Professional Documents
Culture Documents
~anbiganba!,an
Quezon City
***
FIFTH DIVISION
I
I
Amended Information from John T. Chua to John T. Cua, per Motion to Admit Amended Information filed by the
prosecution on September 18,2001 (Records, Vo!. 6, pp. 188-208) which the Court granted in a Minute Resolution
dated September 21,2001 (Records, Vo!. 6, p. 209).
DECISION Page 3
Crirn. Cases Nos. 25940 to 25962
People v. Belicena, et al.
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff, Criminal Case No. 25949
-versus- For: Violation of Sec. 3(e)
of R.A. 3019, as amended
ANTONIO DELA PENA BELICENA,
ULDARICO P. ANDUTAN, JR.,
PACIFICO R. CRUZ,
JOEL IGNACIO,
Accused.
x----------------------------------------------------x
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff, Criminal Case Nos. 25953,25962
-versus- For: Violation of Sec. 3(e)
of R.A. 3019, as amended
ANTONIO DELA PENA BELICENA,
ULDARICO P. ANDUTAN, JR.,
PACIFICO R. CRUZ,
LILA DHAR SHARMA,
Accused.
x----------------------------------------------------x
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff, Criminal Case No. 25957
-versus- For: Violation of Sec. 3(e)
of R.A. 3019, as amended
ANTONIO DELA PENA BELICENA,
ULDARICO P. ANDUTAN, JR.,
PACIFICO R. CRUZ,
ANGEL CHUA,
Accused.
x----------------------------------------------------x
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff, Criminal Case No. 25958
-versus- For: Violation of Sec. 3(e)
of R.A. 3019, as amended
ANTONIO DELA PENA BELICENA,
ULDARICO P. ANDUTAN, JR.,
PACIFICO R. CRUZ,
SANJA Y DALMIA,
Accused.
x----------------------------------------------------x
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff, Criminal Case No. 25959
-versus- For: Violation of Sec. 3(e)
of R.A. 3019, as amended
ANTONIO DELA PENA BELICENA,
ULDARICO P. ANDUTAN, JR.,
PACIFICO R. CRUZ,
RAMON B. SANTOS,
Accused.
x----------------------------------------------------x
DECISION Page 4
Crim. Cases Nos. 25940 to 25962
People v. Belicena, et al.
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff, Criminal Case No. 25960
-versus- For: Violation of Sec. 3(e)
ofR.A. 3019, as amended
ANTONIO DELA PENA BELICENA,
ULDARICO P. AND UT AN, JR.,
P ACIFICO R. CRUZ,
EDGARDO C. OLANDEZ,
Accused.
x----------------------------------------------------x
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff, Criminal Case No. 25961
-versus- For: Violation of Sec. 3(e)
ofR.A. 3019, as amended
ANTONIO DELA PENA BELICENA,
ULDARICO P. AND UT AN, JR., Present:
PACIFICO R. CRUZ, Lagos, ob Chairperson,
EDGARDO C. OLANDEZ, Mendoza-Arcega and
Accused. Corpus-Maiialac, JJ.
Promulgated:
DECISION
J!I
DECISION Page 5
Crim. Cases Nos. 25940 to 25962
People v. Belicena, et aJ.
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Inc. ("Indo Phils. Textile"), ANGEL CHUA, General Manager, Jantex;
SANJA Y DALMIA, Vice President, Indophil Acrylic Manufacturing, Corp.
("Indophil Acrylic"); RAMON B. SANTOS, President, Phelps Dodge
Philippines, Inc. ("Phelps Dodge"); EDGARDO C. OLANDEZ, General
Manager, Mannequin International ("Mannequin") and FERNANDO
ORENDEZ, General Manager, Jibtex Industrial Corp. ("Jibtex") at the time
material to these cases are indicted for Violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act
No. 3019, as amended, under separate Charge Sheets filed by the Office of the
Special Prosecutor, Office of the Ombudsman on April 11, 2000 docketed as
aforementioned.
That, during the period from 07 May 1997 to 03 July 1997, or for sometime
prior or subsequent thereto, in the City of Manila, Metro Manila, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the aforementioned first two (2)
accused Antonio P. Belicena and Uldarico P. Andutan, Jr., both public officers, being
then the Assistant Secretary/Administrator, and Deputy Executive Director,
respectively, of the One Stop Shop Inter-Agency Tax Credit & Duty Drawback Center,
Department of Finance, Manila, while in the performance of their official functions
and acting with evident bad faith and manifest partiality, conspiring and confederating
with each other, together with accused Pacifico R. Cruz and Emerito G. Guballa,
General Manager of Pilipinas Shell & Petroleum Corp., and General Manager ofNikko
Textile Mills, Inc., respectively, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and criminally
recommend and approve the transfer of the following Tax Credit Certificates
purportedly issued to Nikko Textile Mills, Inc., to wit:
TCC No. Amount
6356 P 2,477,827
6588 2,557,310
6677 2,639,564
6747 2,679,961
6765 2,676,966
Total PI3,031,628
from Nikko Textile Mills, Inc., represented by accused Emerito G. Guballa, unto and
in favor of Pilipin as Shell & Petroleum Corp., represented by accused Pacifico R. Cruz,
without legal basis and proper/required documentation, thereby causing undue injury
and damage to the government in the aforestated amount and at the same time giving
unwarranted benefit, preference or advantage to the said private firms.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
DECISION Page 6
Crim. Cases Nos. 25940 to 25962
People v. Belicena, et al.
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
The Informations in Criminal Case Nos. 25942 to 25944; 25946 to 25949;
25954; 25957 to 25962 are similarly worded as abovementioned except as to the
following:
Crim. Name and Position of Date of Transaction TCC Nos./Amount TCC Issued to TCC transferred
Case No. the Accused Total Amt. to
25942 Antonio Belicena, June 24, 1996 to 4817 P1,164,557 Fibertex Pilipinas Shell
Uldarico Andutan, Jr., June 30, 1997 5550 2,596,201 Corporation and Petroleum
Pacifico Cruz, Ester H. 5839 1,473,837 ("Fibertex") Corp. (PSPC)
Tanco-Gabaldon 5908 371,210
(Finance Manager, 5915 1,184,750
Fibertex), Belinda P. 6235 1,153,016
Torres (Chief 6892 1,341,347
Accountant, Fibertex), 7104 540,225
Horacio G. Borromeo,
(General Manager, Total P9,825,143
Fibertex)
25943 Belicena, Andutan, Jr., November 13, 1996 3629 P1,115,224 J & P Coats Manila Pilipinas Shell
Cruz, Ester H. Tanco- to June 4, 1997 3999 703,200 Bay, Inc. ("J & P") and Petroleum
Gabaldon (Finance 5266 404,057 Corp. (PSPC)
Manager, J & P Coats 5283 710,840
Manila Bay, Inc.) 5284 753,816
5445 360,266
5462 838,490
5501 856,352
5504 437,363
7261 831,912
Total P7,Oll,520
25944 Belicena, Andutan, Jr., March 13, 1997 to 6363 P2,714,267 Scope Industries, Pilipinas Shell
Cruz, Angel O. Jimenez July 3,1997 6364 2,618,497 Inc. ("Scope") and Petroleu m
(General Manager, 6571 2,543,843 Corp. (PSPC)
Scope) 6590 2,814,196
6647 2,626,716
6672 2,623,803
6731 2,618,783
Total P18,560,105
25946 Belicena, Andutan, Jr., October 24, 1996 to 6786 P 2,000,000 Fibrefill Mfg., Inc. Pilipinas Shell
Cruz, John T. Cua (Vice April 1997 ("Fibrefill") and Petroleum
President, Fibrefill) Total P2,OOO,OOO Corp. (PSPC)
25947 Belicena, Andutan, Jr., December 18, 1996 6009 P6,006,031 FLB International Pilipinas Shell
Cruz, Ronald S. Castillo to April 30, 1997 6779 7,827,441 Fiber Corp. and Petroleum
(General Manager, FLB) ("FLB") Corp. (PSPC)
Total P13,833,472
25948 Belicena, Andutan, Jr., January 7 to 1759 Pl,462,229 San Pablo Lake Pilipinas Shell
Cruz, Delfin Poonim February 25, 1997 Knitting Corp. and Petroleum
(President, SPLKC) Total Pl,462,229 ("SPLKC") Corp. (PSPC)
25949 Belicena, Andutan, Jr., January 29, 1997 to 6204 P5,985,670 Spintex Int'l., Inc. Pilipinas Shell
Cruz, Joel Ignacio March 18, 1997 ("Spintex") and Petroleum
(General Manager, Total P5,985,670 Corp. (PSPC)
Spintex)
25953 Belicena, Andutan, Jr., November 26, 1996 5582 P7,292,278 Indo Phils. Cotton Pilipinas Shell
Cruz, Lila Dhar Sharma to February 11, 5736 6,636,925 Mills, Inc. ("Indo and Petroleu m
(General Manager, Indo 1997 5976 8,208,587 Phils.") Corp. (PSPC)
Phils.)
Total P22,137,790
DECISION Page 7
Crim. Cases Nos. 25940 to 25962
People v. Belicena, et al.
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
25954 Belicena, Andutan, Jr., August 21, 1996 to 4926 P1,518,124 Manila Bay Pilipinas Shell
Cruz, Ester H. Tanco- February 5, 1997 5210 2,860,578 Spinning Mills, and Petroleum
Gabaldon (Finance 5211 1,561,199 Inc. ("Manila Bay Corp. (PSPC)
Manager, J & P) Total PS,939,901 Spinning")
25957 Belicena, Andutan, Jr., January 7, 1997 to 6179 P 2,700,900 Jantex Phils., Inc. Pilipinas Shell
Cruz, Angel Chua February 1997 6183 2,700,063 ("Jantex") and Petroleum
(General Manager, 6311 5,401,013 Corp. (PSPC)
Jantex)
Total P1O,801,976
25958 Belicena, Andutan, Jr., January 9, 1997 to 6130 P1,977,717 Indophil Acrylic Pilipinas Shell
Cruz, Sanjay Dalmia June 30, 1997 6152 3,006,030 Mfg. Corp. and Petroleum
(Vice President, 6248 1,996,304 ("Indophil Corp. (PSPC)
Indophil Acrylic) Acrylic")
Total P6,980,OSl
25959 Belicena, Andutan, Jr., December 12, 1996 2929 P 1,862,501 Phelps Dodge Pilipinas Shell
Cruz, Ramon B. Santos to March 3, 1997 3238 11,286,795 Phils., Inc. and Petroleum
(President, Phelps 3991 5,227,729 ("Phelps Dodge") Corp. (PSPC)
Dodge) 4406 14,007,526
Total P32,384,SSl
25960 Belicena, Andutan, Jr., March 13, 1997 to 6287 P 2,613,217 Mannequin Pilipinas Shell
Cruz, Edgardo C. April 14, 1997 6358 2,559,352 International and Petroleum
Olandez (General 6389 2,542,371 ("Mannequin") Corp. (PSPC)
Manager, Mannequin) 6400 2,570,054
Total P1O,284,994
25961 Belicena, Andutan, Jr., January 29, 1997 to 6186 P 6,518,185 Jibtex Industrial Pilipinas Shell
Cruz, Fernando Orendez March 31, 1997 6306 4,027,042 Corp. ("Jibtex") and Petroleum
(General Manager, 6307 3,175,715 Corp. (PSPC)
Jibtex) 6535 7,994,818
6573 6,578,574
Total P28,294,334
25962 Belicena, Andutan, Jr. January 22, 1997 to 5673 P 3,819,639 Indo Phils. Textile, Pilipinas Shell
Cruz, Lila Dhar Sharma June 4,1997 6192 7,426,776 Inc. ("Indo Phils. and Petroleum
(Senior Vice-President- 6230 3,165,018 Textile") Corp (PSPC)
Finance & Commerce, 6466 5,240,544
Indo Phi Is. Textile) 6713 5,625,162
6901 3,364,726
6995 3,024,344
Total P31,666,209
That, during the period from 18 December 1996 to 27 May 1997, or for
sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the City of Manila, Metro Manila,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
aforementioned first two (2) accused Antonio P. Belicena and Uldarico P.
I
Andutan, Jr., both public officers being then the Assistant Secretary /
Administrator, and Deputy Executive Director, respectively, of the One Stop
Shop Inter-Agency Tax Credit & Duty Drawback Center, Department of
Finance, Manila, while in the performance of their official functions and acting; ;
DECISION Page 8
Crim. Cases Nos. 25940 to 25962
People v. Belicena, et al.
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
with evident bad faith and manifest partiality, conspiring and confederating with
each other, together with accused Pacifico R. Cruz, General Manager of Pilipinas
Shell & Petroleum Corp., did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and criminally
recommend and approve the transfer of the following Tax Credit Certificates
purportedly issued to Allstar Spinning, Inc., to wit:
TCCNo. Amount
6122 P 5,842,116.00
6181 5,877 ,579.00
6249 2,036,631.00
6250 5,877,616.00
6304 7,877,519.00
6619 6,166,621.00
6779 7,844,337.00
6780 7,827,441.00
6941 5,721,537.00
7021 7,802,852.00
7035 6,030,481.00
7039 7,739,858.00
Total P76,644,588.00
from Allstar Spinning Inc., unto and in favor of Pilipinas Shell & Petroleum
Corp., represented by accused Pacifico R. Cruz, without legal basis and
proper/required documentation, and using forged Deed of Assignment, thereby
causing undue injury and damage to the government in the aforestated amount
and at the same time giving unwarranted benefit, preference or advantage to the
said private firm (sic).
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Crim. Name and Date of Transaction TCC Nos.j Amount TCC Issued to TCC
Case Position of the Total Amt. transferred to
No. Accused
25945 Belicena, January 7, 1997 to 6188 P 6,013,340 Filstar Textile Pilipinas Shell
Andutan, Jr., January 24, 1997 6309 4,891,709 Industrial Corp. and
Cruz ("Filstar") Petroleum
Total P1O,905,049 Corp. (PSPC)
25950 Belicena, January 29, 1997 to 6307 P3,175,715 Alliance Thread Pilipinas Shell
Andutan, Jr., February 25, 1997 6306 4,027,042 Company, Inc. and
Cruz ("Alliance") Petroleum
Total P7,202,757 Corp. (PSPC)
25951 Belicena, January 7, 1997 to 6224 P2,035,717 Diamond Knitting Pilipinas Shell
Andutan, Jr., January 24, 1997 6303 6,105,321 Corp. ("Diamond") and
Cruz Petroleum
Total P8,141,038 Corp. (PSPC)
25952 Belicena, January 7, 1997 to 6251 P 6,094,342 Fiber Technology Pilipinas Shell
Andutan, Jr., February 25, 1997 6184 5,872,693 Corporation and
Cruz ("Fiber") Petroleum
Total Pll,967,035 Corp. (PSPC)
DECISION Page 9
Crim. Cases Nos. 25940 to 25962
People v. Belicena, et al.
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
25955 Belicena, December 18, 1997 7021 P7,802,852 Master Colour Pilipinas Shell
Andutan, Jr., to May 27, 1997 5639 5,261,603 System, Inc. and
Cruz 6185 5,566,285 ("Master Colour") Petroleum
5638 5,566,285 Corp. (PSPC)
6587 7,745,029
Total P31,942,054
25956 Belicena, December 18, 1996 7035 P 6,030,481 Express Colours Pilipinas Shell
Andutan, Jr., to May 27, 1997 5405 5,139,791 Industries, Inc. and
Cruz 6780 7,844,337 ("Express Colours") Petroleum
5638 6,257,219 Corp. (PSPC)
6474 4,418,998
otal P29,690,826
Out of the eighteen (18) accused in these cases, four (4) of whom remain
at-large, namely, Jimenez (CC No. 25944); Poonim (CC No. 25948); Ignacio
(CC No. 25949); and Dalmia (CC No. 25959). This Court has issued a standing
Order of Arrest' against them on July 6, 2000.
On the other hand, Cruz, one of the main accused (CC No. 25940 to
25962) who posted!' his cash bail bond on April 14, 2000, was dropped from
the Informations per Resolution of this Court dated May 31, 2001.12 This is in
view of the Manifestation with Motion to Drop Accused Pacifico R. Cruz from
the Information filed by the prosecution on April 5, 2001 \3 following the
reinvestigation and/or reconsideration conducted by the Office of the
Ombudsman in these cases. Accordingly, the Hold Departure Order dated July
6, 200014 issued against him waslifted.
Accused Sharma has a standing Order of Arrest" dated April 23, 2008
for his failure to comply with the directive of the Court to return to the
Philippines within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the Court's Resolution dated
September 15, 2007 per Minute Resolution'? dated March 18, 2008. His travel
6 Died on November 23,2012 (Records, Vol. 23, pp. 190-191); He was arraigned on October 24,2000 and pleaded
NOT GUILTY to the charge against him. (Records, Vol. 3, p. 117).
7 Died on January 19,2015 (Records, Vol. 33, p. 16); He was arraigned on July 12, 2002 and pleaded NOT GUILTY
to the charge against him. (Records, Vo!. 7, pp. 233-234).
8 Records, Vo!'2, p. 233; Borromeo was never arraigned.
9 Records, Vo/. 23, p. 200; Santos was arraigned on October 24, 2000 (Records, Vol. 3, p. 117).
/0 Records, Vol. 33, p. 11; Castillo was arraigned on July 12, 2002 (Records, Vol. 7, pp. 233-234).
20 Id., p. 72.
22 Id.,p. 150.
DECISION Page 12
Crim. Cases Nos. 25940 to 25962
People v. Belicena, et al.
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
bond and bail bond+' were ordered confiscated/" in favor of the government.
Similarly, accused Olandez (CC No. 25960) who posted" bail bond on April
24, 2000, has a standing Warrant of Arrest'? dated June 26, 2018 pursuant to
Minute Resolution'? dated June 18,2018. Olandez failed to submit proof that he
had already returned to the Philippines as required of him in the Minute
Resolution'[ dated May 31, 2018.
23Records, Vo!. 2, pp. 195-201, He posted cash bail bond on June 20,2000 after his voluntary surrender on even date.
24Records, Vo!. 19, p. 275, Writ of Execution dated April 17, 2008 (travel bond); Vo!. 20, p. 246, Writ of Execution
dated January 5,2010 issued pursuant to Minute Resolution dated December 17,2009 (Vol. 19, p. 245); Vo!. 20, p.
280, Return of Writ of Execution dated January 13,2010.
25Records, Vo!. 1, pp. 166-171.
26Records, Vo!. 33, p. 470.
27Id., p. 451.
28Records, Vo!. 33, pp. 424-425.
29Records, Vo!. 1, p. 155; April 17, 2000.
30Id., p. 172; April 18, 2000.
31Id.
32Records, Vol. 2, p. 73, May 2, 2000.
33Records, Vol. 1, pp. 156-160 (Guballa, April 17, 2000); pp. 173-174; 175-176 Chua and Orendez's Personal
Information Sheets dated April 18, 2000, however, no copy of the surety bond is attached to the records, the only proof
that they availed of the said surety bond is the Notice dated March 16, 2001 sent by the Court to Pacific Union
Insurance Co., Inc.,found on Vol. 3, p. 272; said bail bond expired on April 17, 2002 which was extended on April
17,2003,foundon Vo!. 7,pp.146-147;); Vol.1,pp.182-186(Belicena,ApriI25,2000); Vo!.lpp. 74-79(Andutan,
Jr., May 2, 2000); pp. 196-201 (Sharma, June 20,2000).
34Records, Vol. 7, pp. 114-115.
35Id.,pp. 233-234.
36Records, Vo!. 1, pp. 323-324 (Motion for Reinvestigation in Criminal Case No. 25952, both Gabaldon and Torres);
pp. 326-327 (Motion for Reinvestigation in Criminal Case No. 25954, both Gabaldona and Torres).
37The recordsshow no copy of the surety bond, the only proof that they availed of one was the Notice of the Court dated
March 16, 2001 addressed to Philippine First Insurance Co., Inc. found on Vol. 3, p. 273.
38Records, Vo!. 3, pp. 309-310.
39Records, Vol. 7, pp. 233-234.
40Supra, Note 1(Amended Informationfrom John T. Chua to John T. Cua, per Motion to Admit Amended Information
filed by the prosecution on September 18,2001 (Records, Vo!. 6, pp. 188-208) which the Court granted in a Minute
Resolution dated September 21,2001 (Records, Vo!. 6, p. 209).
41Records, Vo!. 6, p. 225.
42Id., p. 252.
DECISION Page 13
Crim. Cases Nos. 25940 to 25962
People v. Belicena, et al.
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
September 28, 2001. Following his arrest.r' he immediately filed a surety bail
bond'" on October 23, 2001. He was later on arraigned" on January 3, 2002
and pleaded NOT GUILTY to the charge against him.
43 Id., p. 303.
44 Id., p. 304-307.
45 Id., p. 382.
46 Records. Vol. 1, pp. 187-411 (Cua's Omnibus Motion: 1. To Defer Issuance of Arrest Warrant; 2. To Dismiss/ Quash;
and/orJ. To Order Re-investigation [April 19, 2000]); Id., pp. 412-434 (Guballa 's Motion for Reinvestigation and/or
Motion for Reconsideration)[ApriI28, 2000); Records. Vol. 2, pp. 83-84; 101-102 (Castillo's Motion for Preliminary
Investigation [May 3, 2000); Urgent Supplemental Motion [May 5, 2000]); Id., pp. 85-86; 99-100 (Chua 's Motion for
Preliminary Investigation [May 3, 2000); Urgent Supplemental Motion [May 5, 2000]); Id., pp. 87-88; 103-104
(Orendez's Motion for Preliminary Investigation [May 3, 2000); Urgent Supplemental Motion [May 5,2000]); Id.,
pp. 136-148 (Castillo's Motion for Reconsideration and/or Reinvestigation [May 22, 2000); Id., pp. 149-161
(Orendez's Motion for Reconsideration and/or Reinvestigation [May 22, 2000); Id., pp. 162-176 (Castillo's Motion
for Reconsideration and/or Reinvestigation [May 22, 2000); Id., pp. 206-226 (Sharma's Omnibus Motion for
Reinvestigation, suspension of proceedings and withholding of issuance of warrant of arrest); Id., pp. 237-254
(Belicena's Motion for Reconsideration [July 4, 2000]); Id., pp. 258-272 (Andutan, Jr. 's Motion for Partial
Reconsideration [July 5,2000]); Records. Vol. 3, pp. 71-74 (Castillo's Supplement to the Motion for Reconsideration
and/or Reinvestigation [September 25, 2000); Id., pp. 75-78 (Chua's Supplement to the Motionfor Reconsideration
and/or Reinvestigation [September 25, 2000); Id., pp. 79-83 (Orendez's Supplement to the Motionfor Reconsideration
and/or Reinvestigation [September 25,2000].
47 Records, Vol. 2,pp. 111-112;p. 117;pp. 292-294. ~
48 Records, Vol. 3, pp. 214-254..
(VI
51 Records, Vot. 5, pp. 73-94 (Orendez); pp. 96-118 (Castillo); pp. 168-194 (Chua); pp. 411-418 (Belicena).
DECISION Page 14
Crim. Cases Nos. 25940 to 25962
People v. Belicena, et al.
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
on May 25, 2001 with the Office of the Ombudsman. The same however, were
denied by the same office in a Joint Resolution= dated May 13, 2002 for lack of
merit. Thus, on June 19,2002, the prosecution filed a Manifestation= informing
the Court of the said denial and manifesting that the cases may now be set for
arraignment and trial which was noted in a Minute Resolutiori" dated June 27,
2002.
The parties agreed that these cases were to be tried jointly per Order?
dated April 30, 2002. Pre-trial briefs'" were accordingly filed by the accused.
The prosecution on the other hand, separately filed the corresponding Pre-trial
Briefs for each cases. 57 Considering the number of cases and the accused
involved herein, various preliminary conferences'" followed.
Prosecution Evidence
55 u., p. 116.
56 Id., pp. 99-103 (Cua, April 26, 2002); Id., pp. 227-230 (Andutan, Jr., July 12, 2002); Id., pp. 345-389 (Santos, July
18,2002); Id., pp. 390-397 (Gabaldon, Crim. Case No. 25942, July 23,2002); u, pp. 398-402 (Gabaldon, Crim.
Case No. 25943, July 23,2002); Vol. 9. pp. 320-323 (Belicena, June 24,2003, Crim. Case No. 25943); Id., pp. 324-
327 (Belicena, June 24,2003, Crim. Case No. 25944); Id., pp. 328-331 (Belicena, June 24,2003, Crim. Case No.
25959); Vo/. 11. pp. 425-524 (Andutan, Jr., November 20, 2003); Vo/. 12, pp. 382-385 (Guballa, February 27,
2004); Id., pp. 386-389 (Olandez, February 27,2004).
57 Records, Vol. 7,pp. 238-242 (Crim. Case No. 25940); pp. 242- 247 (Crim. Case No. 25941); pp. 248-242 (Crim.
Case No. 25942); pp. 253-257 (Crim. Case No. 25943); pp. 258-262 (Crim. Case No. 25944); pp. 263-266 (Crim.
Case No. 25945); pp. 267-270 (Crim. Case No. 25946); pp. 271-275 (Crim. Case No. 25947); pp. 276-279 (Crim.
Case No. 25948); No pre-trial brieffiled (Crim. Case No. 25949); pp. 280-284 (Crim. Case No. 25950); pp. 285-289
(Crim. Case No. 25951); pp. 290-294 (Crim. Case No. 25952); pp. 295-299 (Crim. Case No. 25953); pp. 300-304
(Crim. Case No. 25954); pp. 305-309 (Crim. Case No. 25955); pp. 310-314 (Crim. Case No. 25956); pp. 315-319
(Crim. Case No. 25957); pp. 320-324 (Crim. Case No. 25958); pp. 325-329 (Crim. Case No. 25959); pp. 330-334
(Crim. Case No. 25960); pp. 335-339 (Crim. Case No. 25961); pp. 340-344 (Crim. Case No. 25962).
58 Records, Separate folder entitled: Preliminary Conferences. The dates are asfollows: May 24, 2016; May 25, 2016;
June 24,2016; July 18,2016; August 8,2016; August 22,2016; August 26,2016; September 2,2016; September 30,
2016; October 14,2016; October 21,2016; November 4, 2016; November 17,2016; November 24,2016; January 23,
2017; February 10, 2017; February 24, 2017.
I
59 Records, Vo/. 12, pp. 68-75 (Pre-Trial Order (Partial) dated October 8,2003); Id., pp. 76-166 (Partial Pre-Trial
Order dated October 14, 2003); Id., pp. 173-A-174 (Order dated November 21, 2003); Id., pp. 296-297 (Order dated
January 16,2004); Vo/. 13, pp. 305-313 (Pre-Trial Order dated March 12, 2004). ~
60 Records, Vo!. 15,pp. 102-282.
65 u, pp. 40-42. ~
66 Id.
67 Id., p. 45.
68 Id.
69 Id., p. 40. I
DECISION Page 16
Crim. Cases Nos. 25940 to 25962
People v. Belicena, et al.
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
offices such as the BIR.70He corroborated the testimony of Mr. Bhandari that the
knitting machines used by Mannequin International and Scope Industries were
powered by electricity and that they do not use petroleum products." He testified
that Melchor Tan was the Chairman of the Board of Mannequin International,
who also ran Scope Industries; that accused Olandez was the General Manager
of Mannequin International." As liaison officer, he would ask for Tan's signature
in connection with the companies' transactions with various government offices.
According to him, Tan also used the alias "Angel Jimenez.'?' He testified that it
was Tan who signed above the name "Angel Jimenez" in the Deed of
Assignment" dated March 13, 1997.75On cross examination, he clarified that he
said that it was Tan who signed the Deed of Assignment because of his familiarity
with the latter's signature, but not because he actually saw him sign that
particular document."
79 Id.
80 Id., p. 17.
81 Id.
84 Marked as Exhibit "T'for Criminal Case No. 25940; "N'tfor Criminal Case No. 25941; "H'ifor Criminal Case No.
25942; "K"for Criminal Case No. 25943; "P"jor Criminal Case No. 25944; "C"for Criminal Case No. 25945; "B"
for Criminal Case No. 25946; "H'tfor Criminal Case No. 25947; "C'for Criminal Case No. 25948; "B'tfor Criminal
Ij
Case No. 25949; "E'tfor Criminal Case No. 25950; "E'ifor Criminal Case No. 25951; "C'tfor Criminal Case No.
25952; "H"for Criminal Case No. 25953; "H"/or Criminal Case No. 25954; "D"for Criminal Case No. 25955; "E"
for Criminal Case No. 25956; "D"fr Criminal c."
No. 25957; "B" for Criminal CaseNo. 25958; ''E''fr Cri-;
DECISION Page 17
Crim. Cases Nos. 25940 to 25962
People v. Belicena, et al.
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
conclusions." She identified these documents which she gathered and examined
pertinent to each of these cases.t"
In her Fact Finding Report, Atty. Barcenal explained that the transfers of
tax credits from the garment firms to PSPC were of doubtful validity, citing
Article 21 of the Omnibus Investments Code of 1987, as amended, requiring the
transferee ofTCCs to be a supplier of domestic raw material or component of the
registered activity or products of the garment firms.f? The Memorandum of
Agreement dated August 29, 1989 between the BOI and DOF implementing the
transferability and negotiability of TCCs under Art. 21 of the Omnibus
Investments Code provides that "the transferee should be a BOI-registered firm
which is a domestic capital equipment supplier or a raw material and or
component supplier of the transferor." She asserted that PSPC could not be
considered a supplier of raw materials used by the garment firms because of the
remote connection between the latter's registered activity with the products
supplied by the former. She further stated that based on their line of products, the
garment firms did not use bunker fuel.
Additionally, she reported that the transfer of tax credits must not involve
a consideration being a privilege granted to BOI registered firms. In these cases,
however, she concluded that the transfers of TCCs were made for a valuable
consideration based on the fact that the deeds of assignment were not supported
by supply agreements or delivery receipts." The BOI procedure in granting the
transfer of TCC requires the transferor to submit the following requirements in
the processing thereof, which allegedly were not complied with, viz:
The transfers allegedly did not adhere to these requirements: (1) One-year
track record of supply equivalent to 85% of the value of the tax credit to be
transferred; (2) Purchase Order of at least 85% of the value of tax credit to be
transferred (based on the delivery receipts for materials/supplies); (3) Supply
contract stipulating that the consideration for supply consist wholly or in part of
the tax credit being transferred. On her conclusion that the DOF -Center failed to
require the garment firms to submit mandatory requirements, Atty. Barcenal
Case No. 25959; "N" for Criminal Case No. 25960; "D" for Criminal Case No. 25961; "H" for Criminal Case No.
25962.
85 TSN dated August 10, 2006, p. 22.
86 TSN dated December 7,2006, TSN dated September 10,2007, TSN dated Apri/19, 2007, TSN dated August 16,
2007, TSN dated September 3, 2007, TSN dated September 11, 2007, TSN dated December 6, 2007, TSN dated
January 16, 2008, TSN dated May 6, 2008.
87 TSN dated May 7, 2008, pp. 21-22.
irJ
91 Id.
92 Id., p. 13.
93 Id.
94 Id.
95
96
Adopted by Atty. Rigoroso, Atty. F1aminiano.
TSN dated May 13,2009, pp. 26-27.
97 Id.
98 Id.
/
99 Adopted by Atty. F1aminiano.
lOO Exhibit "1" for accused Chua and Orendez in Criminal Case Nos. 25957 and 25960.
/03
104
TSN dated May 13, 2009, p. 39.
Id., pp. 16-17.
/05 Exhibit "l-B't for accused Cua in Criminal Case No. 25946.
110 Id., p. 8.
112 u, p. 42.
I
IIJ Id., pp. 55-61.
1/4 Id.
127 Id.
130 Id., p. 7.
131 Id., p. 7.
DECISION Page 21
Crim. Cases Nos. 25940 to 25962
People v. Belicena, et al.
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
On cross-examination, Florendo stated that he does not personally know
accused Orendez, Chua, Castillo,'" Santos,'" Guballa, Olandez,'> Sharma.'> He
likewise stated that at the time when he was Revenue District Officer for South
Makati, he had no personal dealings with accused Belicena and Andutan.'>
According to him, the issuance of ATAPETs is more of a ministerial function,
that is, they check the correctness of the computation and then sign the AT APETs
if the computation is correct.'> On re-direct examination, Florendo stated that the
person transacting business with his office is usually a representative of the
taxpayer which, in this case, was PSPC or Petron Corporation.'>
IJ9 Records, Vo!. 21, pp. 263-279; Id. at 283 (Order dated November 9,2010).
143 Id.
144 Id.
US/d.
DECISION Page 22
Crim. Cases Nos. 25940 to 25962
People v. Belicena, et al.
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
documents that were presented to him when he appeared before the DOF, and
that was the first time that he saw the said documents.!" He identified the Joint
Affidavit= dated June 18,2004 which he and his wife, Rosita Chingkoe, executed
and made part of his direct testimony.w
Demurrers to Evidence
Various motions 156 for leave to file demurrer to evidence were filed by
herein accused which were all denied'V on the ground that the arguments raised
therein are matters of defense best threshed out during the trial on the merits. In
view of the denial, accused movants filed their respective motions 158 for
reconsideration which were likewise denied'V for lack of merit. Thereafter, the
presentation of defense evidence ensued.
150 Records, Vo!. 24, pp. 434-435; Cua's Objections to Formal Offer of Exhibits dated October 4, 2012; Sharma's
Comment dated October 17, 2012; Guballa and Olandez's Comment to Prosecution's Formal Offer of Evidence dated
October 4, 2012; Andutan, Jr., "Comment/Opposition (To Prosecution's Consolidated Formal Offer of Exhibits)
dated October 28, 2012 and Supplement to Comment/Opposition (To Prosecution's Consolidated Formal Offer of
Exhibits). However, these comments oppositions are not found in the records, the only basisfor these averments is the
Minute Resolution dated August 28, 2013 found on Vo!. 24, pp. 434-435.
151 Records, Vo!. 23, pp. 212-470
156 Records, Vo!. 25, pp. 140-145 (Cua); pp. 146-150 (Guballa and Olandez);pp. 160-162 (Chua, Orendezand Castillo),
pp. 306-310 (Andutan, Jr.)
157 Id., pp. 295-296 (Minute Resolution dated November 26, 2013, denying the motions for leave to file demurrer to
evidence of Cua; Guballa and Olandez; Chua, Orendez and Castillo); Records, Vo!. 27, pp. 137-141 (Minute
Resolution dated May 6, 2014 denying the motion for leave tofile demurrer to evidence of Andutan, Jr.)
7:
158 Id., pp. 320-328 (Cua); pp. 330-344 (Chua, Orendez and Castillo);pp. 359-374 (Guballa and Olandez); Vol. 27, pp.
"'fh:,:~::::~2:~rc:::nl~11
f1in;t;";~;";7~ f/
:~':;:~~,~~~::~::;!;~::::.~';:wc:,:;,:~r.~nd
DECISION Page 23
Crim. Cases Nos. 25940 to 25962
People v. Belicena, et at.
)(-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Evidence for the Accused
tf
164
169 Respectively marked as Exhibits "8" to "10"for Guballa in Criminal Case No. 25940.
170 TSN dated November 13,2014, pp. 20-32.
J7J Exhibit "12"for accused Guballa in Criminal Case No. 25940.
172 TSN dated November 13,2014, pp. 20-32
173 Exhibit "14"for accused Guballa in Criminal Case No. 25940.
174 TSN dated March 17, 2015, pp. 6-8.
DECISION Page 24
Crim. Cases Nos. 25940 to 25962
People v. Belicena, et al.
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
unlike that in the Deed of Assignment which used his full name. He affixed three
specimen signatures on a blank bond paper."!" He likewise testified that he only
met accused Andutan and Belicena at the start of the trial of these cases.!"
Accused Angel Tan Chua, a former Plant Manager of Jantex Phils. Inc.,
testified on his Judicial Affidavit'" dated July 29, 2016. He categorically denied
175 TSN dated March 17, 2015, pp. 9-12; Exhibit "13"foraccused Guballa in Criminal Case No. 25940.
176 Id., pp. 12-13.
177 Id., p. 12.
186 TSN dated June 30,2015, p. 13; Exhibits "18," "19," and "20. "
187 Id., pp. 14-12.
/88 Id. r.
~
f
189 Id.
190 Id.
When asked about the nature of Fibertex business, accused Torres stated
that the company is a manufacturer of nylon with factory in Taytay, Rizal. It
imports raw materials such as monomer (caprolactam), titanium dioxide, acetic
acid, spin finish oil for the production and manufacture of nylon yard, knitted
and nylon fabrics which are sold both in the Philippines and abroad. It has boilers
and power plants that use and consume PSPC's bunker fuel and other petroleum
based products. She claimed that one Raymond Babaroso of the Department of
finance conducted an inspection of Fibertex's premises and then issued a
Memorandum dated 6 January 1997 allegedly attesting that the Fibertex's
201
power plant consisting of two (2) units of Mirrlees Blackstone Engines with a
capacity/output of 2.2. megawatts per unit and three units of Keewanee Boilers
.were operational; that the company installed two storage tankers, one with a
capacity of 100,000 liters and the other 180,000 liters; and that the company
consumes 20,000 to 25,000 liters of bunker fuel a day.202
/94
195
Id., pp. 109-110.
Exhibit "l/'for accused Chua in Criminal Case No. 25957.
/96 Records, Vo!. 29, pp. 107-108.
i;
/97 TSN dated August 11,2016, pp. 26-28.
200 Id.
208 Id.
209 Id.
DECISION Page 27
Crim. Cases Nos. 25940 to 25962
People v. Belicena, et al.
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Criminal Case Nos. 25942, 25943 and 25954
In Criminal Case No. 25942, Accused Gabaldon testified that she is the
Vice-President of Fibertex for over thirty-three (33) years. As Vice-President,
she oversees and supervises the Finance Department of the company, including
the preparation and submission of requirements to the DOF in connection with
its application for transfer ofTCCs to PSPC.2l1She identified a Deed of Absolute
Sale2J2 dated 19 August 1987 showing that Fibertex bought a plant in Laguna
from the government through asset privatization trust. 213She claimed that
Fibertex is not a garment-manufacturing firm; although, it sells products to
garment firms.?" Essentially, she corroborated the testimony of accused Torres
on the nature of Fibertex's business. She stated that the company consumes
substantial volume of fuel due to its round-the-clock operation. Especially in the
90s, when power interruptions were frequent, the company had to rely on power
generated by its power plants.v'She asserted that Fibertex complied with all the
requirements for the transfer of the TCCs subject of this case to PSPC. She then
identified the requirements that were submitted to the Center."?
In Criminal Case No. 25943, accused Gabaldon testified that she has been
serving as the Finance Manager/Director ofJ&P Coats for forty-five (45) years."?
Just like Fibertex, J&P Coats is owned by the Tanco family of which she is a part
of.218As Vice-President, she supervises the preparation and submission of the
requirements to the Center in connection with the Transfer of J&P Coats' TCCs
to PSPC.219J&P Coats' main office is in Marikina City. It manufactures raw
materials such as sewing and handicraft threads (knitting yam, crochet and
embroidery threads) for export or local sales to end-product manufacturers such
garments, bags and shoes manufacturers. It is not a garment-manufacturing
company.s> The company uses generator sets and boilers, which were needed in
the 90s due to frequent power interruptions.'?' As such, the company procures
substantial volume of bunker fuel and other fuel-based products from PSPC,222
which it pays either through check or through assignment of TCCs.223As regards
the company's transfer of TCCs subject of this case to PSPC, she asserted that
the company complied with all the requirements for transfer. 224She then
214
215
216
217
218
Records, Vol. 32, p. 14.
Id., p. 14.
Id., pp. 15-16.
Id.
Id., p. 25.
Id.
I
219 Id.
220 Id.
221 Id., p. 26.
222 Id.
223 Id.
224 Id., p. 27.
DECISION Page 28
Crim. Cases Nos. 25940 to 25962
People v. Belicena, et al.
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
identified the documents which the company submitted to the Center in
connection with the transfer of its TCCs to PSPC.225
In Criminal Case No. 25954, accused Gabaldon testified that she has been
the Finance Manager/Director of Manila Bay Spinning.>' Just like Fibertex and
J&P Coats, the company is owned by the Tanco family of which she is a part
of.227As Vice-President, she supervises the preparation and submission of the
requirements to the Center in connection with the Transfer of Manila Bay
Spinning's TCCs to PSPC.228She stated that J&P Coats has its main office in
Marikina City.229It manufactures raw materials such as polyester yam, acrylic
yam, cotton yarn, for export or local sales to end-product manufacturers like,
garment factories, knitting companies, towel manufacturers, textile, thread
manufacturers, industrial companies that manufacture industrial belts.?" The
company uses generator sets and boilers, which were needed in the 90s due to
frequent power interruptions. 231As such, the company procures substantial
volume of bunker fuel and other fuel-based products from PSPC,232which it pays
either through check or through assignment of TCCs. 233As regards the
company's transfer of TCCs subject of this case to PSPC, she asserted that the
company complied with all the requirements for transfer.'> She then identified
the documents which the company submitted to the Center in connection with
the transfer of its TCCs to PSPC.235
240
241
TSN dated August 9,2017, pp. 32-34.
Id., p. 35.
Exhibit "10-N"for accused Gabaldon in Criminal Case Nos. 25942, 43, and 54. 1 cJ
I
242 Exhibit "1O-F"for accused Gabaldon in Criminal Case Nos. 25942, 43, and 54.
243 TSN dated August 9,2017, pp. 45-51.
DECISION Page 29
Crim. Cases Nos. 25940 to 25962
People v. Belicena, et al.
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
On re-direct examination, accused explained the difference in the figures
between the Deeds Assignment and the Summary Schedule of Purchases.
According to her, in preparing the Deeds of Assignment they only estimated the
figures. It was only during the transfer when they were required to submit the
purchases in support of the transfer.>' On re-cross examination, the prosecution
pointed out that the Certificate of BOI Registration used by the Center as basis
for issuance ofTCCs to J&P Coats was issued in 1980, despite the fact that under
the Omnibus Investment Code of 1987 J&P Coats should have renewed its
registration.>'
!
264 Records, Vol. 36, pp. 51-58.
265 Records, Vo!. 36, pp. 54-55.
266 Id. /
: Exhibit "A" for the prosecution in Criminal Case No. 25946. ~
Exhibit "A-l"for the prosecution in Criminal Case No. 25946.
269 Records, Vo!. 36, pp. 55-56.
DECISION Page 31
Crim. Cases Nos. 25940 to 25962
People v. Belicena, et al.
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Yvette Kristine Salonga Lee testified on her Judicial Affidavit'" dated
January 15, 2019. She stated that she was the Secretary of Atty. Martinez from
2003 to 2016. As Secretary, she kept the files pertinent to the cases handled by
Atty. Martinez, including the duplicate original of the exhibits for accused Cua
in this case. Sometime in 2016, Atty. Martinez asked for the said duplicate
original; however, despite thorough search, she was unable to locate them. She
claimed that they kept photocopies of the documents, which are allegedly faithful
reproduction of the lost duplicate originals.v' On cross-examination, witness Lee
testified that the documents lost were the duplicate original, not the original.s"
about the TCCs subject of this case as well as the Deeds of Assignment pertinent
thereto.>= In fact, he claimed that he had never seen a TCC before.>' He
identified the Fact Finding Report": dated September 5, 2001 stating that his
signature was among those found to be forgeries as per certification of one Mr.
Jose O. Espiritu.F" He denied having signed the Deeds of Assignment'? dated
January 29,2007 and Deed of 'Assignment'" dated February 26, 1997.281 To show
thatthe signatures on the Deeds of Sale are markedly different from his signature,
he presented a copy of his 1998 Annual Income Tax Return.w He further stated
that he submitted the original of the said tax return to the Office of the
Ombudsman, through Prosecutor Pascual. 283 Additionally, he submitted other
documents showing his true signature: (1) Community Tax Certificate+ dated
April 4, 1998, (2) Community Tax Certificate= dated April 15, 1999, (3) SSS
Member's Data Amended Form286 dated April 1, 1999, (4) Senior Citizen's
Identification Card,287(5) Tax Identification Card,288and (6) SSS Identification
Card.289According to him, the original were submitted to Prosecutor Pascual,
Issue
The issue to be resolved in these cases is whether or not the accused
violated Section 3(e) ofR.A. No. 3019 otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act.
Ruling
The Court will not rule on the culpability of accused Belicena in Criminal
Cases Nos. 25940 to 25962 as the proceedings against him were suspended due
to his deteriorating mental faculties (dementiay= as well as of accused Angel
Jimenez in Criminal Case No. 25944, Delfin Poonim in Criminal Case No.
25948, Joel Ignacio in Criminal Case No. 25949 and Sanjay Dalmia in Criminal
Case No. 25958, who remain at large and have not been arraigned.
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government,
or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference
in the discharge of his official, administrative or judicial functions through
manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This
provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government
corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions
(rJ
303
304
Records, Vo. 37, pp. 74-95
Id., pp. 118-141
305 Id., pp. 179-218
308 Records, Vo!. 27, pp. 315-320 (Minute Resolution of the Court dated 22 September 2014).
I
DECISION Page 34
Crim. Cases Nos. 25940 to 25962
People v. Belicena, et al.
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
The essential elements for violation of Section 3(e) of Rep. Act No. 3019
are as follows:
309
310
311
Fuentes v. People, G.R. No. G.R. No. 186421, April 17, 2017.
Records, Vol. 24, (Pre-Trial Orders dated October 8 and October 14,2003).
G.R. No. 186421, April 17, 2017.
~jrl
DECISION Page 35
Crim. Cases Nos. 25940 to 25962
People v. Belicena, et al.
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
While the Informations generally alleged lack of legal basis for the
transfers of TCCs, it failed to specify with particularity why the transfers were
without legal basis, which is supposedly the ultimate fact constituting the
charges. Ultimate facts are the essential and substantial facts which either form
the basis of the primary right and duty or which directly make up the wrongful
acts or omissions of the defendant. 312 In these cases, the allegations in the
Informations that the assailed transfers of the TCCs were "without legal basis x
x x" is a conclusion of law. Stated differently, there is simply no facts alleged in
the Informations as basis in pressing the charges against the accused that will
guide the Court in assessing whether the assailed transfers of the TCCs were
indeed "without legal basis xxx. " It is basic that every person accused of a crime
has the right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against hirn.v-
It is so fundamental that in a catena of cases.!" the Supreme Court rendered
judgments of acquittal after finding that the accused were convicted for acts or
offense not or different from that alleged in the information in violation of their
constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against
them.
In postulating that the transfers ofTCCs to PSPC were without legal basis,
the prosecution in its Memorandum claims that the transfers were of doubtful
validity because PSPC, not being a supplier of domestic raw material or
component of the registered activity or products of the private firms, is not
qualified to be a transferee of the subject TCCs.
3/2 Bautista vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 143375, July 6, 2001.
3/3 Section 14(2), Article IIL 1987 Constitution, See also Section Itb), Rule 115 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure.
3/4 Malabanan vs. Sandiganbayan, GR Nos. 186329, 186584-86, August 2,2017; Evangelista vs. People, G.R.
Nos. 108135-136 (Resolution), August 14,2000; Estrellado-Mainarv. People, G.R. No. 184320, July 29, 2015.
DECISION Page 36
Crim. Cases Nos. 25940 to 25962
People v. Belicena, et al.
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
In Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal
Revenuei'? the Supreme Court, on the qualification of PSPC to acquire TCCs
originally issued by the DOF-Center to various BOI-registered companies, stated
that PSPC need not be a capital equipment provider or a supplier of raw material
and/or component supplier to the transferors; it is enough that PSPC is a BOI
registered entity, viz:
The above requirement has not been amended or repealed during the
unfolding of the instant controversy. Thus, it is clear from the above proviso
that it is only required that a TCC transferee be BOI-registered. In requiring
PSPC to submit sales documents for its purported post-audit of the TCCs, the
Center gravely abused its discretion as these are not required of the transferee
PSPC by law and by the rules.
While the October 5, 1982 MOA appears to have been amended by the
August 29, 1989 MOA between the DOF and BOI, such may not operate to
prejudice transferees like PSPC. For one, the August 29, 1989 MOA remains
only an internal agreement as it has neither been elevated to the level of nor
For another, even ifthe August 29, 1989 MOA has indeed amended the
IRR, which it has not, still, it is ineffective and cannot prejudice third parties
for lack of publication as mandatorily required under Chapter 2 of Book VII,
EO 292, otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987, which
pertinently provides:
Section 5.....
It is clear that the Center or DOF cannot compel PSPC to submit sales
documents for the purported post-audit, as PSPC has duly complied with the
requirements of the law and rules to be a qualified transferee of the subject
TCCs.
In the 2007 Shell Case, the Court affirmed the validity of the TCCs, the transfer
of the TCCs to respondent Shell, and the use of the transferred TCCs by
respondent Shell to partly pay for its excise tax liabilities for the Covered
Years. The Court ratiocinated as follows: x x x Third, the DOF Center or DOF
could not compel respondent Shell to submit sales documents for the purported
post-audit. As a BOI-registered enterprise, respondent Shell was a
qualified transferee of the subject TCCs, pursuant to existing rules and
regulations. x x x. (Emphasis supplied)
Q. And then, all documents that you made as basis for your
investigation came from the BIR?
A. Yes, sir.
Atty. Barcenal's testimony on May 13, 2009330 admitted that she did not
endeavor to secure or check documents on the assailed transfers from other
government agencies, not even from the DOF-Center, which processed the
applications for transfers of the subject TCCs to PSPC, and supposedly the
repositories or custodian of these documents, viz:
Atty. Atty. Barcenal, when you said that you reviewed certain
Alikpala documents and papers, what you actually went over and
(Q.) eventually summarized in your report which you have
submitted were only those that were submitted to you, is
that correct?
Witness Yes, sir.
(A.)
Q. You did not go out of your way to find out if there were
other pertinent (sic) and related documents in relation to
those applications for TCCs and assignments, you did not
go and find out ifthere were any others?
A. I only concentrated on the documents submitted to us.
However, sir, r made an interview with the Bor and the
executive director of the One Stop Shop to more or less help
me in evaluation the documents which I gathered from the
BIR.
Q. Did you not ask for the other documents that should have
been part of the documents, that should have been
submitted to you for evaluation?
A. Actually, I asked that from, the person in-charge then was
Atty. Estrella Martinez who is now, I don't know if she's
retired, a Regional Director of the Bureau of Internal
Revenue assigned in Tacloban or Baguio. She was the one
who supplied me with these documents and she briefed me
as to the importance of these documents. And she
mentioned, as you can see there are non-compliance of the
mandatory requirements submitted to us by the One Stop
Shop. So, I'm turning over these documents to you for your
evaluation because the requirements were not complied
with by the assignor of the tax credit.
Q. The fact that somebody in the BIR gave you let us say, 3
documents, does not necessarily mean that 10 other
documents had been filed, was not turned over by the BIR
to your office, is that correct?
A. No, sir.
Q. Submitted to you?
A. Not to us to the BIR. And then the BIR transferred those
documents to us for our evaluation whether the transfer was
regular or irregular, sir.
Q. When those papers were first filed with the DOF One Stop
Shop, were you present when these papers were filed?
A. No, sir. I was not.
Q. So you never saw what documents were filed with the One
Stop Shop Agency?
A. No, sir. I only relied on the documents submitted to us.
I
these were transferred, inventories or turned over?
I~
A. No, sir. But I was informed by Atty. Martinez that from the
One Stop Shop, the documents supporting the transfer were
all directly filed with her office. I think her office then was
DECISION Page 42
Crim. Cases Nos. 25940 to 25962
People v. Belicena, et al.
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
the Tax Credit Assessment Department, I'm no longer
familiar with her department.
Q. Did you not ask your office to show you the records that
you said were missing with respect to these requirements
which you do not have on your table?
A. In my office, sir?
Q. Yes.
A. These documents emanated from us, sir.
Q. The fact that somebody in your office did not turn over to
you all the records which they turned over to Pros. Pascual,
impelled you to come up with the conclusion that those
documents were never filed. That is your conclusion just
because they did not give you or forward to you the copies?
I'll give you the right to conclude that those were never filed
in Court.
A. Sir, I have to remind you, I'm sorry for the term. I was
conducting a fact-finding, I did not conduct a preliminary
investigation. This report is the preliminary state. If my
report would be approved because I recommend a conduct
of the preliminary investigation which it happened, it
follows that I have sufficient evidence to support my
conclusion. It was not a preliminary investigation, it was
merely a fact-finding. That's why I did not coordinate with
the other bureaus as regard my evidence because for me, I
feel that the evidence I gathered was sufficient enough to
back up my recommendation.
Q. But did you not ask other members of your office whether
those documents that you have marked and identified in this
case were the only documents pertinent to those TCCs?
A. No more, sir, because I was the only one handling this case.
Although there are two signatories here but these are just .
. . I was the main actual investigator in this particular case! ~
I
DECISION Page 43
Crim. Cases Nos. 25940 to 25962
People v. Belicena, et al.
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x
Q. The prosecutor just admitted that those documents,
voluminous documents ... came from your office?
A. Sir, perhaps that's true because during the conduct of
preliminary investigations, the respondents are required to
submit their counter-affidavit. Perhaps, those are part of the
documents supported by the respondents in their counter-
affidavit. 320
She also stated that she did not ascertain whether the documents submitted
by the BIR were genuine, this despite the fact that some of the documents
submitted to her were mere photocopies, which also became the basis of her
report. She merely assumed'" that the documents were genuine, to wit:
You were saying that these were the very same documents
that were given to you by the BIR, in response to your
subpoena?
Witness Yes, sir.
Q. You did?
A. Yes, sir, because these are the documents submitted by the
BIR.
Q. Did you check with the BIR if these are genuine documents?
A. No, sir, because -
Q. So, you relied on the fact that it was the BIR that submitted
these documents?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What about this Tax Debit Memo, Exhibit "A-I," Case No.
25940?
This is so notwithstanding the fact that the BIR primarily had nothing to
do with the evaluation, processing and issuance of the TCCs presented before it
for tax credit, which is the work of the DOF -Center. On the other hand, nothing
from the prosecution's documentary evidence--consisting mainly of TCCS,323
DOF-TDMs, BIR-TDMs,324Deeds of Assignment, ATAPETs andPSPC's Letter
Q. Yes.
A. That's why I said highly irregular and anomalous transfer.
Under the circumstances, therefore, the prosecution's basis for stating that
the transfers of the subject TCCs were not supported by proper/required
requirements has no solid ground, and therefore, casts reasonable doubt on the
purported irregularity of the transfers of TCCs. It should be added that accused
Gabaldon and Torres adduced evidence to prove submission of documentary
requirements+? to the Center for the transfer of TCCs, which Arty. Barcenal
appears to have failed to consider. This further weakens her conclusion that the
transfer of TCCs lacked proper/required documentation.
Needless to state, applications for transfer of TCCs are filed with and
processed by the Center, being the agency created for the purpose. It follows
therefore that the most competent person who can certify as to the completeness
Again, the Court notes that the prosecution, in its Memorandum, discussed
at length the illegality of the issuance of the subject TCCs to the private firms.
However, it is quite irrelevant since a plain reading of the Informations readily
discloses that the overt act ascribed to the accused is the recommendation and
approval ofthe transfers of the subject TCCs to PSPC. As such, the Court cannot
proceed to examine the illegality of issuance of the subject TCCs to the private
firms, and thereafter render a judgement of conviction if warranted, for the
irregularity of transfers, without violating the right of the accused to be informed
of the nature and cause of accusation against them.
No less than the Constitution guarantees the right of every person accused
in a criminal prosecution to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation
against him. This means that the accused may not be convicted of an offense
unless it is clearly charged in the Information. 330 Corollary, in criminal
prosecution, the complaint must contain a specific allegation of every fact and
circumstance necessary to constitute the crime charged.v' The main purpose of
requiring the various elements of a crime to be set out in the information is to
enable the accused to suitably prepare his defense. He is presumed to have no
independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense.'? Convicting him
of a ground not alleged while he is concentrating on his defense against the
ground alleged would plainly be unfair and underhanded.P!
Here, accused Andutan, Jr., one of the accused public officers, allegedly
recommended or approved the transfers of the subject TCCs. On the other hand,
accused private persons allegedly conspired with the accused public officials by
signing or allegedly signing the Deeds of Assignment. However, accused Guballa
(Criminal Case No. 25940), Chua (Criminal Case No. 25957), and Orendez
(Criminal Case No. 25961) categorically deny having affixed their signatures on
the Deeds of Assignment.
As in the Maamo case, aside from their signatures and the fact that they
are at the opposite end of the application process for the transfer of TCCs, as
alleged, nothing more was presented to establish a link to prove the unity of
action and purpose between the alleged acts of the accused.
337 Exhibit "L'tfor accused Chua and Orendez in Criminal Case Nos. 25957 and 25960.
. 338 TSN dated May 13, 2009, pp. 31-32.
DECISION Page 50
Crim. Cases Nos. 25940 to 25962
People v. Belicena, et al.
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
finding in paragraph 37 of the said report that the signatures of accused Chua and
Orendez were forgeries shifted the burden of proof to the prosecution that Chua
and Orendez participated in the alleged conspiracy. Under the circumstances, the
doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused consistent with the time-honored
principle in criminal law: In dubio pro reo.v"
While the same is not the situation for accused Guballa as there was no
finding stating that his signature was a forgery, circumstances exist, however,
sufficient to cast reasonable doubt on his involvement in the alleged irregular
transfer. The rule is that the fact of forgery can only be established by comparison
between the alleged forged signature and the authentic and genuine signature of
the person whose signature is theorized upon to have been forged.>' On visual
examination, the signatures appearing on the Deeds of Assignment are palpably
different from the signatures appearing on the documents presented by her
containing his true signatures. It is also worthy to note that there is no Secretary
Certificate or Board Resolution presented to prove that at the least, she was
authorized to sign on behalf of Nikko Textile Mills, Inc. Thus, the Court cannot
conclude with moral certainty that the signatures on the Deeds of Assignment
were indeed that of accused Guballa.
Based on the foregoing disquisition, the Court need not make further
exhaustive discussion on the presence of this element. Reiterating, it has been
ruled by jurisprudential fiat that PSPC is a qualified transferee, thus, no
unwarranted benefit or preference was given to it by the assailed TCC transfers.
The alleged undue injury to the government is likewise not substantiated. Article
21 of EO 226 or the Omnibus Investment Code of 1987 defined the use ofTCCs,
thus:
The owner of a TCC or a transferee thereof may use a TCC to pay its tax
obligation to the government. In these cases, the transferor firms can no longer
use the TCCs they already transferred to PSPC to pay its dues to the government,
if there be any, which they have to settle in cash or other means allowed by law.
In either case, both the transferor- firms and PSPC would be fulfilling whatever
In sum, the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt
and so the Court is duty-bound to acquit the accused. In Maamo v. People, 341 the
Supreme Court fittingly held:
As a final note, the Court takes this occasion to reiterate that the
overriding consideration in criminal cases is not whether the court doubts the
innocence of the accused but whether it entertains a reasonable doubt as to his
guilt - if there exists even one iota of doubt, this Court is "under a long
standing legal injunction" to resolve the doubt in favor of the accused. Hence,
if the evidence is susceptible of two interpretations, one consistent with the
innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, the accused
must be acquitted.
As the acts or omission from which the civil liability might arise did not
exist, no civil liability may be assessed against the forenamed accused.
SO ORDERED.
WE CONCUR:
~;.LAGOS
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ATTEST ATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the cases were assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.
~(R.L~OS
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division
Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision
had been reached in consultation before the cases were assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court's Division.