001 Certificate of Emergency Repair dated December 10, 2001 Certification of Wear and Tear dated December 10, 2001 Card Motor Shop Sales Invoice No. 0057 dated December 14, 2001 ‘Card Motor Shop Sales Invoice No. 0058 dated December 14, 2001 ‘Card Motor Shop Certification of Warranty dated December 14, 2001 Certificate of Acceptance dated December 14, 2001 Land Bank Check No. 0000087601 dated December 18, 2001 ‘Card Motor Shop Official Receipt No. 0055 dated December 14, 2001 All cases Exhibit Description QQQQ | Certification dated August 26, 2005 issued by Atty. Hyacinth N Grageda, Chief, Internal Affairs Services SSSS_| Service Record of CINSP Renato M. Molina TTTT__| Service Record of (Retired) INSP. Danilo A. Dizon UUUU_| Service Record of CINSP. Hyacinth N. Grageda WW | Certificate of Accreditation dated June 29, 2001 issued to Jan Construction and Trucking Services WWWW | Service Record of FO Juliferd L. Hilay Service Record of NUP Francisca N. Ramilo This Court granted the separate motions for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence of accused Senot and Cruz.° The Court, however, denied their respective demurrers to evidence.?5? EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE The defense presented as witnesses Aniceto Herrera, Jr.2 Crispin Niaga Santos, 7°‘ accused Florante M. Cruz, 7 and accused Francisco S. Senot. 28 pp, 387-391, Record, Vol. 3 (Resolution dated Abril 8, 2013) ™% pp. 512-525, Record, Vol. 3 (Resolution dated September 9, 2014) 4)DECISION People. vs. Senot, et al Criminal Cases No. 28062, 28064-67, 28237-38, 28240-42 Page 41 of 86 x Aniceto Herrera, Jr. testified as follows: Crim. Cases No. 28062, 28064 to 28067 and 28237 to 28238 a. He was a Supply Non-Commission Officer at the BFP from 1996 to 2009.%4 b. His official duties as Supply Non-Commission Officer include checking supplies and materials. He also checked the vehicles of the BFP.%5 He inspected the vehicles after the same underwent repairs.22° ©. The Besta van was overhauled because it was more or less 10 years old.2*7 d. The first repair, particularly the engine overhaul, was made in June 2001. Alchit Motors, the lowest bidder based on the canvass proposals, performed the said repairs. 26° e. After the repairs, he, along with COA representatives, inspected the vehicle.2° f. He gathered the waste materials of the replaced parts and did a test drive of the vehicle to determine if it was already repaired.27° g. The inspection team prepared the Report of Waste Materials (Exhibits “P'/'19-Cruz”) and the Pre and Post Inspection Report.2”* h. Sometime after the repairs were made on the Besta van, it was borrowed by a certain Engr. Nelson Sy, one of the Department Heads of the BFP. The vehicle was used for about 2 weeks and made trips to Pampanga and Laguna.2”2__/ 4? 22 TSN July 1, 2015, uly2, 2015 2 TSN, September 29, 2015, November 4, 2015; pp. 61-77, Record, Vol. IV (AmendB# Judicial Affidavit dated October 12, 2015) *4p. 7, TSN, October 28, 2018 2 p. 8, TSN, October 28, 2014 % p12, TSN, October 28, 2014 28 p. 10, TSN, October 28, 2014 2 pp. 10-11, TSN, October 28, 2014 2 pp. 14-15, TSN, October 28, 2014 2 pp. 16-18, TSN, October 28, 2014 2 pp. 20, 22-23, TSN, October 28, 2014 2” pp. 25-26, TSN, October 28, 2014 2 TSNs, October 28, 2014 and October 29, 2014 vDECISION People. vs. Senot, et al. Criminal Cases No. 28062, 26064-67, 28237-38, 28240-42 Page 42 of 86 x- i. During the trip to Laguna sometime between June and August 2001, Sy and his companions encountered floods because of a strong typhoon. The water reached the engine and caused damage.?> j. Accused Cruz was informed by phone that the Besta van was damaged. Thereafter, another request for repair was made.2” k. The second repair was performed by Card Motor Shop, the motor shop with the lowest price quotation in the canvass.2 |. After the repairs, he did a test drive of the vehicle to determine if it was in running condition. He also gathered the waste material parts that were replaced.27° m. He prepared and signed the Report of Waste Materials (Exhibits “OO'/"41-Cruz’).2”7 1. He does not know who prepared the Pre and Post Inspection Report (Exhibit "V").278 ©. The Elf truck subject of the present case was around 10 years old2”? p. Sometime in 2001, he and his boss, Capt. Molina, used the Elf truck to get oil from a warehouse owned by Petron and to bring the oil to the BFP warehouse in San Juan. He noticed that the vehicle was not in good condition. They made a request for the overhaul of the vehicle's engine.2® The vehicle was repaired by Card Motor Shop. After the repair, he and the COA representatives did a test drive and he determined that it was in good running condition.28* r. The Elf truck also underwent body, repair because the body of the vehicle was full of holes.222 2p. 27, TSN, October 28, 2014 pp. 27-28, TSN, October 28, 2014 p, 28, TSN, October 28, 2014 27"p. 29, TSN, October 28, 2014 2% pp, 32, TSN, October 28, 2014 ?” p, 33, TSN, October 28, 2014 2 pp. 34-35, TSN, October 28, 2014 8p, 35, TSN, October 28, 2014 2 pp, 35-36, TSN, October 28, 2014DECISION People. vs. Senot, et al. Criminal Cases No. 28062, 28064-67, 28237-38, 28240-42 Page 43 of 86 s. Both repairs were made by Card Motor Shop, the lowest bidder. After the repairs, he gathered the replaced parts and prepared the Waste Material Report.25 t. He inspected the vehicles, despite not being a member of the Acceptance Committee or a property inspector.2°* Crispin ga Santos testified as follows: a. He has been a mechanic for 27 years. b. He was employed in Alchit Motor Shop in 2001. He worked there from 1989 until June 2001.22 ©. He was the chief mechanic in Alchit. He had two (2) helpers when he conducted repairs.28” d. One of the clients of Alchit Motor Shop was the BFP. He performed repairs on vehicles owned by the BFP, including a fire truck, an ambulance, an Elf truck and a Besta van.?8 @. The Besta van was in poor running condition and was emitting smoke. When he opened the engine, he saw that the piston, piston ring, connecting rod and valves were all damaged. Thereafter, the vehicle was brought to the machine shop. At that time, the vehicle was around 15 years old.229 f. As an experienced mechanic, he could determine the age of a vehicle after a cursory examination 2° g. The machine shop made a request for the delivery of replacement parts. After the delivery of the replacement parts, they assembled the engine and installed it into the vehicle.2°" h. After installing the engine, and conducting a road test, they informed the BFP that the repairs were done and the vehicle was in good running condition, BFP personnel also a! f? 2% p. 36, TSN, October 28, 2014 2% pp. 14-15, TSN, October 29, 2014 *p. 18, TSN, October 29, 2014 8 pp. 19, TSN, October 29, 2014 2 pp. 35, TSN, October 29, 2014 2% pp, 19-20, TSN, October 29, 2014 9 pp, 20-21, TSN, October 29, 2014 2p, 39, TSN, October 29, 2014 *p. 22, TSN, October 29, 2014DECISION People. vs. Senot, et al. Criminal Cases No. 28062, 28064-67, 28237-38, 28240-42 Page 44 of 86 xe conducted a road test to determine if the vehicle was in good running condition 282 When the BFP personnel were satisfied that the vehicle was in good running condition, they took the vehicle 2 The shortest time for an engine overhaul is at least one (1) week. At the time the Besta van was brought to the shop, they were working on more than five (5) vehicles brought to the shop for repairs.2% He left Alchit Motor Shop sometime in late June 2001 because he got a better offer from Card Motor Shop. He also repaired some vehicles owned by the BFP after he started working for Card Motor Shop 2” The same Besta van was brought to Card Motor Shop because, according to the person who brought it, it was flooded. He opened the engine and saw that the engine was. filled with water. He also discovered that the connecting rod was damaged.25° The vehicle was brought to the machine shop. They ordered replacement parts, assembled the engine and installed it into the vehicle. After installing the engine, they conducted a road test.2% They informed the BFP that the vehicle was ready for pick up. The scope of work done on the Besta van when he was still with Alchit Motor Shop was the same when he transferred to Card Motor Shop.*°" The replaced parts, including the piston, piston ting, connecting rod, bearing and valve, were taken by BFP.%2 ay 9 3p. 23, TSN, October 29, 2014 2% p, 23, TSN, October 29, 2014 2p, 36, TSN, October 29, 2014 3% p37, TSN, October 29, 2014 2% pp, 23-24, TSN, October 29, 2014 2" p.25, TSN, October 29, 2014 24 pp, 26-27, 29, TSN, October 29, 2014 29 pp. 27-28, TSN, October 29, 2014 %® pp. 28-28, TSN, October 29, 2014 *p. 37, TSN, October 29, 2014 %p. 38, TSN, October 29, 2014DECISION People. vs. Senot, et al Criminal Cases No. 28062, 28064-67, 28237-38, 28240-42 Page 45 of 86 x He also worked on the Elf truck, a vehicle owned by the BFP.23 The Elf truck was brought to him because of a broken piston, which could have been caused by overheat, lack of maintenance or lack of change oil. The vehicle was around 13 years old at that time.2 After installing the replacement parts, they conducted a road test and informed BFP that it was ready for pick up thereafter.2 ‘The same vehicle was returned after three (3) weeks for body repair because the body of the vehicle was rusty. A certain Amold performed the repairs on the body of the vehicle. After repainting the body, they informed the BFP that the vehicle was ready for pick up.2°7 Accused Florante M. Cruz testified as follows: a. He was the Chief of the Finance Service Unit of the BFP in 2001 208 Accused Senot designated him as Chief of the Finance Service Unit.2°° The Finance Service Unit is under the supervision of the ACDS for Comptrollership.2*° The procurement process starts with a request from the end- user, which is forwarded to the ACDS for Logistics, then to the ACDS for Comptrollership, then to the ACDS for Chief of Staff, and lastly to the Office of the Fire Chief.5"" He made a request for the repair of the Besta van sometime in June 2001 because it was broken.*"2 After he executed the Memorandum dated May 16, 2001 (Exhibits “B'/"S-Cruz"), the same went through Logistics, and. / 2 p30, an October 2038 4 %*p, 30, TSN, October 29, 2014 ® pp. 31-32, TSN, October 29, 2014 5% p. 32, TSN, October 29, 2014 % pp. 32-33, TSN, October 29, 2014 > p.7, TSN, July , 2015; p. 5, TSN, July 2, 2035, %p. 8, TSN, July 2, 2015 3p, 7, TSN, July 2, 2015 9.7, TSN, July 2, 2015 8p, 8, TSN, July 2, 2015DECISION People. vs. Senot, et al Criminal Cases No. 28062, 28064-67, 26237-38, 2240-42 Page 46 of 86 x thereafter, through Comptrollership, and subsequently approved by accused Senot, then Fire Chief.°? Thereafter, the vehicle was repaired and payment for the repairs was processed.*"* He did not examine the supporting documents because there were almost a thousand checks to be issued. It was impossible to check each and every document.°* Crim. Cases No. 28064 and 28240 Disbursement Voucher No. 101-2001-06-3605 (Exhibits “a'l'4-Cruz’) was prepared by the ACDS for Logistics, then forwarded to the ACDS for Comptrollership for funding, examination and evaluation.°"° It, thereafter, went to the Financial Management Division for pre-audit. ‘The Pre-audit was conducted by the Pre-audit Section headed by Elfren Bergonia. After pre-audit, it was forwarded to the Chief Accountant who certified funding and the supporting documents. Finally, it was forwarded to the Office of the Fire Chief for approval. After approval, it was forwarded to the Finance Service Unit for the preparation of the check. He, as Chief of the Finance Service Unit, approved the check. He approved the check because the documents had passed the csw. The same procedure was followed for Disbursement Voucher No. 101-2001-08-6133. His office was still the end-user.31® He did not know the contents of the Work Order. The Logistics Division was responsible for finding out what was wrong with the vehicle and for preparing the Work Order.!® There was no service vehicle when he assumed office on May 2, 2001. The Besta van was already in the motor shop for repairs at the time. He did not know what were the defects in the vehicle because it was in the motor shop.22° The Besta van was assigned (Exhibit “Q’"'20-Cruz’) to the Finance Service Unit sometime in June 2001.22" 29 pp. 11-14, TSN, July , 2015 /? 4p. 14, TSN, July 2, 2015 5, 11, TSN, July 2, 2015 2p. 15, TSN, July 2, 2015 297 pp. 14-17, TSN, July, 2015 58 pp, 18-25, TSN, July 1, 2015, 2 pp. 21-22, TSN, July 2, 2015 529 pp, 23-25, TSN, July 2, 2015 %% 26, TSN, July 2, 2035,DECISION People. vs. Senot, et al. Criminal Cases No. 28062, 28064-67, 28237-38, 28240-42 Page 47 of 86 f. The request for the second repair was made because the vehicle was trapped in a flood when it was used to transport guests from the Japan Intemational Cooperation Agency (ICA) 222 9. The vehicle was more than ten (10) years old when it was assigned to the Finance Service Unit.*° h. The Logistics Division determines the defects in the vehicle, not the end-user.°24 Crim. Cases No. 28065 and 28241, 28066, 28067, 28237, 28238, 28240 and 28242 a. The same procedure was followed for Disbursement Voucher Nos. 101-2001-09-7151 (Exhibits “RR'/"44-Cruz”), 101-0011- 10-7896 (Exhibits “INI"/'58-Cruz") and 101-2001-12-8647 (Exhibits "UUU'/"69-Cruz”).225 b. The three (3) vouchers pertain to the phases of the repair work on the Eif truck.22 The first phase, body repair, was done in October. The second phase, painting, was done in November. The third phase, engine repair, was done in December.” c. All the documents covering the aforesaid transactions were submitted to the COA, who had custody of the originals. The COA subsequently issued a Notice of Disallowance.°2* d. If the disbursement is for a claim of reimbursement, it must be supported by the authority of the person entitled to claim such reimbursement.*2° If the claim is not supported by such authority, the check should not be signed.° Francisco S. Senot testified as follows: a. He was the Chief of the BFP from April 25, 2000, and retired ‘on November 13, 2006." SO 52 p. 38, TSN, July 2, 2015 %p.44, TSN, July 2, 2015 2% p44, TSN, July 2, 2015, 5 pp. 27-39, TSN, July 1, 2015 8.26, TSN, July 1, 2015 2% pp, 26-27, TSN, July , 2015 8p. 39, TSN, July 1, 2015, 599, 45, TSN, July 2, 2015, 2p, 46, TSN, July 2, 2015, 1p. 61, Record, Vol. IV (p. 1, Amended Judicial Affidavit dated October 12, 2015)DECISION People. vs. Senot, et al. Criminal Cases No. 28062, 28064-67, 28237-38, 28240-42 Page 48 of 86 x b. The allegations in the Information in all cases are not true. The documents required for the repair of the vehicles were duly accomplished and complied with the procedure laid down by the BFP.2%2 c. The procedure for making a request for the repair of vehicles is as follows: vi vii vill A request for repair from end user is submitted to Logistics Division. The Logistics Division requests the Procurement Office to conduct a canvass of 3 accredited suppliers to determine amount needed for the repair. The Logistics Division Chief prepares a request for the signature or approval by ACDS for Logistics, then ACDS for Comptrollership for review of documents and allocation of funds. Documents are forwarded to the Chief Directorial Staff and Deputy Fire Chief for Operation, and finally to Fire Chief for approval. The Fire Chief forwards the documents to the ACDS for Comptrollership for the release of the Advice of Allotment, then to ACDS for Logistics, and lastly to Chief of Supply Management Division. The documents are tumed over to the Procurement Office, which endorses the Advice of Sub-allotment, along with supporting documents, then to the PBAC for bidding, The Procurement Office prepares the Work Order and forwards the documents to the ACDS for Logistics. The winning bidder commences repair work.3°> d. The aforestated procedure was observed in the repairs of the Besta van and the Elf truck.2% Disbursement Voucher No. 101-2001-06-3605 (Exhibit “1-Senot") was signed by the concerned officers.°5 & pp. 63-64, Record, Vol. IV (pp. 3-4, Amended Judicial Affidavit dated October 12, 2015) **p. 64, Record, Vol. IV (p.4, Amended Judicial Affidavit dated October 12, 2015) *p. 65, Record, Vol. IV (p.5, Amended Judicial affidavit dated October 12, 2015) * p. 65, Record, Vol. IV (p. 5, Amended Judicial Affidavit dated October 12, 2015)DECISION People. vs. Senot, et al. Criminal Cases No. 28062, 28064-67, 28237-38, 28240-42 Page 49 of 86 e. The supporting documents on which Disbursement Voucher No. 101-2001-06-3605 was based are Exhibits “2-Senot" to “46-Senot’. f, The same procedure was followed for Disbursement Voucher Nos. 101-2001-08-6133 (Exhibit *20-Senot’) and _ its supporting documents (Exhibits “21-Senot” to “38-Senot’),3°” 101-2001-09-7151 (Exhibit "41-Senot”) and its supporting documents (Exhibits “42-Senot” to “53-Senot"), °° 101-2001- 10-7896 (Exhibit “58-Senot’) and its supporting documents (Exhibits “59-Senot” to “67-Senot’),*°° and 101-2001-12-8647 (Exhibit °70-Senot’) and its supporting documents (Exhibits “71-Senot” to “80-Senot”).#° g. Nelson Feliciano voluntarily signed the Work Order dated June 13, 2001 (Exhibit “J") and Certificate of Reasonableness of Price dated June 13, 2001 (Exhibit “O”). Feliciano did not take any legal remedy with respect to his claim that he was forced to sign the documents. h. Renato Molina voluntarily signed the Certificate of Acceptance dated June 19, 2001 (Exhibit “M") and Report of Waste Materials dated June 19, 2001 (Exhibit "P"). Molina did not take any legal remedy with respect to his claim that he was forced to sign the documents.°2 i. Danilo Dizon voluntarily signed the Certificate of Emergency Repair dated August 13, 2001 (Exhibit “YY") and Certificate of Wear andi tear dated August 13, 2001 (Exhibit ‘Z2"). There is no substantial evidence showing that Dizon was forced into signing the documents. j. Feliciano, Molina and Dizon failed to present any substantial evidence to support their claims that they were forced or intimidated to sign the documents. if the threats were real, they could have lodged their complaint with the DILG, which has direct control and supervision over the BFP.3* k. The Besta van was actually repaired by Alchit Motor Shop on June 13, 2001, as shown in the Certificate of Warranty dated _/ June 19, 2001 and Certificate of Acceptance dated June 19,7 SreeeOe wet 0 57 pp. 66-67, Record, Vol. IV (pp. 6-7, Amended Judicial Affidavit dated October 12, 2015) * pp, 67-68, Record, Vol. IV (p. 7-8, Amended Judicial Affidavit dated October 12, 2015) k 5p. 68, Record, Vol. V (p. 8, Amended Judicial Afidavit dated October 12, 2015) *® p69, Record, Vol V (p. 9, Amended Judicial Affidavit dated October 12, 2015) %:p. 70, Record, Vol. IV (p. 10, Amended Judicial Affidavit dated October 12, 2015) pp. 70-71, Record, Vol V (p. 11, Amended Judicial affidavit dated October 12, 2015) 8p. 71, Record, Vol V (p. 11, Amended Judicial affidavit dated October 12, 2015) 4.71, Record, Vol. IV (p. 11, Amended Judicial Affidavit dated October 12, 2015)DECISION People. vs. Senot, et al. Criminal Cases No. 28062, 28064-67, 28237-38, 28240-42 Page 50 of 86 2001.8 After the repairs were made, Land Bank Check No. 279316 was issued to Alchit Motor Shop as payment for the services it rendered. Official Receipt No. 0154 acknowledged receipt of the said check ° |. The Besta van was actually repaired by Card Motor Shop on August 13, 2001, as shown in the Certificate of Warranty dated August 10, 2001, and the Certificate of Acceptance dated August 17, 2001. Land Bank Check No. 309736 was issued to Card Motor Shop. Official Receipt No. 017 was issued to acknowledge payment.4” m. For the repair of the Elf truck, there was a Memorandum requesting the repair of the said vehicle dated July 27, 2001 Card Motor Shop, Alchit Motor Shop and Mega Motor Shop submitted their respective canvass proposals, all dated July 25, 2001.¥® The repair contract was awarded to Card Motor Shop. The actual repair was made on August 13, 2001 Card Motor Shop issued Sales Invoice No. 0040 dated August 13, 2001 and Certification of Warranty dated August 13, 2001. Land Bank Check No. 85586 was issued. Card Motor Shop issued Official Receipt No. 021 and No. 022 to acknowledge receipt of the check." 1. Disbursement Voucher No. 101-2001-10-7896, covered the payment for another repair of the Elf truck. Card Motor Shop, Mega Motor Shop and Alchit Motor Shop submitted their respective canvass proposals, all dated October 3, 2001. The repair contract was awarded to Card Motor Shop, which issued Sales Invoice No. 0051 and 0052, and the Certification of Warranty, all dated October 17, 2001. After the repair, Land Bank Check No. 87196 was issued to Card Motor Shop, for which Official Receipt No. 0051 was issued to acknowledge payment.35" ©. Disbursement Voucher No. 101-2001-12-8647 covered the payment for the third repair of the Elf truck. Danilo Dizon signed the Certification of Wear and Tear dated December 10, 2001. Card Motor Shop issued Sales Invoice no. 0057 and 0058, a Certification of Warranty dated December 14, 2001 The BFP issued a Certificate of Acceptance for services rendered by Card Motor Shop. After the repair, Land pt > p. 72, Record, Vol IV (p. 12, Amended Judicial Affidavit dated October 12, 2015) % p. 72, Record, Vol. IV (p. 12, Amended Judicial Affidavit dated October 12, 2015) 7p. 72, Record, Vol. IV (p. 12, Amended Judicial Affidavit dated October 12, 2015) 8p. 72, Record, Vol. V (p. 12, Amended Judicial Affidavit dated October 12, 2015) % p. 72, Record, Vol. IV (p. 12, Amended Judicial Affidavit dated October 12, 2015) 9% p. 73, Record, Vol. V (p. 13, Amended Judicial Affidavit dated October 12, 2015) 5! p. 73, Record, Vol. V (p. 13, Amended Judicial Affidavit dated October 12, 2015)DECISION People. vs. Senot, et al. Criminal Cases No. 28062, 28064-67, 28237-38, 28240-42 Page 51 of 86 Check No. 087601 was issued, and Official Receipt No. 55 was issued to acknowledge receipt °52 p. He did not check the supporting documents. As long as the documents had passed through the concerned offices, and had been evaluated by the concerned staff officers, they were complete insofar as he was concerned. 53 @. In general, it is improper to make payment before the preparation and approval of the disbursement voucher and ‘the supporting documents.°=* r. He knew that the Besta van needed repairs because he sometimes used it. He suggested that the vehicle be repaired and relied on his staff to process the request for repairs.°5° s. There is basis for payment even in the absence of a Work Order because pre-inspection was conducted.** t. He does not know the basis for the 6% deducted from the amount paid because it is not within the scope of his official functions.°°7 u. For the repairs of the Elf truck, he did not know that the authority of Danilo Dizon to seek reimbursement should be included in the supporting documents. He had other matters to take care of so he merely relied on the staff officers. As long as it was shown that the documents went through CSW, he approved the documents.25° v. He did not check the supporting documents attached to the disbursement voucher.5° w. When he assumed his position as Fire Chief, the Besta van was already with the motor shop. He observed that nothing was being done with the said vehicle so he ordered that repairs be made thereon.2°° x. Two or three months after the first repair, guests from JICA came to inspect BFP facilities. They used the Besta van because it was the only means of transport available, They./ 3% pp. 12-15, TSN, November 4, 2015 4 pp. 15-17, TSN, November 4, 2015 5 pp, 17-18, TSN, November 4, 2015 25% pp, 18-19, TSN, November 4, 2015 287 pp. 23-24, TSN, November 4, 2015 °%" p.27, TSN, November 4, 2015 * .28, TSN, November 4, 2015 © pp. 29-30, TSN, November 4, 2015DECISION People. vs. Senot, et al Criminal Cases No. 28062, 28064-67, 28237-38, 2240-42 Page 52 of 86 x used the vehicle for about 2 to 3 weeks during the rainy season, and went to Regions |, Ill and IV.°" The vehicle was damaged because the water seeped into the engine and mixed with the oil therein when it passed through a flooded area in Region IV.%2 Thereafter, the end user made a request for the repair of the vehicle. The damage caused by the flood cannot be considered damage from ordinary wear and tear. 2 The documentary exhibits offered by the accused were admitted in evidence: : Cruz Exhibit ~____Deseription Disbursement Voucher No. 101-2001-06-3605 ‘Memorandum on the request for repair dated May 16, 2001 Report of Waste Materials dated June 19, 2001 Disbursement Voucher No. 101-2001-08-6133 ‘Memorandum on the request for repair dated July 30, 2007 Report of Waste Materials randum on the request for repair dated July 25, 2001 Disbursement Voucher No. 101-2001-10-7896_ ‘Accused Senot™ Grim. Cases No. 28062 & 28238 Exhibit Description Disbursement Voucher No. 101-2001-06-3605 Memorandum on the request for repair dated May 16, 2001 Pre and Post Inspection Report Repair Cost Estimate of Alchit Motor Shop Job Estimate of Great Country Motor Works Job Estimate of Polaris Moto Shop ‘Advise of Sub-Allotment No. 0000805 for the Quarter Ending June 30, 2011, dated June 11, 2011 Certificate of Emergency Repair Certificate of Wear and Tear dated June 19, 2001 ‘Work/Job Order No. LW00613-01-11 dated June 13, 2007 ‘Alchit Motor Shop Sales Invoice No. 0712 and 0714 dated June 3 p, 32, TSN, November 4, 2015 > pp, 35-36, TSN, November 4, 2015 * p. 57, Record, Vol V (Resolution dated October 5, 2015) % p, 132, Record, Vol. IV (Resolution dated January 11, 2016)DECISION People. vs. Senot, et al. Criminal Cases No. 28062, 28064-67, 28237-38, 28240-42 Page 53 of 86 12 | Cerlification of Warranty dated June 19, 2001 issued by Alchit Motor Shop _ — 13___| Certificate of Acceptance dated June 79, 2007 14__ | Summary of Expenses dated June 20, 2001 15 | Certificate of Reasonableness of Price dated June 13, 2001 [16 | Report of Waste Materials dated June 19, 2001 17 [Memorandum Receipt for Equipment and Non-Expendable Property dated Aug. 7, 2000 18 [Land Bank Check No. 279316 dated June 15, 200 19 | Alchit Motor Shop Official Receipt No, 0154 dated June 15, 200% 20 | Disbursement Voucher No. 101-2001-08-6133 [21 [Memorandum on the request for repair dated July 30, 2001 22 Pre and Post Inspection Report 23 | Canvass Proposal from Card Motor Shop dated July 30, 200% 24 | Canvass Proposal from Alchit Motor Shop dated July 30, 2007 26 Request for Obligation of Allotments 27 | Advice of Sub-Allotment for the Quarter Ending 30 June 2007, | dated May 17, 2001 | 28__ | Certificate of Emergency Repair dated August 9, 2001 29 | Certification of Wear and Tear dated August 9, 2001 30 | Requisition and issue Voucher dated July 31, 2001 _31__ | Work Order No. LW00813-01-17 dated August 13, 200% 32___| Card Motor Shop Sales Invoice No, 0026 dated August 5, 2001 33 Card Motor Shop Sales Invoice No. 0027 dated August 5, 2001 34 | Card Motor Shop Sales Invoice No. 0028 dat 35 | Card Motor Shop Certification of Warranty dated August 10, 2001_| [36 | Certificate of Acceptance dated August 17, 2001 37___| Certificate of Reasonableness of Price dated August 13, 200% 38 | Report of Waste Materials 39 | Land Bank Check No. 0000309736 dated August 23, 2001 40 [Card Motor Shop Official Receipt No. 017 dated August 24, 2001 _| Crim. Cases No. 26065 & 28244 Exhibit Description 41 | Disbursement Voucher No. 101-2001-09-7151 = 42___| Memorandum on the request for repair dated July 27, 2001 43 | Pre and Post Inspection Report _ _44 | Canvass Proposal from Card Motor Shop dated July 25, 2001 45 | Canvass Proposal from Alchit Motor Shop dated July 25, 2001 46 | Canvass Proposal from Mega Motor Shop dated July 25, 2001 47 |Advice of Sub-Allotment No. 0001116 for Quarter Ending 30 September 2001, dated July 31, 2001 48 | Cerificate of Emergency Repair dated August 13, 2001 49 | Certification of Wear and Tear dated August 13, 2001 50___| Card Motor Shop Sales Invoice No. 0034 dated August 8, 2001 51 | Card Motor Shop Sales Invoice No. 0040 dated August 13, 2001 52 | Card Motor Shop Certification/of Warranty dated August 13, 2001 53 | Report of Waste Materials 7,DECISION People. vs. Senot, et al Criminal Cases No. 28062, 28064-67, 28237-38, 28240-42 Page 54 of 86 Memorandum Receipt for Equipment and Semi-Expendable and Non-expendable Property dated 06 February 2001 Land Bank Check No. 0000085586 Card Motor Shop Official Receipt No. 021 dated August 13, 2001 Card Motor Shop Official Receipt No. 022 dated August 13, 2001 Disbursement Voucher No. 101-2001-10-7896 Pre Inspection Report for Repair of BFP Equipment dated September 28, 2001 [Post Inspection Report for Repair of BFP Equipment dated October 17, 2001 ‘Canvass Proposal from Card Motor Shop dated October 3, 2001 ‘Canvass Proposal from Mega Motor Shop dated October 3, 2001 ‘Canvass Proposal from Alchit Motor Shop dated October 3, 2001 ‘Card Motor Shop Sales Invoice No. 0051 dated October 17, 2001 Card Motor Shop Sales Invoice No. 052 dated October 17, 2001 Card Motor Shop Certification of Warranty dated October 17, 2001 Report of Waste Materials Land Bank Check No. 0000087196 dated November 7, 2001 Card Motor Shop Official Receipt No. 0051 dated October 17, 2001 Disbursement Voucher No. 101-20001-12-8647 Post Inspection Report of BFP Equipment dated December 13, 2001 ‘Canvass Proposal of Card Motor Shop dated December 6, 2001 roposal of Alchit Motor Shop dated December 6, 2001 roposal of Mega Motor Shop dated December 6, 2001 Certificate of Emergency Repair dated December 10, 2001 Certification of Wear and Tear dated December 10, 2001 Card Motor Shop Sales Invoice No. 0057 dated December 14, 2001 ‘Card Motor Shop Sales Invoice No. 0058 dated December 14, 2001 ‘Card Motor Shop Certification of Warranty dated December 14, 2001 Certificate of Acceptance dated December 14, 2001 ‘Land Bank Check No. 0000087601 dated December 18, 2001 “Card Motor Shop Official Receipt No. 0055 dated December 14, 2001 THE FINDINGS OF FACT The procedure for the procurement of goods and services followed in the Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP) National Office in 2001 is as folows:DECISION People. vs. Senot, et al. Criminal Cases No. 28062, 28064-67, 28237-38, 28240-42 Page 55 of 86 4. The end user submits a request for repair to the Logistics Division. The Logistics Division forwards the request to the Procurement Section. 2. The Procurement Section conducts a canvass of at least three (3) suppliers. The supplier offering the lowest price for the services is chosen. 3. The Procurement Section prepares a Memorandum for the request. The Memorandum undergoes complete staff work, meaning that it passes through the offices of the following: a. Assistant Chief Directorial Staff (ACDS) for Logistics to verify ownership of the vehicle. b. ACDS for Comptrollership to determine the availabilty of funds ©. Chief Directorial Staff (CDS) 4. The Fire Chief approves the Memorandum, 5. The approved Memorandum is forwarded to the ACDS for Comptrollership for the issuance of the Advice of Sub-allotment. 6. The Procurement Section prepares the Work Order based on the canvass. The same is forwarded to the Fire Chief for approval. 7. A copy of the approved Work Order is given to the supplier or contractor. The Work Order is treated as a Notice to Proceed 8. The contractor performs the repair work. 9. After the repair, waste materials are turned over to the Supply Accountable Office (SAO). The SAO prepares the Report of Waste Materials, which covers the waste materials turned over. 10. A BFP inspector determines if the repair was performed in accordance with the conditions and stipulations in the Work Order. If in the affirmative, the inspector issues the Certificate of Inspection. The certificate is forwarded to the Acceptance Committee. 11. The Acceptance Committee conducts another inspection of the vehicle. If the repair is in accordance with the specifications, the committee issues a Certificate of Acceptance, signed by all members of the committee. 12. The supporting documents are collated, to be attached to the Disbursement Voucher, which is prepared by the ACDS for Logistics. yDECISION People. vs. Senot, et al. Criminal Cases No. 28062, 28064-67, 28237-38, 28240-42 Page 56 of 86 13, The Disbursement Voucher and the attached supporting documents are forwarded to the ACDS for Comptrollership for funding, examination and evaluation, then forwarded to the Financial Management Division for pre-audit. 14, Pre-audit is conducted by the Pre-Audit Section. The documents are forwarded to the Chief Accountant, who certifies funding and the completeness of supporting documents. 15. The Disbursement Voucher is forwarded to the Finance Service Unit for tax review, then forwarded to the Fire Chief for approval. 16. The approved Disbursement Voucher is forwarded to the Finance Service Unit for the preparation of the check. 17. The Finance Service Unit prepares the check. The Check is signed by the Chief of the Finance Service Unit and the Fire Chief. In 2001, accused Francisco S. Senot approved the following disbursement vouchers covering the payment for the repairs made on two (2) vehicles owned by the BFP, namely the Kia Besta van (Besta van) with Plate No. SEV 539, and the Isuzu Elf truck (Elf truck) with Engine No. 451886, Chassis No. M1M91-3464-C and Plate No. SDM 360. Thereafter, the corresponding checks listed hereunder, signed by him and accused Florante M. Cruz, were issued: Disbursement Voucher DV No. 101-2001-06-3605 for the repair of the Besta van (Criminal Cases No. 28062 and 28238) Check Land Bank of the Philippines Check No, 0000279316, payable to Alchit Motor Shop, in the amount of 51,948.00, dated June 15, 2001 DV No. 101-2001-08-6132 for the repair of the Besta van (Criminal Cases No. 28064 and 26240) Land Bank of the Philippines Check No. 0000309736, payable to Card Motor Shop, in the amount of 67,500.73, dated August 23, 2001 DV No. _101-2001-09-7151 for | Land Bank of the Philippines Check reimbursement of the amount paid for the repair of the Ef truck (Criminal Cases No. 28065 and 28241) No. 0000085586, payable to SFO4 Danilo Dizon, in the amount of 25,000.00, dated October 1, 2001 DV No. 10%-2001-10-7896 for the reimbursement of the amount paid for the repair of the Elf truck (Criminal Cases No. 28066 and 28242) 22,900.00, dated November 7, 2001, / Land Bank of the Philippines Check No. 0000087196, payable to SF04 Danilo Dizon, in the amount of Ay 1DECISION People. vs. Senot, et al. Criminal Cases No. 28062, 28064-67, 28237-38, 28240-42 Page 57 of 86 reimbursement of the amount paid for No. 0000087601, payable to SFO4 | the repair of the Elf truck Danilo Dizon, in the amount of | (Criminal Cases No. 28067 and 28237) 24,675.00, dated December 18, | 2001 Attached to the disbursement vouchers were the following supporting documents [ Disbursement Voucher No. 101-2001-06-3605 Memorandum dated May 16, 2001 * There are signatures beside “ACDS for Logistics” and “ACDS for Comptrollership.” * It was signed by accused Cruz, as end user, and approved by accused Senot, | Undated Repair Cost EstimateiJob Estimate ~ submitted by Alchit Motor Shop, Great Country Motor Works and Polaris Moto | Shop | Pre and Post inspection Report | The pre-repair inspection was conducted on May 21, 2001. The post repair inspection was conducted on June 19, 2001 ¢ Jeroul D. Lingaolingao’s signature appears on both pre-repair inspection and post repair inspection Portions. Advice of Sub-allotment No. 0000805 dated June 11, 2001 Work/Job Order No. LW00613-01-77 dated| It was signed by Nelson June 13, 2001 Feliciano, recommended for approval by Manuel Baduria, Sr. and approved by accused Senot , PO ADECISION People. vs. Senot, et al. Criminal Cases No. 28062, 28064-67, 28237-38, 28240-42 Page 58 of 86 xe ‘A signature appears above, and the date “06- 14-01" appears below, the name of Luisito W. Datu. Certificate of Reasonableness of Price dated June 13, 2001 It was Feliciano. signed by Nelson Undated Certificate of Emergency Repair it was signed by accused Cruz, as end user, and approved by accused Senot, Certificate of Wear and Tear dated June 19, 2001 it was signed by accused Cruz as end user Certificate of Acceptance dated June 19, 2001 Signatures appear above the names of Renato Molina and Jeroul Lingaolingao. There is no signature above the name of Marchel Pangilinan. ‘Summary of Expenses with Certification twas signed by accused Cruz. Report of Waste Materials dated June 19, 2001 * It was signed by Aniceto Herrera, Jr. and Renato Molina. The “Certificate of Inspector’ was signed by Jeroul Lingaolingao. Alchit Motor Shop Sales Invoice Nos. 172 and 174, dated June 19, 2001 Certificate of Warranty dated June 19, 2001 A signature appears above the name of Luisito W. Datu, owner and manager of Alchit Motor Shop. The Disbursement Voucher was reviewed for tax purposes on June 4, 2001. A signature, which appears to be Luisito W. Datu’s, appears above “PRINTED NAME AND SIGNATURE OF CLAIMANT/REPRESENTATIVE” in the lower portion of the voucher. Several documents supporting the voucher are dated June 19, 2001 — well after the date of the check. yt 4 f?DECISION People. vs. Senot, et al. Criminal Cases No. 28062, 28064-67, 28237-38, 28240-42 Page 59 of 86 Disbursement Voucher No. 401-2001-08-6133 Memorandum dated July 30, 2001 Pre and Post inspection Report * There are _ signatures beside “CDS,” “ACDS for Logistics” and "ACDS for ‘Comptrollership.” It was signed by accused Cruz, as end user, and approved by accused Senot on July 31, 2001 The pre-repair inspection was conducted on July 30, 2001. The post repair inspection was conducted on August 13, 2001 Jeroul D. Lingaolingao’s signature appears on the pre-repair inspection portion. A signature appears above the name of Hector Agadulin in the post repair inspection portion. Canvass Proposals dated July 30, 2001 for Card Motor Shop, Alchit Motor Shop and Mega Motor Shop All three were signed by Nelson Feliciano, Juliferd Hilay and representatives of the motor shops. Request for Obligation of Allotments Advice of Sub-allotment No. 0000805 dated May 17, 2001 Certificate of Emergency Repair dated August 9, 2001 It was signed by accused Cruz, as end user, and approved by accused Senot, Certificate of Wear and Tear dated August 9, 2001 it was signed by accused Cruz | as end user. Requisition and Issue Voucher dated July 34, 2001 It was certified by Manuel Baduria, received by Renato Molina | and approved by accused Senot. Work/Job Order No. LW00813-01-17 dated _* twas signed by Nelson} Ho?DECISION People. vs. Senot, et al. Criminal Cases No. 28062, 28064-67, 28237-38, 28240-42 Page 60 of 86 x [ August 13, 2007 Feliciano, recommended for approval by Manuel Baduria, Sr. and approved by accused Senot, A signature appears above the name of Nieves L. Ballasiw. Card Motor Shop Sales Invoice Nos. 0026 to 0028 dated August 5, 2001 Certificate of Warranty dated August 10, 2001 X signature appears above the name of Nieves L. Bal-lasiw, owner and manager of Card Motor Shop. Certificate of Acceptance August 17, 2001 Signatures appear above the names of Marchel Pangilinan and Renato Molina, The space for the third member is blank. Certificate of Reasonableness of Price dated August 13, 2001 It was Feliciano. signed by Nelson Undated Report of Waste Materials * A signature, which appears to be of Aniceto Herrera, Jr. appears above “Property Clerk or Storekeeper.” The “Certificate of Inspector” was signed by Renato Plantado. The Disbursement Voucher was reviewed for tax purposes on August 2, 2001. A signature appears above “J. N. Jonson, Jr.” Both name and signature appear above SIGNATURE OF CLAIMANT/REPRESENTATIVE” portion of the voucher. “PRINTED NAME AND in the lower Disbursement Voucher No. 101-2001-09-7151 | Memorandum dated July 27, 2001 © There are signatures beside “CDS” and "ACDS for Comptrollership, Ww J rel 4DECISION People. vs. Senot, et al. Criminal Cases No. 28062, 28064-67, 26237-38, 28240-42 Page 61 of 86 it was signed by Manuel] Baduria, as end user, and approved by accused Senot on July 30, 2001 Pre and Post inspection Report The pre-repair inspection was conducted on July 27, 2001. The post repair inspection was conducted on August 13, 2001 Jeroul D. Lingaolingao's signature appears on the pre-tepair inspection portion. The post repair inspection was conducted by Renato Plantado. The portion was certified as correct by Jeroul Lingaolingao. Canvass Proposals dated July 25, 2001 for Card Motor Shop, Alchit Motor Shop and Mega Motor Shop All three were signed by Nelson Feliciano, Juliferd Hilay and Tepresentatives of the motor shops, Advice of Sub-allotment No, 0001176 dated July 31, 2001 Certificate of Emergency Repair dated August 13, 2001 It was signed by Danilo Dizon, | as end user, | Certification of Wear and Tear dated August | 13, 2001 Itwas signed by Danilo Dizon as end user. Card Motor Shop Sales Invoice No. 0034 dated August 8, 2001 and Sales Invoice No. 0040 dated August 13, 2001 Certification of Warranty dated August 13, 2001 A signature appears above the name of Nieves L. Bal-lasiw, owner and manager of Card Motor Shop. | Undated Report of Waste Materials * A signature appears above the names of Aniceto Herrera, yr. and | Renato Molina,DECISION People. vs. Senot, et al. Criminal Cases No. 28062, 26064-67, 28237-38, 28240-42 Page 62 of 86 « The ‘Certificate of Inspector’ was signed by Renato Plantado. The name of Danilo Dizon appears in the box labeled “NAME AND ADDRESS OF CLAIMANT.” A signature appears above “J. N. Jonson, Jr.” Both name and signature appear above “PRINTED NAME AND SIGNATURE OF CLAIMANT/REPRESENTATIVE" in the lower portion of the voucher. Disbursement Voucher No. 101-2001-10-7896 Undated Pre-inspection Report For Repair| The inspection was conducted of BFP Equiptments (sic) dated July 27,|by Renato Plantado. The 2001 document was certified by Hector Agadulin. Post Inspection Report dated October 17, |The inspection was conducted 2001 by Renato Plantado. The document was certified as correct by Hector Agadulin. Canvass Proposals dated October 3, 2001 | All three were signed by Nelson for Card Motor Shop, Alchit Motor Shop and | Feliciano, Juliferd Hilay and Mega Motor Shop representatives of the motor | shops. ‘Advice of Sub-allotment No. 0001176 dated July 31, 2001 Card Motor Shop Official Receipt No. 0051 | dated October 17, 2001 ‘Card Motor Shop Cash Invoice Nos. 0051 and 0052 dated October 17, 2001 Certification of Warranty dated October 17, | A signature appears above the 2001 name of Nieves L. Bal-lasiw, ‘owner and manager of Card Motor Shop. Undated Report of Waste Materials * Above “Property Clerk or| Storekeeper’ isa signature which appears to be that of Aniceto Herrera, Jr,DECISION People. vs. Senot, et al. Criminal Cases No. 28062, 28064-67, 28237-38, 28240-42 Page 63 of 86 + There is a signature above the name of Renato Molina. * The “Certificate of Inspector’ was signed by Renato Plantado and dated October 17, 2001 The name of Danilo Dizon appears in the box labeled “NAME. AND ADDRESS OF CLAIMANT.” A signature appears above “J. N Jonson, Jr.” Both name and signature appear above “PRINTED NAME AND SIGNATURE OF CLAIMANT/REPRESENTATIVE”’ in the lower portion of the voucher. | Post inspection Report dated December 13, 2001 Disbursement Voucher No. 101-2001-12-8647 The pre-repair inspection was conducted by Renato Plantado * The document was certified by Mario Cruz Canvass Proposals dated December 6, 2001 for Card Motor Shop, Alchit Motor Shop and Mega Motor Shop All three were signed by Nelson Feliciano, Juliferd Hilay and representatives of the motor shops. Certificate of Emergency Repair dated December 10, 2001 It was signed by Danilo Dizon, as end user. Certification of Wear and Tear dated December 10, 2001 Ttwas signed by Danilo Dizon. Card Motor Shop Sales Invoice Nos. 0057 and 0058 dated December 14, 2001 Card Motor Shop Official Receipt No. 0055 dated December 14, 2001 Certification of Warranty dated December 14, 2001 A signature appears above the name of Nieves L. Bal-lasiw, ‘owner and manager of Card Motor Shop. Certificate of Acceptance dated December 14, 2001 * A signature appears above the names of Marchel_Pangilinan and 4 ADECISION People. vs. Senot, et al. Criminal Cases No. 28062, 28064-67, 28237-38, 28240-42 Page 64 of 86 xe Renato Molina Liquid eraser was used on the name of the third member. The space was left blank. The name of Danilo Dizon appears in the box labeled “NAME AND ADDRESS OF CLAIMANT.” The box on the lower portion with the words “RECEIVED FROM" is blank. DISCUSSION |. Estafa thru Falsification of Public Document The pertinent provisions of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) Art. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee; or notary or ecclesiastical minister. — The penalty of prisién mayor and a fine not to exceed 5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer, employee, or notary who, taking advantage of his official position, shall falsify a document by committing any of the following acts: 1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature, or rubric; Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate; Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements other than those in fact made by them; Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts; Altering true dates; Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning; Issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an original document when no such original exists, or including in such copy a statement y AyDECISION People. vs. Senot, et al. Criminal Cases No. 28062, 28064-67, 28237-38, 28240-42 Page 65 of 86 x contrary to, or different from, that of the genuine original; or 8. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry, or official book. Xxx Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). — Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by. XXX xx x, provided that in the four cases mentioned, the fraud be committed by any of the following means: 1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely: XXX (b) By misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of another, money, goods or any other personal property received by the offender in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return the same, even though such obligation be totally or partially guaranteed by a bond; or by denying having received such money, goods, or other property; 2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud XXX 3. Through any of the following fraudulent means: Xxx For an accused to be convicted of the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public document, all the elements of the two crimes of estafa and falsification of public document must exist °°” Moreover, as held in Domingo v. People, the crime of falsification is merely a necessary means to commit estafa. To wit: Al 7 +” Gonzaludo v. People, G.R. No. 150910, February 6, 2006 8G No, 186101, October 32, 009 AhDECISION People. vs. Senot, et al. Criminal Cases No. 28062, 28064-67, 28237-38, 28240-42 Page 66 of 86 The falsification of a public, official, or commercial document may be a means of committing estafa, because before the falsified document is actually utilized to defraud another, the crime of falsification has already been consummated, damage or intent to cause damage not being an element of the crime of falsification of public, official, or commercial document. In other words, the crime of falsification has already existed. Actually utilizing that falsified public, official, or commercial document to defraud another is estafa But the damage is caused by the commission of estafa, not by the falsification of the document. Therefore, the falsification of the public, official, or commercial document is only a necessary means to commit estafa. The elements of falsification under Article 171 are: 1) the offender is a public officer, employee, or notary public; 2) he takes advantage of his official position; and 3) that he falsifies a document by committing any of the ways it is done. °° On the other hand, the elements of estafa are as follows: 1) That the accused defrauded another (a) by abuse of confidence, or (b) by means of deceit; and 2) That damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or third person The first element covers the following ways of committing estafa: 1) with unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence; 2) by means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts; or 3) through fraudulent means. The first way of committing estafa is known as estafa with abuse of confidence, while the second and third ways cover estafa by means of deceit.°” The Information in Criminal Cases No. 28062 and 28064-67 allege that accused Senot and Cruz, taking advantage of their official Positions, falsified, or caused to be falsified the disbursement vouchers and the supporting documents in the subject vaneacioney/ MY? * Guillergan v. People, G.R. No. 185483, February 2, 2011 °° Madrigal v. Department of Justice, G.R. No. 168903, June 18, 2014DECISION People. vs. Senot, et al. Criminal Cases No. 28062, 28064-67, 28237-38, 28240-42 Page 67 of 86 by making it appear that BFP-owned vehicles underwent repairs when in truth and in fact, no such repairs were made, and on the basis of the falsified documents, caused the release of checks, which they, thereafter, encashed, and misappropriated the proceeds thereof for their personal benefit. There is no question that both accused Senot and Cruz are public officers. What are left for determination are whether or not they took advantage of their respective official positions, and whether or not they falsified the documents pertaining to the disbursement vouchers. The determination of whether or not the accused committed falsification rests on resolving the issue of whether or not the prosecution was able to establish that no repairs were made on the BFP-owned vehicles. Fictitious repairs A. Besta van (Crim. Cases No. 28062 and 28064) There were allegedly two (2) engine overhauls made on the Kia Besta van, one done on or about June 15, 2001, and the second one performed on or about August 23, 2001 Of the prosecution witnesses, it was only Renato M. Molina who categorically declared that there were no repairs made on the Besta van. Molina, as Chief of the Supply Accountable Office, was in charge of receiving and issuing supplies, materials and equipment procured by the BFP National office. He oversaw the Supply Accountable Office warehouse of the BFP National Office.°”" In the regular course of procedure, replaced parts of the vehicle are considered waste materials, which should be turned over to the Supply Accountable Office. If the waste materials were lost, then the end user should make a certification that such waste materials were lost.372 The documents show that parts of the vehicle were supposedly replaced. Necessarily, the waste materials should have been turned —_/ over to the Supply Accountable Office. However, according to wots’ 4 371 p. 12, TSN, September 13, 2010 27 p33, TSN, September 14,2010 A /DECISION People. vs. Senot, et al. Criminal Cases No. 28062, 28064-67, 2237-38, 28240-42 Page 68 of 86 no waste materials were turned over to his office, and neither was there any certification to the effect that such waste materials were lost. From the foregoing, Molina concluded that no repairs were actually made on the Besta van.°7 The Court does not find any evidence showing that Molina was motivated by ill-will or malice in testifying that no repairs were made. Hence, the Court gives weight and credence to his testimony. Other irregularities in the disbursement vouchers and the supporting documents that were pointed out by the witnesses support the conclusion that no repairs were made on the Besta van. In Crim. Case No. 28062, some supporting documents were dated after the date of the check. In Crim. Case No. 28064, on the other hand, some supporting documents were undated, or incomplete; Official Receipts No. 0154 dated June 15, 2001 and No. 017 dated August 24, 2001 were issued by Alchit Motor Shop-and Card Motor Shop, respectively, for the repair of the Besta van. Taken together with Nelson Feliciano's testimony, wherein he stated that the transactions were already paid when he was asked to sign the documents, it appears that there were procedural lapses in the approval of the disbursement vouchers, and that the same were approved despite the incompleteness of the supporting documents. On the face of the supporting documents, it may appear that everything was regular and in order, but a more thorough examination of the said documents reveals that there were attempts to conceal the fact that the transactions were fictitious and simulated. Thus, the testimonies of the witnesses, along with the lapses in procedure, when taken together, support the conclusion that no repairs were undertaken on the Besta van on or about June 15, 2001 and August 23, 2001 B. Elf truck (Crim. Cases No. 28065-67) There were allegedly three (3) repairs performed on the Elf truck. Based on the receipts issued by Card Motors, the first, was the body repair of the body shell and of the two doors, the second repair was for general body repair, replacement of the dash sy hy 2? » p. 23, TSN, September 13, 2010; pp. 31-32, TSN, September 14, 2010DECISION People. vs. Senot, et al. Criminal Cases No. 28062, 28064-67, 28237-38, 28240-42 Page 69 of 86 front seat and other parts, and the third was for the repainting and general upholstery. Danilo Dizon, the driver of the Elf truck, testified that said vehicle did not need repairs, and that no repairs were actually made from the time it was assigned to him in February 2001 until December 2001. The Court finds Dizon to be a credible witness and his testimony to be credible and sufficient to establish that no repairs were actually made on the subject Elf truck. Dizon, the exclusive driver of the said vehicle from the time it was assigned to the BFP sometime in February 2001,°"4 was in the position to know if repairs were actually made on the vehicle. There was no reason for Dizon, who has retired from the service, to perjure himself and to maliciously impute wrongdoings against herein accused who were the highest Official and another high-ranking official of the BFP. If at all, Dizon testified to clear his name as he was made a payee of the checks (Exhibits “FFF,” “SSS,” and “FFFF") issued to reimburse the amounts he supposedly spent for the repairs of the Elf truck. The testimony of prosecution witness Molina, that he refused to sign the Reports of Waste Materials for the repairs made on October 1, and November 7, 2001, because there was no actual turnover of materials for inspection and because no repairs were actually made, corroborates the statement of Dizon that no repairs were made on the Elf truck. The defense evidence failed to negate the proof submitted by the prosecution that no repairs were made on the Elf truck. The defense presented Crispin Niaga Santos, who testified that he was the mechanic who actually performed the engine overhaul for the Besta van and the Elf truck. He also testified that a certain “Amold” made the body repairs for the Elf truck. The Court finds the testimony of Santos to be lacking in credence. First, Santos claims to be the mechanic who repaired the engine of the Besta van owned by the BFP, first when he was with Alchit Motor Shop and later, the engines for the Besta van and the Elf truck when he transferred to Card Motor Shop. The Court finds it a. / 4 MT °p.7, TSN March 16, 2011; Exhibits EEE/54-SenotDECISION People. vs. Senot, et al. Criminal Cases No. 28062, 28064-67, 28237-38, 28240-42 Page 70 of 86 little too convenient for Santos to be the same person who made the Tepairs for the two vehicles and that the two motor shops that he worked with happened to offer the lowest price for at least five repairs of the two vehicles, when he was working therein. Second, other than his own testimony, there was no evidence, documentary or otherwise, presented to establish that Santos was actually an employee or a mechanic of Alchit and/or Card Motor during the dates material to the subject cases. Third, Santos does not appear to have performed the repairs on the Elf truck subject of the present cases. He testified that the Elf truck was brought to him because of a broken piston. After installing the replacement parts, they conducted a road test and informed the BFP that it was ready for pick-up. Although Santos could have actually performed the engine overhaul of the Elf truck, such engine overhaul is not one of the repairs subject of the present cases. A perusal of the sales invoices for the three repairs allegedly made on the Elf truck reveals that the said invoices pertain to the repair and repainting of the body of the vehicle. The August 13, 2001 repair was for the general repair of the body shell and the repair of the doors (Exhibit “AAA” and "BBB”). The repairs represented by the Official Receipt and Sales Invoices, all dated October 17, 2001, are the repair of the rear dropside and floors, replacement of dashboard, repair of front bumper and brackets, replacement of panel boards and front grills, installation of gas tank protector and undercoating (Exhibits “OOO,” “PPP,” and “TTT”). The Official Receipt and Cash Invoices No. 0057 and 0058, all dated December 14, 2001, represent the repainting. and general upholstery of the Elf truck (Exhibits “BBBB,” “CCCC” and “GGGG’). Fourth, it appears that Santos does not have personal knowledge about whether or not the body repairs and repainting were actually performed. Santos points to a certain “Amold,” allegedly an employee of Card Motor Shop, as the person who performed the body repair and repainting of the Elf truck. But other than his own statement, there was no documentary or testimonial evidence to show that a certain “Amold” made the repairs. Even Santos’ testimony is barren of any statement explaining how he came to know that a certain “Arnold” was the one who repaired and repainted the body of the Elf truck, or even how he came to know of the repairs made and the acts taken thereon tC Te4DECISION People. vs. Senot, et al. Criminal Cases No. 28062, 28064-67, 28237-38, 28240-42 Page 71 of 86 Similarly, the testimony of defense witness Aniceto Herrera does not convince. He failed to explain why he test-drove and inspected the vehicles and gathered the waste materials when he was not a member of the Acceptance Committee nor a property inspector. His official duties included checking of supplies and materials. The Court also notes with significance that the alleged major repairs were performed on the Isuzu Elf, some 8 months (general body repair), 9 months (dropside repair) and 10 months (repainting) from the date of its acquisition. It was established that the Elf truck was preowned when it was acquired by the BFP but it was not shown that it was in such condition that it would necessitate several repairs within less than a year after acquisition Falsification Next, the Court needs to determine whether the prosecution was able to establish that the accused falsified, or caused the disbursement vouchers and the supporting documents attached thereto to be falsified, to make it appear that repairs were indeed made on the Besta van and Elf truck. The prosecution presented several witnesses who testified that accused Senot and Cruz forced them to sign against their will several documents supporting the disbursement vouchers. The prosecution's theory is that the accused intimidated the above-mentioned BFP officers and employees into signing certifications or documents that they did not, themselves, prepare. The Court finds that the prosecution established beyond Teasonable doubt that the accused caused the falsification of the supporting documents of the disbursement vouchers by making it appear that certain BFP officials and employees prepared certain documents when they in fact did not, to make it appear that repairs were made, when in fact, as herein found by the Court, no such repairs were done on the Besta van and the Elf truck. The Court notes that three prosecution witnesses testified that they were forced or ordered to sign documents pertaining to the repair ofthe Besta van and the Elf truck. To wit. / fj C7 M