46. ) G.R. No. 81563 December 19, 1989 AMADO C. ARIAS, petitioner, vs.

THE
SANDIGANBAYAN, respondent. G.R. No. 82512 December 19, 1989 CRESENCIO
D. DATA, petitioner, vs. THE SANDIGANBAYAN, respondent. Paredes Law Office
for petitioner.

Facts: The lone issue in these consolidated petitions for review is whether the
Sandiganbayan committed a reversible error in convicting the petitioners, Amado C.
Arias and Cresencio D. Data, of having violated Section 3, paragraph (e), of the Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act by causing, allowing and/or approving the illegal and
irregular disbursement and expenditure of public funds in favor and in the name of
Benjamin Agleham, in connection with the overpriced land purchase for the Mangahan
Floodway Project.

Issue: Whether or not Amado C. Arias and Cresencio D. DataI is guilty in violating the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Ruling: No. Petitioners are not guilty as co-conspirators in the conspiracy to cause
injury to the Government through the irregular disbursement and expenditure of
public funds. Guilt must be premised on a more knowing, personal, and deliberate
participation of each individual who is charged with others as part of a conspiracy.
The inadequate evidence on record is not sufficient to sustain a conviction. As a result
the questioned decision of the Sandiganbayan insofar as it convicts and sentences
petitioners Amado C. Arias and Cresencio D. Data is hereby set aside.
47.) G.R. No. 143403 January 22, 2003 FILONILA O. CRUZ, petitioner, vs. HON.
CELSO D. GANGAN, DIR. MARCELINO HANOPOL, AUDITOR GLENDA
MANLAPAZ, AND THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT, respondents.

Facts: The issue upon this case merely involves the petition for review
on certiorari under Rule 64 is Decision No. 2000-104 dated March 28, 2000, issued by
the Commission on Audit (COA), requiring petitioner, to pay the book value of a lost
government-issued Nokia 909 analog cellular phone. The COA found no sufficient
justification to grant petitioner's request for relief from accountability since she failed to
exercise that degree of diligence required under the circumstances to prevent/avoid the
loss.
Issue: Whether or not the decision made by Commission on Audit is constitutional.
Ruling: No, according to the Supreme Court, riding the LRT cannot per se be
denounced as a negligent act. Possession of a cellular phone would not and should not
hinder one from boarding an LRT coach as petitioner did. Because of her relatively low
position and pay, she was not expected to have her own vehicle or to ride a taxicab.
Neither had the government granted her the use of any vehicle. The Rules
Implementing the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees provide that property for official use and purpose shall be utilized with the
diligence of a good father of a family. Extra-ordinary measures are not called for in
taking care of a cellular phone while in transit. Placing it in a bag away from covetous
eyes and holding on to that bag, as done by petitioner, is ordinarily sufficient care of a
cellular phone while travelling on board the LRT. The records do not show any specific
act of negligence on her part, and it is a settled rule that negligence cannot be
presumed; it has to be proven. In the absence of any shred of evidence thereof,
respondents gravely abused their discretion in finding petitioner negligent.