THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 110353. May 21, 1998.]

TOMAS H. COSEP , petitioner, vs . PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and

SANDIGANBAYAN , respondents.

Michael P. Moralde for petitioner.

The Solicitor General for respondents.

SYNOPSIS

The Municipality of Olutanga, Zamboanga del Sur secured the services of private
complainant Angelino E. Alegre to undertake the construction of an artesian well for one of
its localities, under a "pakyaw" arrangement for the contract price of P5,000.00 payable
after completion of the project. The petitioner, being the Planning O cer of the
Municipality, monitored the progress of the construction. After the project was nished,
petitioner secured the amount of P5,000.00 from the Municipal Treasurer. However, only
P4,500.00 was given to the private complainant, the balance being allegedly withheld by
petitioner as reimbursement for his expenses in processing the papers in the Municipal
Treasurer's O ce. Private complainant led a complaint before the Sandiganbayan
against petitioner for violating Section 3(b) of Republic Act No. 3019. Private complainant
asserted that he is a contractor. Petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge and denied
private complainant's assertion. The petitioner alleged that the amount he gave represents
the total salary of private complainant and the other thirteen workers who constructed the
artesian well. The petitioner presented the Time Book and Payroll Sheet, and a
Memorandum issued by the Mayor of Olutanga indicating that private complainant was
hired as the head laborer. The Sandiganbayan found the petitioner guilty as charged and
sentenced him to an indeterminate prison term. Hence, this petition. IDcAHT

In acquitting the petitioner, the Supreme Court held that the guilt of the petitioner
has not been proven with moral certainty by the prosecution. The Court found that the
prosecution failed to establish private complainant's assertion that he is a contractor.
Private complainant's signing of the payroll sheet indicating his status as a head laborer is
conclusive upon him and he cannot deny or disprove the same without violating the
principle of estoppel. Moreover, the Time and Payroll Sheet, having been signed by the
Municipal Treasurer, is clothed with the presumption of regularity, particularly since it was
not objected to by the private complainant. Hence, the Court held that private complainant,
as laborer, together with thirteen (13) other workers, was entitled only to a total of
P4,475.00 and not P5,000.00 representing their salaries.

SYLLABUS

1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; BILL OF RIGHTS; DUE PROCESS; QUESTIONS ASKED

BY A JUDGE DURING PROCEEDINGS TO ELICIT FACTS, NOT A VIOLATION THEREOF. —
Petitioner, like any other accused individual, is entitled to a fair trial before an "impartial and
neutral judge" as an indispensable imperative of due process. Judges must not only be
impartial, but must also appear to be impartial as an added assurance to the parties that
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 the decision will be just. However, this is not to say that judges must remain passive or
silent during the proceedings. Since they are in a better position to observe the demeanor
of the witness as he testi es on the witness stand, it is only natural for judges to ask
questions to elicit facts with a view to attaining justice for the parties. Questions designed
to clarify points and to elicit additional relevant evidence are not improper. Also, the judge,
being the arbiter, may properly intervene in the presentation of evidence to expedite and
prevent unnecessary waste of time. SaHTCE

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; QUESTIONS PROPOUNDED BY JUSTICES TO FERRET THE TRUTH,

NOT INDICATIVE OF PARTIALITY. — We have scrutinized carefully the questions
propounded by the Justices, and none was indicative of their partiality for the prosecution
in proving its case against the petitioner. More precisely, on pages 34 to 35 of the
Transcript of Stenographic Notes, the gist of the questions were on the monitoring
procedure being undertaken by the petitioner in supervising the project. While on pages 36
to 39, the questions dealt with the identities and quali cations of the workers who
participated in the construction of the project. Those on pages 41 to 42, referred to
queries which sought to clarify the facts and circumstances of another case led against
the petitioner by a certain Mr. Macapala. All told, these questions cannot be said to have
crossed the limits of propriety. In propounding these questions, the Justices merely
attempted to ferret the truth as to the facts to which the witness was testifying.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; UNDUE INTERFERENCE OF JUSTICES; WAIVER THEREOF IN CASE
AT BAR. — If petitioner were under the impression that the Justices were unduly interfering
in his testimony, he was free to manifest his objection. However, the records show that he
answered the questions freely and without any objection from his counsel on the alleged
active participation of the Justices when he gave his testimony. HIESTA

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE; MUST BE OVERCOME BY PROOF

BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT; BURDEN OF PROOF. — It must be borne in mind that
criminal cases elevated by convicted public o cials from the Sandiganbayan deserve the
same thorough review by this Court as criminal cases involving ordinary citizens, simply
because the constitutional presumption of innocence must be overcome by proof beyond
reasonable doubt. Where the state fails to meet the quantum of proof required to
overcome the constitutional presumption, the accused is entitled to acquittal, regardless
of the weakness or even the absence of his defense for any conviction must rest on the
strength of the prosecution's case and not on the weakness of the defense.
5. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; FAVORED WHEN GUILT OF ACCUSED WAS NOT PROVEN WITH
MORAL CERTAINTY. — To a rm petitioner's conviction would result in a serious injustice.
It is axiomatic that in every criminal prosecution, if the state fails to discharge its burden of
proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, it fails utterly. Accordingly,
when the guilt of the accused has not been proven with moral certainty, it is our policy of
long standing that the presumption of innocence of the accused must be favored and his
exoneration be granted as a matter of right.
6. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN
GENERALLY ACCORDED NOT ONLY RESPECT BUT EVEN FINALITY; EXCEPTIONS. — It is
well settled that whether the accused is guilty or not of the offense charged is a question
which involves a determination of facts as presented by the prosecution and the defense.
The duty to ascertain which is more credible is lodged with the trial court which had the
opportunity to observe the witness directly and to test his credibility by his demeanor on
the stand. Thus, the Sandiganbayan's factual ndings are generally accorded respect, even
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 nality, unless: (1) the conclusion is a nding grounded entirely on speculations, surmises
and conjectures; (2) the inferences made are manifestly mistaken; (3) there is grave abuse
of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts or premised on the
absence of evidence on the record. STcAIa

7. ID.; ID.; WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY; EVIDENCE TO BE BELIEVED MUST BE

CREDIBLE IN ITSELF. — Going over the records and the TSN of the private complainant, we
entertain serious misgivings about his testimony, especially after he had erred as regards
important facts and information, not to mention the questionable lapses of memory.
Indeed, for evidence to be believed, it must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible
witness but must be credible in itself such as the common experience and observation of
mankind can approve as probable under the circumstances.
8. ID.; ID.; DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT COMPLAINANT'S CLAIM,
WANTING IN CASE AT BAR; TESTIMONY ALONE IS INSUFFICIENT. — It is worthy to note
that private complainant narrated that he was the one who paid the workers their wages
during the construction of the well. However, it ba es us that in paying these workers, he
never bothered to have them sign any payroll or voucher receipt, a practice which is routine
for those engaged in hiring workers for construction projects. At the very least, the payroll
or voucher receipts are necessary, not only for accounting purposes, but for protection
against spurious or unsubstantiated claims that may arise. Simply put, private
complainant's behavior was in total disregard of logic and usual management practice
expected from a prudent businessman. What is incredible is the failure of private
complainant to remember even a single name of his workers. Since six of the thirteen (13)
laborers bore his own surname Alegre, it strains credulity that he could not remember any
of them. Obviously, private complainant's claim that he is a contractor is a falsehood. If he
were indeed one, he should have presented documentary evidence to support his claim. In
fact, the record is bereft of any project study, purchase order, delivery receipt, proofs of
procurement of materials and other evidence which would sustain the nding that he was
indeed a contractor engaged in his normal work. His testimony alone in this regard is
grossly inadequate, thus rendering the prosecution's cause inherently weak.
9. ID.; ID.; DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTION; TIME AND BOOK PAYROLL SHEET
DULY SIGNED BY MUNICIPAL TREASURER IS REGULAR. — Likewise, in the Time and Book
Payroll Sheet issued by the Municipality, a document duly signed by the private
complainant stated that he was the head laborer during the construction. In the early case
o f U.S. v. Carrington , we have asserted the public document character of the municipal
payroll; as such, it is prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. The same can only be
rebutted by other competent evidence and cannot be overcome by the testimony of a
single witness. As earlier stated, private complainant never even offered any evidence to
contravene the presumption that the recitals in the municipal payroll giving his status as a
head laborer were true. Besides, the Time and Payroll Sheet, having been signed by the
Municipal Treasurer, it is clothed with the presumption of regularity, particularly since it
was not objected to by the private complainant. CEDHTa

10. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATIONS; LABOR STANDARDS; ESTOPPEL;

COMPLAINANT IS ESTOPPED FROM DENYING HIS STATUS AS A HEAD LABORER. — Aside
from the foregoing considerations, private complainant signed the payroll sheet indicating
his status as a head laborer. Therefore, this representation is conclusive upon him and he
cannot deny or disprove the same without violating the principle of estoppel.
11. ID.; ID.; ID.; INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR; EXISTENCE NOT SUFFICIENTLY
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 ESTABLISHED IN CASE AT BAR; COMPLAINANT ENTITLED ONLY TO HIS SALARY AS A
LABORER. — All these considerations taken together, it is clear that the prosecution failed
to establish private complainant's assertion that he is a contractor. Hence, we agree with
the defense that private complainant, as laborer, together with thirteen (13) other workers
was entitled only to a total of P4,475.00 and not P5,000.00 representing their salaries.
This being the case, the P4,500.00 that he received from petitioner was even in excess of
the amount which he and the other workers, was originally entitled to. SHcDAI

DECISION

ROMERO , J : p

Petitioner, Tomas Cosep, was the Municipal Planning and Development

Coordination O cer of Olutanga, Zamboanga del Sur. In 1987, the Municipality decided to
construct an artesian well for one of its localities. Hence, it secured the services of private
complainant Angelino E. Alegre to undertake the said project, under a "pakyaw"
arrangement for the contract price of P5,000.00 payable after completion of the project.
Petitioner, being the Planning O cer of the Municipality, monitored the progress of the
construction. LLcd

After the project was nished, petitioner secured the amount of P5,000.00 from the
Municipal Treasurer. However, only P4,500.00 was given to the private complainant, the
balance being allegedly withheld by petitioner as reimbursement for his expenses in
processing the papers in the Municipal Treasurer's Office.
Aggrieved, private complainant led a complaint before the Sandiganbayan, First
Division, docketed as Criminal Case No. 17503 against petitioner for violating Section 3(b)
of R.A. No. 3019. The information reads:
"That on or about August of 1987, or immediately prior and subsequent
thereto, in Olutanga, Zamboanga del Sur, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, accused, a public o cer, being the Municipal Planning and
Development O cer of the said municipality, with the duty to administer and
award government projects and to prepare the necessary documents required for
money claims against the municipality of OLUTANGA, Zamboanga del Sur, did
then and there, wilfully and unlawfully demand and receive ve hundred pesos
(500.00) from a certain Angelino Alegre as a consideration for awarding the
construction of the artesian well, Solar, Olutanga and for facilitation the
necessary documents for the money claims of the latter from the Municipality of
Olutanga for constructing the above mentioned Artesian Well.
Contrary to law."

On April 10, 1992, petitioner entered a plea of not guilty to the charge. Thereafter,
trial on the merits ensued.
In an effort to escape liability, petitioner advances the theory that private
complainant was never a contractor, but was merely a laborer entitled to a daily rate of
P20.00. Moreover, the amount of P4,500.00 he gave to the private complainant represents
the total salary of the other thirteen (13) workers who constructed the artesian well.
Hence, he could not have withheld the said P500.00 since there was none in the rst place.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 To bolster his contention, petitioner presented as evidence the Time Book and Payroll
Sheet, 1 and a Memorandum dated May 10, 1987, issued by the Mayor of Olutanga
indicating that private complainant was hired as the head laborer during the construction
of the artesian well. 2
Apparently, not impressed with petitioner's defense, the Sandiganbayan, in a
decision dated April 15, 1993 3 ruled against him, viz.:
"WHEREFORE, the Court nds the accused, Tomas Cosep y Hibayan, guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime de ned in Section 3, paragraph (b),
Republic Act 3019, as amended, and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
imposes upon him the penalties of imprisonment ranging from six (6) years and
one (1) month, as minimum, to nine (9) years and twenty (20) days, as maximum,
and of perpetual disquali cation from public o ce. The court orders him to pay
Angelino E. Alegre, the private complainant, P500.00 representing the amount
which the accused demanded and received from him.
SO ORDERED."

Petitioner has led the instant petition contending that: (a) he was not accorded an
impartial trial by the Sandiganbayan and (b) his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable
doubt to justify his conviction.
Regarding the rst assignment of error, petitioner bewails the fact that during his
testimony the Justices of the Sandiganbayan actively participated in the proceeding by
propounding no less than sixty-eight questions 4 which, in his opinion, were indications of
partiality or prejudgment of guilt. Speci cally, he cites the questions on pages 34 to 42 of
the Transcript of Stenographic Notes 5 as indications of the Justices' hostility against him.
We do not agree.
Admittedly, petitioner, like any other accused individual, is entitled to a fair trial
before an "impartial and neutral judge" as an indispensable imperative of due process. 6
Judges must not only be impartial, but must also appear to be impartial as an added
assurance to the parties that the decision will be just. 7 However, this is not to say that
judges must remain passive or silent during the proceedings. Since they are in a better
position to observe the demeanor of the witness as he testi es on the witness stand, it is
only natural for judges to ask questions to elicit facts with a view to attaining justice for
the parties. Questions designed to clarify points 8 and to elicit additional relevant evidence
are not improper. 9 Also, the judge, being the arbiter, may properly intervene in the
presentation of evidence to expedite and prevent unnecessary waste of time. 1 0
With the above doctrines serving as guidelines, we have scrutinized carefully the
questions propounded by the Justices, and none was indicative of their partiality for the
prosecution in proving its case against the petitioner. More precisely, on pages 34 to 35 of
the Transcript of Stenographic Notes, the gist of the questions were on the monitoring
procedure being undertaken by the petitioner in supervising the project. While on pages 36
to 39, the questions dealt with the identities and quali cations of the workers who
participated in the construction of the project. Those on pages 41 to 42, referred to
queries which sought to clarify the facts and circumstances of another case led against
the petitioner by a certain Mr. Macapala. All told, these questions cannot be said to have
crossed the limits of propriety. In propounding these questions, the Justices merely
attempted to ferret the truth as to the facts to which the witness was testifying.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 In any case, if petitioner were under the impression that the Justices were unduly
interfering in his testimony, he was free to manifest his objection. 1 1 However, the records
show that he answered the questions freely and without any objection from his counsel on
the alleged active participation of the Justices when he gave his testimony.
While we do not see any merit in petitioner's rst assigned error, we, however, agree
with him that his guilt was not adequately proven beyond reasonable doubt by the
prosecution.
It is well settled that whether the accused is guilty or not of the offense charged is a
question which involves a determination of facts as presented by the prosecution and the
defense. The duty to ascertain which is more credible is lodged with the trial court which
had the opportunity to observe the witness directly and to test his credibility by his
demeanor on the stand. Thus, the Sandiganbayan's factual ndings are generally accorded
respect, even nality, unless: (1) the conclusion is a nding grounded entirely on
speculations, surmises and conjectures; (2) the inferences made are manifestly mistaken;
(3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on misapprehension of
facts or premised on the absence of evidence on the record. 1 2 A re-examination of the
entire proceedings of the instant case compels us to take exception to the
aforementioned general rule.
It must be borne in mind that criminal cases elevated by convicted public o cials
from the Sandiganbayan deserve the same thorough review by this Court as criminal cases
involving ordinary citizens, simply because the constitutional presumption of innocence
must be overcome by proof beyond reasonable doubt. 1 3
Where the state fails to meet the quantum of proof required to overcome the
constitutional presumption, the accused is entitled to acquittal, regardless of the
weakness or even the absence of his defense 1 4 for any conviction must rest on the
strength of the prosecution's case and not on the weakness of the defense.
Going over the records and the TSN of the private complainant, we entertain serious
misgivings about his testimony, especially after he had erred as regards important facts
and information, not to mention the questionable lapses of memory. Indeed, for evidence
to be believed, it must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but must be
credible in itself such as the common experience and observation of mankind can approve
as probable under the circumstances. 1 5
It is worthy to note that private complainant narrated that he was the one who paid
the workers their wages during the construction of the well. 1 6 However, it ba es us that
in paying these workers, he never bothered to have them sign any payroll or voucher
receipt, 1 7 a practice which is routine for those engaged in hiring workers for construction
projects. At the very least, the payroll or voucher receipts are necessary, not only for
accounting purposes, but for protection against spurious or unsubstantiated claims that
may arise. Simply put, private complainant's behavior was in total disregard of logic and
usual management practice expected from a prudent businessman.
What is incredible is the failure of private complainant to remember even a single
name of his workers. 1 8 Since six of the thirteen (13) laborers bore his own surname
Alegre, it strains credulity that he could not remember any of them. Obviously, private
complainant's claim that he is a contractor is a falsehood.
If he were indeed one, he should have presented documentary evidence to support
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 his claim. In fact, the record is bereft of any project study, purchase order, delivery receipt,
proofs of procurement of materials and other evidence which would sustain the nding
that he was indeed a contractor engaged in his normal work. His testimony alone in this
regard is grossly inadequate, thus rendering the prosecution's cause inherently weak. LLcd

Likewise, in the Time and Book Payroll Sheet 1 9 issued by the Municipality, a
document duly signed by the private complainant stated that he was the head laborer
during the construction. In the early case of U .S. v. Carrington, 2 0 we have asserted the
public document character of the municipal payroll; as such, it is prima facie evidence of
the facts stated therein. 2 1 The same can only be rebutted by other competent evidence 2 2
and cannot be overcome by the testimony of a single witness. 2 3 As earlier stated, private
complainant never even offered any evidence to contravene the presumption that the
recitals in the municipal payroll giving his status as a head laborer were true. Besides, the
Time and Payroll Sheet, having been signed by the Municipal Treasurer, it is clothed with
the presumption of regularity, particularly since it was not objected to by the private
complainant.
Aside from the foregoing considerations, private complainant signed the payroll
sheet indicating his status as a head laborer. Therefore, this representation is conclusive
upon him and he cannot deny or disprove the same without violating the principle of
estoppel.
All these considerations taken together, it is clear that the prosecution failed to
establish private complainant's assertion that he is a contractor. Hence, we agree with the
defense that private complainant, as laborer, together with thirteen (13) other workers was
entitled only to a total of P4,475.00 and not P5,000.00 representing their salaries. This
being the case, the P4,500.00 that he received from petitioner was even in excess of the
amount which he and the other workers, was originally entitled to. Consequently, to a rm
petitioner's conviction would result in a serious injustice. It is axiomatic that in every
criminal prosecution, if the state fails to discharge its burden of proving the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt, it fails utterly. 2 4 Accordingly, when the guilt of the
accused has not been proven with moral certainty, it is our policy of long standing that the
presumption of innocence of the accused must be favored and his exoneration be granted
as a matter of right. 2 5
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the assailed decision of the Sandiganbayan
insofar as it convicted and sentenced petitioner Tomas Cosep of violating Section 3(b) of
R.A. No. 3019 is hereby SET ASIDE. Petitioner Cosep is ACQUITTED on grounds of
reasonable doubt. Costs against the appellant.
SO ORDERED. LLcd

Narvasa, C .J . and Kapunan J ., concur.

Purisima, J ., is on leave.

Footnotes
1. Exhibit "4," Folder of Exhibit.

2. Exhibit "2," Folder of Exhibit.

3. Rollo, pp. 19-38, penned by Justice Jose S. Balajadia, with Justices Francis Garchitorena
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 and Narciso T. Atienza, concurring.
4. TSN, November 25, 1992, pp. 34-42.

5. Rollo, p. 4.
6. Section 14, Article III, 1987 Constitution.
7. Javier v. COMELEC, 144 SCRA 194 (1986).
8. People v. Opinada, 142 SCRA 259 (1986).
9. Eggert v. Moster Safe Co., 730 P2d 895.
10. Domanico v. Court of Appeals, 122 SCRA 218 (1983).
11. People v. Malabago, 265 SCRA 198 (1996).
12. Pareño v. Sandiganbayan, 256 SCRA 242 (1996).
13. Fileteo v. Sandiganbayan, 263 SCRA 222 (1996).
14. People v. Alcantara, 240 SCRA 122 (1995).
15. People v. Magpantay, G.R. No. 113250-52, January 14, 1998.
16. T.S.N., November 24, 1992, pp. 20-21.
17. Ibid., pp. 22-23.
18. Ibid.
19. Exhibit "A," Folder of Exhibit.
20. 5 Phil. 725 (1901).
21. Sec. 23, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.
22. People v. Crisostomo, 160 SCRA 47 (1988); People v. Liones, 117 SCRA 382 (1982).
23. Francisco, Evidence, Third Edition, 1996, p. 517.

24. People v. Tiwalen, 213 SCRA 701 (1992).

25. People v. Yabut, 210 SCRA 394 (1992).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com