LUSPO vs.
PEOPLE thereafter sub-delegated such authority to his subordinates Luspo
G.R. No. 188487, February 14, 2011
(yawa kaayo ni nga kaso i-digest, I tried my best)
FACTS:
Acting on a report of the COA regarding disbursement
irregularities for combat, clothing, and individual equipment (CCIE)
in Regions VII and VIII, North Capital Command, the PNP Inspector
General (OIG), conducted an investigation.
The Office of the Directorate for Comptrollership issued
two (2) Advices of Sub-Allotment (ASAs), each amounting to Five
Million Pesos (₱5,000,000.00), purportedly for the purchase of CCIE
for the North CAPCOM.
The ASAs were approved "FOR THE CHIEF [Director
General Cesar Nazareno (Nazareno)], PNP" by Director Guillermo
Domondon (Domondon), Chief Director of ODC, and signed for him
by Police Superintendent Van Luspo (Luspo), Chief, Fiscal Division,
Budget and Fiscal Services of the ODC. The ASAs were issued without
an approved personnel program from the Directorate for Personnel.
Upon receipt of the ASAs Montano, Chief Comptroller, directed
Duran, Chief, Regional Finance Service Unit, North CAPCOM, to
prepare and draw 100 checks of ₱100,000.00 each, for a total of
₱10,000,000.00. The checks were payable respectively to DI-BEN
Trading, MT Enterprises, J-MOS Enterprises, and Triple 888
Enterprises, each to receive 25 checks. All enterprises were owned
and operated by Margarita Tugaoen (Private Person).
On the basis of the foregoing findings, the OSP filed
complaints for Malversation of Public Funds under Article 217 of the
Revised Penal Code against them be filed against Nazareno (Director
General), Domondon (Director for Comptrollership), Montano (Chief
Comptroller), Tugaoen, and Pedro Sistoza (Director Sistoza),
Regional Director, North CAPCOM. The office of the Special
Prosecutor (OSP) approved the resolution of the OMB-AFP, with the
modification that the proper offense to be charged was violation of
Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. Although the investigative report did
not mention Luspo’s (Director for Comptrollership) criminal or
administrative liability, the OMB-AFP included him in the charge
since his signature appeared on the questioned ASAs.
The OSP cleared Director Sistoza from any participation in
the anomalous deal and the court eventually dropped the
information for Nazareno who died and Domondon was also
exonerated because, by virtue of the Delegation of Authority and
Schedule of Delegation issued by Nazareno.
Luspo was acquitted by the SC. Domondon issued a
Memorandum delegating to Luspo and a certain Supt. Reynold Osia
(Osia) the authority to sign for him (Domondon) and on his behalf.
As previously mentioned, the Sandiganbayan absolved Domondon of
any liability in the issuance of the ASAs by virtue of the Delegation of
Authority and Schedule of Delegation issued by Nazareno,
authorizing him (Domondon) to release funds. Domondon
and Osia.
There is likewise no proof that Luspo acted with palpable
bias or favor towards Tugaoen. The prosecution failed to show that
it was Luspo’s duty to search for, negotiate and contract with
suppliers.
Crim Pro ISSUE:
(with respect to Montano and Tugaoen ruling)
Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely erred in holding that
the investigations conducted on petitioners are not custodial
investigation and in not holding that the sworn statements taken by
the investigating officers during investigations are inadmissible in
evidence for being violative of the constitutional rights of the
accused, particularly their right to counsel.
Ruling:
No. The court held that even if the investigation conducted by the
PNP was custodial in nature, the improprieties that Tugaoen bewail
would not prevail against strong and overwhelming evidence
showing her and her co-conspirators guilt. Allegations of impropriety
committed during custodial investigation are material when an
extrajudicial admission or confession is the basis of conviction. In
the present case, the conviction of Montano, Duran and Tugaoen
was not deducted solely from Tugaoens admission, but from the
confluence of evidence showing their guilt beyong reasonable
doubt.
RATIO:
 there is ample evidence proving beyond reasonable doubt
that Duran and Montano were propelled by evident bad
faith in preparing and issuing 100 checks to facilitate a
fictitious and fraudulent transaction and Tugaoen, in
accepting the checks and receiving their value without
giving in exchange a single piece of CCIE.
 Duran’s and Montano’s palpable bias in favor of Tugaoen
is shown by their failure to support and justify the checks
issued to Tugaoen’s enterprises with the obligatory paper
trail relative to the conduct of public bidding or any
procurement contract.