G.R. No.

180122 March 13, 2009

Facts: In June 1990, the National Housing Authority (NHA) awarded the original contract for the infrastructure works to A.C. Cruz
Construction.

The complainant Candido M. Fajutag, Jr., Project Engineer of the project discovered certain deficiencies and issued Work Instruction
No. 1 requiring some supporting documents, but the contractor failed to comply with the work instruction which they are not able
to comply.

Project Office recommended the termination of contract with A.C. Construction. Despite the rescission notice issued by the NHA, the
contractor continued working intermittently with very minimal workforce until such time as the award of remaining infrastructure
works is effected by NHA to Triad Construction and Development Corporation (Triad).

Triad discovered that certain work items that had been in under the inventory report as accomplished and acceptable were in fact
non-existent. Fajutag, Jr. brought these irregularities to the attention of the Commission on Audit (COA).

COA uncovered some anomalies, among which, are ghost activities, specifically the excavation of unsuitable materials and road
filling works and substandard, defective workmanship and that A.C. Cruz Construction had been found overpaid by as much as
₱232,628.35.

Sandiganbayan tried and affirmed graft charges against Felicisimo Lazarte Jr., an engineer and chair of the NHA. Further, he was
accused of conspiring with fellow officers; namely, Josephine Angsico, Virgilio Dacalos, Robert Balao, and Josephine Espinosa. They
filed a motion to quash the allegation, and after a thorough investigation, the court dismissed the charges of the alleged conspirants
for failure to prove participation, but it retained Lazarte’s charge.

On 2 October 2006, petitioner filed a motion to quash but on 2 March 2007, the Sandiganbayan issued the first assailed resolution
denying petitioner’s motion to quash.

The petitioner allegedly that he had to rely on the reports of the field engineers and/or the Project Office as to which materials were
actually installed; and that he supposedly affixed his signature despite his not being able to attend the actual inspection because he
allegedly saw that all the members of the Committee had already signed are matters of defense which he can address in the course
of the trial.

The quashal of the information with respect to accused Lazarte is denied for lack of merit. Hence, the petition to the Supreme Court.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioner is guilty for violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act through conspiracy. (YES)
Ruling: The petitioner is guilty for violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act through conspiracy.

The essential elements for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 are as follows:

1. The accused is a public officer or private person charged in conspiracy with him;

People v. Quitlong, conspiracy arises when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and
decide to commit it. When an offense is committed by more than one person, all of them shall be included in the complaint or
information. The liability of the conspirators is collective and each participant will be equally responsible for the acts of others, for
the act of one is the act of all.

The accuses in their capacity and committing the offense in relation to office and while in the performance of their official functions,
conniving, confederating and mutually helping with each other and with accused ARCEO C. CRUZ, a private individual and General
Manager of A.C. Cruz Construction with deliberate intent, with manifest partiality and evident bad faith, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously cause to be paid to A.C. Construction public funds in the amount of ₱232,628.35, supposedly for the
excavation and roadfilling works despite the fact no such works were undertaken by A.C. Construction, thus accused public officials
in the performance of their official functions had given unwarranted benefits, advantage and preference to accused Arceo C. Cruz
and A.C. Construction and themselves to the damage and prejudice of the government.
Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 148965, February 26, 2002)

FACTS:

In November 2000, as an offshoot of the impeachment proceedings against the former President of the Philippines Joseph
Ejercito Estrada, five criminal complaints against the former President and members of his family, his associates, friends and
conspirators were filed with the respondent Office of the Ombudsman.

On April 4, 2001, the Ombudsman issued a Joint Resolution finding probable cause warranting the filing with the
Sandiganbayan of several criminal charges against the former President and the other respondents therein. One of the charges was
for the plunder under Republic Act No. 7080 and among the respondents was the former’s president’s son the petitioner in this case
Jose "Jinggoy" Estrada, then mayor of San Juan, Metro Manila.

The charge was amended and filed on April 18, 2001. Docketed as Criminal Case No. 26558, the case was assigned to the
Third Division of the Sandiganbayan. The arraignment of the accused was set on July 10, 2001. No bail for petitioner's provisional
liberty was fixed. On April 24, 2001, petitioner filed a "Motion to Quash or Suspend" the Amended Information on the ground that
the Anti-Plunder Law, Republic Act No. 7080, is unconstitutional and that it charged more than one offense.

Respondent Ombudsman opposed the motion. On April 25, 2001, the respondent court issued a warrant of arrest for
petitioner and his co-accused. On its basis, petitioner and his co-accused were placed in custody of the law. On April 30, 2001,
petitioner filed a "Very Urgent Omnibus Motion" alleging that: (1) no probable cause exists to put him on trial and hold him liable for
plunder, it appearing that he was only allegedly involved in illegal gambling and not in a "series or combination of overt or criminal
acts" as required in R.A. No. 7080; and (2) he is entitled to bail as a matter of right. On July 9, 2001, the Sandiganbayan issued a
Resolution denying petitioner's "Motion to Quash and Suspend" and "Very Urgent Omnibus Motion."

Petitioner's alternative prayer to post bail was set for hearing after arraignment of all the accused. The Amended
Information is divided into three parts: (1) the first paragraph charges former President Joseph E. Estrada with the crime of plunder
together with petitioner Jose "Jinggoy" Estrada, Charlie "Atong" Ang, Edward Serapio, Yolanda Ricaforte and others; (2) the second
paragraph spells out in general terms how the accused conspired in committing the crime of plunder; and (3) the four sub-
paragraphs (a) to (d) describe in detail the predicate acts constitutive of the crime of plunder pursuant to items (1) to (6) of R.A. No.
7080, and state the names of the accused who committed each act.

Pertinent to the case at bar is the predicate act alleged in subparagraph (a) of the Amended Information which is of
"receiving or collecting, directly or indirectly, on several instances, money in the aggregate amount of P545,000,000.00 for illegal
gambling in the form of gift, share, percentage, kickback or any form of pecuniary benefit…" In this subparagraph (a), petitioner, in
conspiracy with former President Estrada, is charged with the act of receiving or collecting money from illegal gambling amounting
to P545 million.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada may be tried for plunder, it appearing that he was only allegedly
involved in one act or offense that is illegal gambling and not in a "series or combination of overt or criminal acts" as required in R.A.
No. 7080.

RULING: IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is dismissed for failure to show that the respondent Sandiganbayan acted without or in
excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
In the case at bar, the information alleged in general terms how the accused committed the crime of plunder. It used the
words "in connivance/ conspiracy with his co-accused." These words are sufficient to allege the conspiracy of the accused with the
former President in committing the crime of plunder.
Contrary to petitioner's contention, he was not charged with the commission of only one act, considering the phrase "on
several instances" stated in the Amended Information. Petitioner's contention that R.A. 7080 does not apply to him is principally
based on the premise that the amended information charged him with only one act or offense which cannot constitute plunder.

The allegation in the information is that petitioner Jinggoy received or collected money from illegal gambling "on several
instances", meaning he committed the predicate act in series. Thus, contrary to petitioner's contention, it cannot be said that he was
charged with the commission of only one act, considering the phrase "several instances".
When conspiracy is charged as a mode of committing a crime, as in the case at bar, there is less necessity of reciting its
particularities because conspiracy is not the gravamen of the offence charged. The conspiracy is significant only because it changes
the criminal liability of all the accused in the conspiracy and makes them answerable as co-principals regardless of the degree of
their participation in the crime. The liability of the conspirators is collective and each participant will be equally responsible for the
acts of others, for the act of one is the act of all.
G.R. No. L-65017 November 13, 1989
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
STALIN GUEVARRA y PAPASIN accused-appellant.
The Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Pedro A. Venida for accused-appellant.
SARMIENTO, J.:

FACTS:

On November 29, 1980, Joselito de los Reyes, twenty-three years of age, assistant chief security guard at "Baklad" Naujan Oriental
Mindoro, together with Teofilo Martinez, a thirty-two year-old fisherman of Bancurro Naujan attended a dance sponsored by the
San Agustin Barangay High School. Teofilo saw Eduardo Romero (still at large) and Stalin Guevarra together at the dance hall.

The affair was interrupted abruptly when someone stoned the school. At about midnight, Joselito and Teofilo went home to
Bancurro. Together with them were Rosabel , Magno and Babylyn Martinez, both students, seventeen and seventeen and eighteen
years of age, respectively.

Along the way, Teofilo held a flashlight to illuminate the rocky path whereon Joselito, Rosabel, and Babylyn walked. Suddenly, they
were waylaid by Stalin and Eduardo. Stalin, 27 years old, went immediately behind Joselito, and embraced him with both hands.

Joselito struggled from the clutches of Stalin but in vain; the firm embrace locked the whole body
and both arms of Joselito. Facing the hapless Joselito, Eduardo got his knife from his pocket, opened it, and thrust the shiny and
pointed end of the weapon at the right side of Joselito's body just below his navel. "May tama ako," were the words uttered by
Joselito just before he fell to the ground.

Teofilo, Babylyn, and Rosabel froze where they stood. The abruptness of the incident petrified them. But after the stabbing the
assailants fled in the direction of San Agustin and disappeared in the dark. The beam of light from the flashlight Teofilo carried,
however, was sufficient to enable him and his two female companions to witness clearly the stabbing of Joselito and to recognize
the appellant and Eduardo Romero, both known to them (Teofilo, Babylyn, and Rosabel), as the perpetrators of the crime.

Bathed in blood, the victim was pedalled in a tricycle to the Naujan Police Station. Unfortunately, Private First Class (Pfc) Henry
Aceremo, the officer-in-charge, was not able to get an ante mortem statement because the victim could hardly talk. He was hovering
between life and death when he was rushed to the clinic of Dr. Nicolas B. Balbin.

As a result of the mortal wound inflicted by Eduardo Romero, Joselito died.

Dr. Nicolas B. Balbin who conducted a post mortem examination, certified that the cause of death was hemorrhage within the
adbominal cavity, and that the wound might have been caused by a sharp-bladed instrument, probably a "balisong."

As a consequence, Pfcs Bautista and Aceremo accompanied by Rosabel and Babylyn, went to the house of the appellant where he
was found drunk. As to Eduardo, he vanished from the barrio without a trace.

The appellant vehemently denies killing Joselito de los Reyes. He argues that if indeed he had embraced the victim from behind to
facilitate the commission of the crime without posing any danger to his supposed co-conspirator or without fear of reprisal from the
victim, then he could have fled the scene out of a sense of guilt, out of fear, or to avoid arrest and ultimate imprisonment.

Stalin Guevarra was convicted of murder by the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Oriental Mindoro. On appeal,
the then Intermediate Appellate Court (now Court of Appeals) rendered judgment on August 17, 1983, increasing the indeterminate
penalty from "TEN (10) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY, of prision mayor, as minimum, to SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS and FOUR (4) MONTHS, of
reclusion temporal, as maximum, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of P12,000.00, without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs," imposed by the trial court, to reclusion perpetua, and affirmed in all other
respects the appealed decision.
The Court of Appeals ruled that the crime committed by the appellant is "murder as the killing is qualified by evident
premeditation."

ISSUE: Whether or not Stalin Guevarra is guilty of murder qualified by treachery and through conspiracy. (yes)

RULING: WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION as to the civil indemnity, which is hereby increased
to P30,000.00.

Although here there is no well founded evidence that the appellant and Romero had conferred and agreed to kill Joselito, their
complicity can be justified by circumstantial evidence, that is, their community of purpose and their unity of design in the
contemporaneous or simultaneous performance of the act of assaulting the deceased.

The appellant cooperated with Romero in the commission of the offense by another act without which it would not have been
accomplished. Therefore, the appellant is guilty as a principal by indispensable cooperation under Article 17, paragraph 3 of the
Revised Penal Code.

The requisites for criminal liability under this provision are: 1) participation in the criminal resolution, i.e., there is either anterior
conspiracy or unity of criminal purpose and intention immediately before or simultaneously with the commission of the crime
charged; and 2) cooperation in the commission of the offense by performing another act without which it would not have been
accomplished.

At the locus criminis was the appellant. His presence did not merely give aid or support, but emboldened the attacker as the victim
was immobilized by the appellant.

There can be no question that the appellant's act in holding the victim from behind immediately before the latter was stabbed by
Eduardo constitutes a positive and an overt act towards the realization of a common criminal intent, although the intent may be
classified as instantaneous.

The act was impulsively done on the spur of the moment. It sprang from the turn of events, thereby uniting with the criminal design
of the slayer immediately before the commission of the offense.

That is termed as implied conspiracy. The appellant's voluntary and indispensable cooperation was a concurrence of the criminal act
to be executed. Consequently, he is a co-conspirator by indispensable cooperation, although the common desire or purpose was
never bottled up by a previous undertaking.

G.R. No. 125214 October 28, 1999

FACTS:
The case before the Court is the appeal of accused spouses Elpidio Hernando and Elena Aban Hernando from the decision 1
of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 34, Manila, convicting each of them of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2 (d) of the Revised
Penal Code, and sentencing them "to each suffer imprisonment of thirty (30) years of reclusion perpetua" and to indemnify
complainant Johnny Sy the sum of P700,000.00.
On September 20, 1995, complainant Johnny Sy filed with the Office of the City Prosecutor, Manila, a complaintaffidavit
against accused spouses Elpidio Hernando and Elena Aban Hernando alleging that the checks they issued to him on different dates
were dishonored upon presentment to the bank for payment due to "Account Closed."
 On December 22, 1995, Manila Assistant Prosecutor Daniel C. Villanueva filed with the Regional Trial Court, Manila, an
information charging accused spouses Elpidio Hernando and Elena Aban Hernando with estafa, that between May 11, 1995 and June
21, 1995, the spouses issued the following checks:
1. 046-081102 May 25, 1995 P100,000.00
2. 046-081103 May 13, 1995 150,000.00
3. 046-081114 May 11, 1995 100,000.00
4. 046-081115 June 21, 1995 50,000.00
5. 046-081116 June 8, 1995 200,000.00
6. 046-081117 June 20, 1995 100,000.00
or in the total amount of P700,000.00 in exchange for cash received from JOHNNY SY on the same day, that upon presentation of
the said check to the bank for payment, the same were dishonored and payment thereof refused for ACCOUNT CLOSED and said
accused, notwithstanding due notice to him by the said complainant of such dishonor of the said checks, failed and refused and still
fails and refuses to deposit the necessary amount to cover the amount of the checks, to the damage and prejudice of the said
JOHNNY SY in the aforesaid amount of P700,000.00, Philippine Currency.
Of all the issues of the checks, only on the first time did Elena was seen with Elpidio. There in which Elena signed and issued
the first check to Johnny. Elpidio gave all other checks already signed by Elena to Johnny alone for all other instances.
In the second week of July 1995, Elena requested Johnny not to deposit the checks because Elpidio would pay them in cash.
However, Elpidio failed to redeem the checks. When Johnny deposited the checks sometime on July 28, 1995 or August 1, 1995, with
Equitable Banking Corporation, they were dishonored because the account from which the checks were drawn had been closed on
July 18, 1995 due to overdraft.
On the day that the account was closed, Herban Trading indicated a zero balance. 8 Checks bearing the numbers 046-
081102, 046-081103, O46-081104, 046-081116, and 046-081117, were all dishonored upon presentment for payment to the bank
because the account had been closed.
In December 1995, Johnny called Elpidio over the telephone and demanded payment. Instead of paying Elpidio told
complainant to "just wait," further threatening him that he had goons from Quiapo and plenty of friends who were politicians like
governors, congressmen and mayors.
Complainant Johnny Sy waited for ten (10) months for accused spouses to pay. However, accused spouses failed topay the
value of the five checks, prompting Johnny to file the complaint for estafa with the City Prosecutor's Office.
The trial court, finding both accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa defined and punished under Art.
315, par. 2 sub-paragraph d in relation to Art. 315, par. 1 of the Revised Penal Code, both accused are hereby sentenced to each
suffer imprisonment of thirty (30) years of reclusion perpetua (P.D. 818 amending 315 of the Revised Penal Code).
Both accused are hereby ordered to indemnify the victim/complainant, Johnny Sy, the sum of P700,000.00 representing the
value of the checks, subject matter of this offense. Both accused shall be credited with the full extent of their preventive
imprisonment.

ISSUE: Whether or not Elpido is guilty of estafa through conspiracy.

RULING: WHEREFORE, the Court hereby AFFIRMS with modification the decision of the trial court in Criminal Case No. 95-146895,
finding accused spouses Elpidio Hernando and Elena Aban Hernando guilty beyond reasonable doubt of estafa, defined and
penalized under Article 315, paragraph 2 (d) of the Revised Penal Code, and sentencing each of them to suffer an indeterminate
penalty of twelve (12) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to thirty (30) years of
reclusion perpetua, as maximum, and to indemnify complainant Johnny Sy in the amount of P700,000.00.

Where the acts of the accused collectively and individually demonstrate the existence of a common design towards the
accomplishment of the same unlawful purpose, conspiracy is evident, and all the perpetrators will be liable as principals." "Direct
proof is not necessary to prove conspiracy but may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during and after committing the
crime which suggests that they acted in concert and in pursuance of the same
Objective.

There was conspiracy. Considering the relationship between the accused, it is impossible that Elpidio would not be aware of the
state of their finances. Both husband and wife, during that time, were aware that the checks issued by the wife were not funded.
G.R. Nos. 75440-43 February 14, 1989
ALEJANDRO G. MACADANGDANG, petitioner,
vs.
HON. SANDIGANBAYAN (Third Division) and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
Venus A. Lucero for petitioner.
The Solicitor General for respondents.
RESOLUTION
GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:

Facts: Alejandro G. Macadangdang, budget officer of the Bureau of Posts for the Province of La Union, five other postal officials of
the province, the auditing examiner and property inspector of the Provincial Auditor's Office and three private persons dealing with
them were charged in four (4) informations for estafa through falsification of public documents filed with the Sandiganbayan.

The charges arose out of the loss of P26,523.00 resulting from falsified vouchers for the repair of postal vehicles in La Union when no
such repairs were made.

The four informations are identical except for the amounts, the vehicles, and the private persons involved in each case.

In Criminal Case No. 6681 – the above-named accused, Genaro Basilio, Regional Director; Alejandro G. Macadangdang, Budget
Officer; Agustin V. Talino, Accountant III; Bernardo Togade, Administrative Assistant III; Ernesto Larra, Supply Officer; Pio Ulat,
Motorpool Dispatcher; all of the Bureau of Post of La Union and Renato Valdez, Auditing Examiner & Property Inspector of the
Provincial Auditor's Office of La Union, defraud the Republic of the Philippines by falsifying public documents with 1) the amount
misappropriated was P7,600.00; 2) the vehicle involved was identified as Mail Toyota Jeep J-10 of the La Union Post Office; 3) the
firm which allegedly supplied labor and materials for the repair of the subject vehicle was the Flora Ben Motor Works, owned by
accused Benjamin Flora.
In criminal Case No. 6682 — 1) the amount misappropriated was P4,723.00; 2) the vehicle involved was identified as Philippine Mail
Truck FF-45; and 3) the firm which allegedly supplied labor and materials for the repair of the subject vehicle was the Flora Ben
Motor Works, owned by accused Benjamin Flora.

In Criminal Case No. 6683 — 1) the amount misappropriated was P7,500.00; 2) the vehicle which was supposed to be repaired was
identified as Mail Truck DT-320; and 3) the repair of the subject vehicle was supposed to have been made by a machine shop owned
by accused Carlos Soliman.

In Criminal Case No. 6684 — 1) the amount misappropriated was P6,700.00; 2) the vehicle involved was identified as Isuzu Mail
Truck V-155; and 3) the repair of this vehicle was supposed to have been made by the Maglaya Motor Works owned by accused
Rodrigo Maglaya.
When arraigned, all the accused pleaded "Not Guilty", Upon agreement of the parties, all the cases were tried jointly.

However, after the presentation of the prosecution's evidence, accused Basilio, Talino, and Macadangdang were granted separate
trials.

After trial on the merits, the Court found the government officers, namely: 1) Genaro T. Basilio, Pio Ulat, Renato M. Valdez, Agustin
V. Talino and Alejandro G. Macadangdang guilty as charged. The private persons, Benjamin Flora, Carlos Soliman and Rodrigo
Maglaya were acquitted.
The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

In Criminal Cases Nos. 6682, 6683 and 6684, We find and declare Genaro T. Basilio, Pio B. Ulat, Renato M. Valdez, Agustin V. Talino
and Alejandro G. Macadangdang, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt, as principals for four separate crimes of Estafa Through
Falsification of Public Documents. Because neither aggravating nor extenuating circumstances have been alleged or proved, but
applying Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code as well as the Indeterminate Sentence Law; each one of the above named accused is
sentenced to suffer in each of the four cases, an indeterminate penalty ranging from Four (4) Years, Two (2) Months and One (1) Day
ofi prision correccional as minimum, to Ten (10) Years and One (1) Day of prision mayor as maximum; pay a fine of P5,000.00;
solidarily indemnify the Republic of the Philippines the sum of P7,600.00, P4,723.00, P7,500.00 and P6,700.00 — in Criminal Cases
Nos. 6681, 6682, 6683 and 6684, respectively; pay the costs in each case.

A motion for reconsideration of the decision filed by the petitioner together with Agustin V. Talino was denied. Hence, this petition.
In an extended minute resolution dated March 26, 1987, we dismissed the petition. Before us now is a motion for reconsideration of
the resolution.
Issue: Whether or not Alejandro Macadangdang is guilty of the FOUR (4) CRIMES of ESTAFA through falsification of public
documents in Criminal Cases Numbered 6681, 6682, 6683 and 6684. (No)

Ruling: WHEREFORE, the petitioner's motion for reconsideration is GRANTED. The decision of the Sandiganbayan is MODIFIED in
that the petitioner Alejandro Macadangdang is ACQUITTED of the FOUR (4) CRIMES of ESTAFA through falsification of public
documents in Criminal Cases Numbered 6681, 6682, 6683 and 6684 on grounds of reasonable doubt.

There is no testimony in the records to show the petitioner's participation in the conspiracy. The only material proofs forming the
basis for conviction are his signatures on the vouchers and the request for obligation of allotment. The petitioner explains his not
having questioned the three new vouchers in the afternoon of May 23, 1980 by stating that he had so many documents and
transactions to attend to them. He explains that it was humanly impossible to have known that the second set of vouchers covered
the same three (3) vehicles under the first set of vouchers.

The court find that the petitioner, a mere budget officer, signed the vouchers and prepared the necessary "Request for Obligation
and Allotment" as part of standard operating procedures. It does not follow that he was part of the conspiracy to defraud. The
petitioner claims that as a budget officer he had no authority or duty to go beyond what appears on the face of the documents
supporting the vouchers, as this duty properly belongs to the other officers who individually prepared the documents. He should
have been more careful. His lack of care, however, may be ground for administrative action but it does not give rise to criminal
culpability absent more evidence against him.

Every person who signs or initials documents in the course of their transit through standard operating procedures does not
automatically become a conspirator in a crime which transpired at a stage where he had no participation. His knowledge of the
conspiracy and his active and knowing participation therein must be proved by positive evidence.

Finally, the proceeds of the four (4) checks covering the voucher admittedly were turned over by Ulat to a certain Mrs. Hufano,
disbursing officer of the Bureau, to redeem certain cash advances of some officers. There is no evidence to show that the petitioner
profited or benefited from the scheme for which he was convicted.