Tabuena v Sandiganbayan

GR Nos. 103501-03, February 17, 1997

Facts:
President Marcos instructed Luis Tabuena, the General Manager over the phone to pay directly
to the president’s office and in cash what the Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) owes
the Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC), pursuant to the 7 January 1985
memorandum of then Minister Trade and Industry Roberto Ongpin in which Tabuena agreed.
About a week later, Tabuena received from Mrs. Fe Roa-Gimenez, then private secretary of
Marcos, a Presidential Memorandum dated 8 January 1986 reiterating in black and white such
verbal instruction. In obedience to President Marcos’ verbal instruction and memorandum,
Tabuena, with the help of Gerardo G. Dabao and Adolfo Peralta, caused the release of P55
Million of MIAA funds by means of three (3) withdrawals. The first and second withdrawal and
delivery of cash to the office of Mrs. Gimenez took place in which the latter did not issue any
receipt for the money received. Peralta was Tabuena’s co-signatory to the letter- request for a
manager’s check for this amount. Peralta accompanied Tabuena to the PNB Villamor branch as
Tabuena requested him to do the counting of the P5 Million. After the counting, the money was
loaded in the trunk of Tabuena’s car. Peralta did not go with Tabuena to deliver the money to
Mrs. Gimenez’ office. It was only upon delivery of the P5 Million that Mrs. Gimenez issued a
receipt for all the amounts she received from Tabuena. The receipt was dated January 30,1986.
Tabuena and Peralta were charged for malversation of funds, while Dabao remained at large.
One of the justices of the Sandiganbayan actively took part in the questioning of a defense
witness and of the accused themselves; the volume of the questions asked were more the
combined questions of the counsels. On 12 October 1990, they were found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt. Tabuena and Peralta filed separate petitions for review, appealing the
Sandiganbayan decision dated 12 October 19990 and the Resolution of 20 December 1991.

Issue:
Whether Tabuena is criminally liable for malversation.

Ruling:
The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner Tabuena and acquitted him of the crime of
malversation. Tabuena acted in strict compliance with the MARCOS Memorandum. The order
emanated from the Office of the President and bears the signature of the President himself, the
highest official of the land. It carries with it the presumption that it was regularly issued. And on
its face, the memorandum is patently lawful for no law makes the payment of an obligation
illegal. This fact, coupled with the urgent tenor for its execution constrains one to act swiftly
without question. Records show that the Sandiganbayan actively took part in the questioning of
a defense witness and of the accused themselves. The questions of the court were in the nature
of cross examinations characteristic of confrontation, probing and insinuation. Tabuena and
Peralta may not have raised the issue as an error, there is nevertheless no impediment for the
court to consider such matter as additional basis for a reversal since the settled doctrine is that
an appeal throws the whole case open to review, and it becomes the duty of the appellate court
to correct such errors as may be found in the judgment appealed from whether they are made
the subject of assignments of error or not.