Today is Saturday, May 23, 2020

Constitution Statutes Executive Issuances Judicial Issuances Other Issuances Jurisprudence International Legal Resources AUSL Exclusive

EN BANC

G.R. No. 71523-25 December 8, 2000

ROLANDO SANTOS y RAMIREZ, petitioner,

vs.
SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

x-----------------------x

G.R. No. 72420-22 December 8, 2000

JESUS E. ESTACIO, petitioner,

vs.
SANDIGANBAYAN, respondent.

x-----------------------x

G.R. No. 72384-86 December 8, 2000

ALFREDO R. FAJARDO, JR., petitioner,

vs.
SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

x-----------------------x

G.R. No. 72387-89 December 8, 2000

MARCELO S. DESIDERIO, petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and SANDIGANBAYAN, respondents.

DECISION

BUENA, J.:

Challenged in these four separate petitions for review on certiorari is the Decision dated July 19, 19851 of the
Sandiganbayan disposing of Criminal Case Nos. 5949 to 5951 as follows:

"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered, finding accused Alfredo Fajardo, Jr. alias Boy Fajardo, Marcelo
Desiderio y Silvestre, Jesus Estacio y Estrella and Rolando Santos y Ramirez alias Mickey Mouse, GUILTY as co-
principals in the three (3) separate complex crimes of Estafa Thru Falsification of Public Documents and hereby
sentences them as follows:

"1. In Criminal Case No. 5949, there being no modifying circumstance in attendance, each of said accused to
suffer the indeterminate penalty ranging from FOUR (4) YEARS, TWO (2) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of
prision correccional as the minimum, to TEN (10) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor as the/
 maximum; to pay a fine of ₱5,000.00 each, to indemnify, jointly and severally, the Bank of the Philippine
Islands and/or the Central Bank of the Philippines in the amount of P1 million representing the amount
defrauded, and to pay their proportionate costs of said action;

"2. In Criminal Case No. 5950, there being no modifying circumstance in attendance, sentences each of said
accused to suffer the indeterminate penalty ranging from FOUR (4) YEARS, TWO (2) MONTHS and ONE (1)
DAY of prision correccional as the minimum, to TEN (10) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor as the
maximum, to pay a fine of ₱5,000.00 each, to indemnify, jointly and severally, the Bank of the Philippine
Islands and/or the Central Bank of the Philippines, in the amount of ₱3 million representing the amount
defrauded, and to pay their proportionate share of the costs of said action;

"3. In Criminal Case No. 5951, there being no modifying circumstance in attendance, sentences each of them
to suffer the indeterminate penalty ranging from FOUR (4) YEARS, TWO (2) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of
prision correccional as the minimum, to TEN (10) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor as the
maximum, to pay a fine of ₱5,000.00 each, to indemnify, jointly and severally, the Bank of the Philippine
Islands in the amount of ₱5 million representing the amount defrauded, and to pay their proportionate share
of the costs of said action.

"Accused Estacio, Fajardo, Jr., Santos and Desiderio appear to have been detained at the NBI as of February 16,
1982 by virtue of a Presidential Commitment Order, although all of them were later bonded and released on different
dates, except Santos who has remained in custody up to the present. Accordingly, they should be granted the
benefits of such preventive imprisonment under Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, as follows:
Santos from February 16, 1982 up to the date of the promulgation of this decision; Estacio up to April 29, 1985;
Fajardo, Jr. up to April 26, 1982 and Desiderio up to April 19, 1982.

"Let copies of this decision be furnished the Hon. Governor, Central Bank; the Citibank; the Bank of the Philippine
Islands and the Bankers Association of the Philippines for their information and guidance.

"SO ORDERED."

On April 15, 1982, the Tanodbayan filed with the Sandiganbayan three (3) informations for estafa thru falsification of
public documents against Felipe Salamanca, Mariano Bustamante, Basilio Tan, Alfredo Fajardo, Jr., Jesus Estacio,
Rolando San Pedro, Manuel Valentino, Rolando Santos, Marcelo Desiderio, Jaime Tan and Emilio Reyes.2 The
informations filed were similarly worded except for the dates of commission of the crime charged, the number of the
checks involved, and the amounts allegedly misappropriated. Thus:

"That on or about (October 19, 1981 in Crim. Case No. 5949, November 20, 1981 in Crim. Case No. 5950, and
October 30, 1981 in Crim. Case No. 5951), in the City of Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
accused Manuel Valentino, employed as Bookkeeper detailed at the Clearing Office, Central Bank of the Philippines
and accused Jesus Estacio y Estrella, employed as Janitor-Messenger of the Central Bank of the Philippines, and
as such are public employees, with abuse of confidence and taking advantage of their official position, in order to
implement a plan or scheme to defraud the Bank of the Philippine Islands, Laoag City Branch, which plan or scheme
was previously formulated and agreed upon by all the herein accused immediately prior to (October 19, 1981 in
Crim. Case No. 5949, November 20, 1981 in Crim. Case No. 5950, and October 30, 1981 in Crim. Case No. 5951),
accused Manuel Valentino pursuant to said plan or scheme, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
and taking advantage of his official position and with intent to gain and to defraud, falsify the Clearing Statement
prepared by the Central Clearing office of the Bank of the Philippine Islands and submitted to the Clearing Section of
the Central Bank of the Philippines as well as the Manifest prepared by the Central Bank Clearing Office in
connection thereto by crossing out the entry in the duplicate copies of the aforesaid Clearing Statement and
Manifest which entries refer to Check No. (27101 in Crim. Case No. 5949, 27111 in Crim. Case No. 5950, and
27108 in Crim. Case No. 5951) and Check No. (27105 in Crim. Case No. 5949, 27118 in Crim. Case No. 5950 and
27121 in Crim. Case No. 5951) issued by accused Bustamante against his checking account at the Bank of
Philippine Islands, Laoag City Branch, which has only an outstanding balance of ₱1,000.00 and which checks were
deposited in the current account of Magna Management Consultant with the Citibank Greenhills Branch by accused
Rolando San Pedro and as a result of the aforesaid falsification which made it appear that no such checks were
submitted by the Bank of Philippine Islands to the Central Bank of the Philippines for clearing, the Bank of the
Philippine Islands, Laoag City Branch has not issued any notice of dishonor or stop payment to the Citibank
Greenhills Branch, and as a consequence thereof accused Rolando San Pedro was able to withdraw from the
Citibank the full amount of the two checks amounting to (₱1,000,000.00 in Crim. Case No. 5949, ₱3,000,000.00 in
Crim. Case No. 5950, and ₱5,000,000.00 in Crim. Case No. 5951) and thereafter all the accused appropriated
among themselves the proceeds thereof to their own personal use and benefit and to the damage and prejudice of
the Central Bank of the Philippines or the Bank of the Philippine Islands, Laoag City Branch in the aforementioned
amount of (₱1,000,000.00 in Crim. Case No. 5949, ₱3,000,000.00 in Crim. Case No. 5950, and ₱5,000,000.00 in
Crim. Case No. 5951)."
/
Upon arraignment, accused Fajardo, Jr. @ Boy Fajardo, Desiderio, Estacio, Valentino and Santos, assisted by their
respective counsel, pleaded not guilty to the crimes charged.3 Salamanca, Basilio Tan, Jaime Tan, Reyes and
Bustamante have remained at-large while San Pedro died. Upon agreement of the prosecution and the defense, a
joint trial of the three cases was ordered conducted.4

Estacio was first discharged as an accused to be utilized as a state witness.5 Later, he filed a motion for his re-
inclusion in the information as an accused allegedly for the sake of the safety of his family. The Sandiganbayan
granted his motion and thus he was re-included as an accused in Crim. Case Nos. 5949-5951.6 The prosecution
also moved for the discharge of Valentino as an accused but the Sandiganbayan denied that motion. Exercising its
discretion, the Sandiganbayan eventually discharged Valentino from the three informations to be a state witness.7

The antecedent facts that gave rise to the instant petitions are as follows:

Sometime in 1981, a syndicate masterminded by Felipe Salamanca infiltrated the Clearing Center of the Central
Bank of the Philippines (Central Bank, for brevity). In its operation, the syndicate employed two schemes: the
switching scheme, and the pilferage scheme.

In the switching scheme, a syndicate would open a current account with such banks as the Bank of America (BA)
and the Philippine Veterans Bank (PVB) in Iloilo. As a matter of procedure, checks drawn on the BA were forwarded
to the Central Bank for clearing. Upon receipt of those checks by the clearing clerk of the Central Bank, who was a
member of the syndicate, he would substitute those checks with ones bearing the stamp of another bank. Thus,
instead of forwarding the checks to the BA, these were misrouted to cause delay in the clearing procedure. Upon
the lapse of the clearing period, the depositor would withdraw the amount of the checks. However, the scheme
faltered as the huge amounts covered by the checks caused suspicion on the part of the PVB. It called up the BA to
inquire about those checks and hence, the former bank discovered that the checks were insufficiently funded.

In the pilferage scheme, current accounts would be opened with a provincial bank, such as the Bank of the
Philippine Islands (BPI), Laoag branch, and a city bank such as the Citibank-Greenhills, Manila. A BPI check
deposited with Citibank would then be forwarded to the Central Bank clearing house where members of the
syndicate, who were employed there, would pilfer the check and alter the Central Bank manifest and the entries in
the clearing bank statements. The pilferage was intended to provide opportunity for the syndicate to blot out entries
referring to the pilfered check. Consequently, BPI-Laoag would not know that a check drawn on it had been
deposited with Citibank. After the lapse of the five-day clearing period, the syndicate would withdraw the amount
deposited from Citibank simply because said bank would have considered the check cleared and funded, as no
protest or notice of dishonor could be received from BPI-Laoag. In utilizing this scheme in the commission of the
crimes charged in Criminal Case Nos. 5949 to 5951, the syndicate netted Nine Million Pesos (₱9,000,000.00).

EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION

The prosecution offered the testimonies of sixteen (16) witnesses,8 and documentary evidence marked Exhibits "A"
to "DD", and Annexes "B" to "QQ", with sub-markings, to prove the following:

On October 14, 1981, one Mariano Bustamante9 opened a savings account with BPI-Laoag with an initial deposit of
₱3,000.00: ₱2,000.00 of which was in check, and ₱1,000.00 in cash.10 That same day, he opened a current account
with ₱1,000.00 as initial deposit in the same bank. Upon his request, a checkbook was issued to him.11

That same month, Marcelo Desiderio, allegedly a representative of Magna Management Consultant, approached
Maria Nieves Garrido, personal banker of Citibank-Greenhills, and requested signature cards and other
requirements for the purpose of opening a current account. Thereafter, Desiderio returned to the bank, submitted
the required documents and duly accomplished forms, and made an initial deposit of ₱10,000.00. Thus, a checking
account in the name of Magna Management Consultant was opened in Citibank-Greenhills with Rolando San Pedro
as its representative. A checkbook was given to Desiderio.12

On October 15, 1981, at the Ramada Hotel, Felipe Salamanca informed Manuel Valentino that two (2) checks were
to be deposited with Citibank the following day. Salamanca instructed Valentino to watch out for those checks in the
clearing house at the Central Bank. On October 16, 1981, two (2) checks in the amounts of Four Hundred Ninety-
Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Nineteen Pesos (₱498,719.00), and Five Hundred One Thousand Two Hundred
Sixty Pesos and Thirty Centavos (₱501,260.30) were indeed deposited with the Citibank-Greenhills under the
current account of Magna Management Consultant, represented by Rolando San Pedro. On October 30, 1981, two
(2) more checks were deposited at the same bank in the total amount of ₱3,000,000.00. Another deposit of checks
was made on November 20, 1981 in the total amount of ₱5,000,000.00. All these checks were brought to the
Central Bank Clearing Center.

The checks deposited on October 16, 1981 did not reach the Central Bank on that day, which was a Friday, but on
Monday, October 19, 1981. Manuel Valentino, a bookkeeper at the Clearing Operations Division of the Central/
Bank, received from Jesus Estacio, a Central Bank janitor-messenger, the demand envelope containing the two (2)
BPI-Laoag checks in the total amount of ₱1,000,000.00 in the comfort room on the fourth floor of the Central Bank
administration building. Therein Valentino altered the amount of ₱1,076,416.95 by crossing out the amount of One
Million Pesos. Thus, under the column "Total amount received", only the amount of ₱76,416.95 was reflected in
order that BPI-Laoag would not look for the ₱1 million check.13 Valentino then brought the altered clearing statement
back to the Clearing Center and prepared a Central Bank Manifest where he changed the figure in the original copy
to tally with those in the altered clearing statement.

On October 30, 1981, the syndicate employed the same scheme. As soon as the demand envelope containing the
BPI-Laoag checks arrived, Valentino took it and gave it to Jesus Estacio who then brought the same to the comfort
room at the fourth floor. Valentino followed him there and took the two BPI checks amounting to ₱3,000,000.00, and
altered the figures in the BPI Clearing Statement. Valentino thereafter brought said envelopes to the clearing house,
and prepared the Central Bank Manifest, likewise altering the figures in the original to tally with the figures in the
altered clearing statement.

At the last operation on November 20, 1981, the group followed the same procedure – Valentino asked Estacio to
give him the demand envelope and the former then went to the comfort room. Valentino took the two BPI-Laoag
checks in the total amount of ₱5,000,000.00 which he later gave to Salamanca. Again, he altered the figures in the
clearing statement and those in the Central Bank Manifest so that these would conform with each other.14

As a matter of procedure, the demand envelopes containing the checks intended for BPI-Laoag, the altered Central
Bank Manifests, and the clearing statements were forwarded to the Regional Clearing Center. The pilfered checks
deposited in the account of Magna Management Consultant were not included in those envelopes. Because BPI-
Laoag did not receive the checks with a total value of ₱9,000,000.00, these were not processed. Consequently, as
no objection or protest regarding the checks were registered and no notice of dishonor of the checks for insufficient
funds was made by the BPI-Laoag, and since the reglementary period for making such protest or notice of dishonor
had elapsed, Citibank-Greenhills considered the checks as good and funded.

Hence, on different dates covering the period from October 26 to December 6, 1981, Citibank-Greenhills allowed
withdrawals in the aggregate amount of ₱9,000,000.00 from the account of Magna Management Consultant.
Withdrawals were made through checks endorsed by Rolando San Pedro and encashed by Jaime R. Tan.15 The
proceeds of the anomalous transactions were divided among the members of the syndicate. Salamanca gave
Estacio ₱10,000.00 after the October 19, 1981 operation, ₱4,900.00 after the October 30, 1981 operation and
₱5,000.00 after the November 20, 1981 operation. Valentino received ₱20,000.00, ₱10,000.00 and ₱20,000.00 after
the October 16 and 30, and November 20, 1981 operations.

On January 28, 1982, Segundo Gonzaga, then Administrative Assistant for Transit Center (Clearing Center of BPI),
was informed through a long distance telephone call by the manager of BPI-Laoag that their clearing transactions on
October 19, 1981, October 30, 1981 and November 20, 1981 registered an outstanding discrepancy of
₱9,000,000.00 as reflected in their inter-office reconciliation statement. The manager of BPI-Laoag and the BPI
Regional Manager for Northern Luzon who went to the office at BPI-Ayala showed the clearing statements to
Gonzaga. Upon comparing the xerox copies of the BPI Clearing Statements (Laoag copies) and xerox copies of the
clearing envelope sent to Citibank Manila, Gonzaga noticed the alterations. Thus, he went to the Accounting
Department of BPI-Ayala and found out that the Central Bank debited their bank in the amount of ₱9,000,000.00.16

Gonzaga went to Citibank-Greenhills and talked to Jake Ocampo, its assistant manager, about the clearing items.
After checking their outgoing clearing checks for October 19, 1981, October 30, 1981 and November 20, 1981,
Ocampo told Gonzaga that they did not recall said clearing checks. He gave Gonzaga reproduced microfilm copies
of those checks. Gonzaga submitted the checks to his superiors with an accompanying report.17 The BPI and the
Central Bank jointly referred the matter for investigation to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) which assigned
the case to Head Agent Salvador Ranin of the Special Investigation Division.18

On February 12, 1982, the Chief of the Anti-Bank Fraud Unit of the Central Bank, Atty. Agapito Fajardo, the bank’s
Chief Security Officer, and the BPI Vice-President and Comptroller brought Manuel Valentino to the NBI. The
following day, Agent Ranin took Valentino’s statement. Valentino waived his rights to remain silent and to counsel.
He signed the waiver on the first page of his statement. On March 22, 1982, Agent Ranin took Valentino’s
supplementary sworn statement. The same NBI agent took Jesus Estacio’s statement on February 17, 1982 and
supplementary statement on March 22, 1982. Like Valentino, Estacio waived his right to counsel. In their respective
statements, Valentino and Estacio admitted their participation in the commission of the crime, narrated how they
carried out the plan to defraud the banks, and identified those who participated in the criminal acts. After the
investigation, Agent Ranin came out with a Memorandum Report dated April 26, 1982.19

EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE

/
On December 2, 1969, the Central Bank of the Philippines employed Jesus Estacio as janitor-messenger. In 1978, a
certain Rico Javier introduced Estacio to Felipe Salamanca. When Salamanca learned that Estacio was connected
with the Central Bank, he asked Estacio if he knew any bookkeeper thereat as his compadre needed one. Estacio
replied that he would look for one. A week later, Salamanca called up Estacio and asked him if he had found a
bookkeeper. Estacio mentioned Manuel Valentino. Salamanca instructed Estacio to bring Valentino to Jack’s
Restaurant in Quezon City after office hours. In that restaurant, Estacio introduced Valentino to Salamanca.
Valentino was in turn introduced to Basilio Tan. During their conversation, Valentino told Salamanca about his work
as a bookkeeper at the Central Bank.20

Sometime in October 1981, Valentino requested Estacio to accompany him to the EDCOR office. There they met
Salamanca, Marcelo Desiderio, Rolando Santos and Basilio Tan. Salamanca told Estacio to stay outside the office
because the group was going to discuss something. Half an hour later, the group dispersed. That same month,
Estacio saw Romeo Villasanta, another accused, at the clearing office of the Central Bank. When Estacio asked
why Villasanta was there, the latter answered that he was "just expediting something." Estacio saw Villasanta for the
second time that same month talking with Valentino at the clearing office. Valentino asked Estacio to point out the
office of the Department of Economic Research to Villasanta because Villasanta would be doing some research.
Estacio went with Villasanta to the fourth floor and showed him the said office. Villasanta then inquired where the
comfort room in that floor was. Estacio thereafter went back to his work and did not see Villasanta anymore.21 1

On November 20, 1981, Valentino asked Estacio to bring an envelope to the fourth floor and to wait for him at its
lobby. Estacio acceded and later, Valentino arrived. Valentino took the envelope from Estacio and went to the
comfort room. Thereafter, Estacio went to the Clearing Office.22

Sometime in February 1982, upon learning that somebody from the NBI was looking for him, Estacio went to the
NBI. There he told Agent Ranin that he wanted to call a lawyer but Agent Ranin did not allow him to do so. Agent
Ranin investigated him from 5:30 p.m. until 7:30 p.m. on February 17, 1982. This continued the following day and
lasted a week. In the course of the investigation, Agent Ranin promised Estacio that he would not be harmed should
he cooperate and admit the charges against him, and that he would be freed once he becomes a state witness.
However, Agent Ranin hit him with a newspaper and poked his gun at him. Estacio was allowed to read the
statement before he signed it.23

On cross-examination, Estacio admitted that during his stay at the NBI for about two months, his wife and children
would visit him every week and he could talk to them freely.24 He was transferred to Muntinlupa and detained at the
Death Row for two years. On March 22, 1982, Agent Ranin took his second statement that was a continuation of his
first statement. He was unable to read his supplementary statement because of fear of Agent Ranin, who was
scaring him. He stressed that the statements he made before the NBI were not true and that he only signed those
documents25 because he was afraid of Agent Ranin.26

Rolando Santos came to know Felipe Salamanca when he sold his car to him (Salamanca) on installment with
₱15,000.00 as down payment with the balance of ₱20,000.00 to be paid in two or three months. He accepted partial
payment for the car. After a time, Salamanca fully paid the balance. In July 1981, Salamanca gave him ₱3,000.00.
Twice or thrice, Salamanca tried to convince him to join a scheme to defraud a bank. After Salamanca had paid him
the full price of the car, Salamanca asked him again to join his group. All he had to do was to open a checking
account. He could have easily facilitated this, being the Vice-President for Finance of American Steamship
Agencies. In those meetings with Salamanca where he was persuaded to open a checking account with a bank,
Basilio Tan, the son of a general and his classmate at San Beda College, Valentino, and Desiderio were present.
When he told Salamanca that he was not interested in the scheme to defraud a bank, as he was busy with his job,
Salamanca got mad. On October 20, 1981, an unidentified assailant shot him in his house. He sustained three (3)
gunshot wounds and was confined at the Parañaque Medical Center.27

Marcelo Desiderio came to know Felipe Salamanca sometime in July 1981 when Salamanca went to his office28
because he wanted to open an account with Citibank-Greenhills. Desiderio went to Citibank-New York to inquire
about the requirements for opening an account. Two days later, he gave Salamanca the bank forms and signature
cards to be accomplished. He learned from Salamanca that the forms would be filled up by Rolando San Pedro. For
the initial deposit, Salamanca gave him ₱10,000.00 in cash and check. He also received ₱2,500.00 as consultancy
fee. He went to Citibank-Greenhills to make the deposit and the bank issued him a checkbook.29

Desiderio denied that he was present in any meeting where Salamanca and his group discussed a plan to defraud a
bank. He acceded in opening the bank account at Citibank-Greenhills because Salamanca assured him that the
account would be opened in connection with a loan application with the Citibank of New York. He denied that
Salamanca’s group tasked him and Rolando Santos with opening accounts in Metro Manila banks, particularly with
Citibank-Greenhills. He denied knowing Santos and Estacio personally although he admitted that Estacio, with
Manuel Valentino, came to his office to deliver a tailored suit for a certain Atty. Martin. He further denied knowing
Jaime Tan but admitted knowing Alfredo Fajardo, who was his client when he was still connected with BPI.30
/
Alfredo Fajardo opted to waive his right to testify and said that he has no documentary evidence to present before
the Sandiganbayan.31 Another accused, Emilio Reyes, voluntarily surrendered to the Sandiganbayan and was
detained at the Security and Sheriff Services office.32 He filed a motion for reinvestigation on June 16, 1987 but it
was resolved against him.33 He pleaded not guilty to the charges against him.34 However, since July 17, 1989, Reyes
failed to appear for trial. On February 16, 1990, the Sandiganbayan acquitted him in these cases on account of the
prosecution’s failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.35 Because the cases against Reyes were tried in
absentia, the Sandiganbayan ordered that these be archived without prejudice to revival "for purposes of contempt
citation in the event that he shall have been apprehended and brought within the jurisdiction" of the court.36

Rolando San Pedro was arrested on March 22, 1988 at the vicinity of the Sandiganbayan.37 He entered a plea of
not guilty to the charges against him.38 On June 11, 1989, he died.39 Thus, the Sandiganbayan dismissed the cases
against him. In the Resolution of February 23, 1990, which was promulgated on March 12, 1990, the
Sandiganbayan resolved that the cases against Felipe Salamanca, Basilio Tan, Jaime Tan and Mariano
Bustamante be archived.40

As stated earlier, the Sandiganbayan convicted Estacio, Desiderio, Santos, and Fajardo of the complex crimes of
estafa thru falsification of public documents. Estacio, Desiderio and Fajardo filed separate motions for
reconsideration,41 while Santos filed with the Supreme Court a motion for extension of time to file a petition for
certiorari.42 On September 26, 1985, the Sandiganbayan denied those motions for reconsideration.43 Hence, the
instant petitions for review on certiorari that they individually filed with this Court, but which were consolidated in the
Resolution of December 10, 1985.44

In its consolidated comment on the petitions, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) questions the propriety of
raising factual issues in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of a Decision of the Sandiganbayan.45 The
OSG asserts that in such a petition, this Court’s jurisdiction is "confined to questions of law" and hence, this Court
"is not supposed to reweigh evidence but only to determine its substantiality." On this matter, in Filoteo, Jr. vs.
Sandiganbayan,46 this Court, after citing Jariol, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan,47 said:

"As amended by Republic Act No. 7975, Section 7 of P.D. No. 1606 expressly provides that `(d)ecisions and final
orders of the Sandiganbayan shall be appealable to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari raising
pure questions of law in accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.’ However, in exceptional cases, this Court
has taken cognizance of questions of fact in order to resolve legal issues, as where there was palpable error or
grave misapprehension of facts by the lower court. Criminal cases elevated by convicted public officials from the
Sandiganbayan deserve the same thorough treatment by this Court as criminal cases involving ordinary citizens
simply because the constitutional presumption of innocence must be overcome by proof beyond reasonable doubt.
In all criminal cases, a person’s life and liberty are at stake."

While only petitioner Estacio is a government employee in these cases, as the three others are private individuals, it
is in the light of this pronouncement that the instant petitions shall be considered and resolved. Moreover, in the
recent case of Armed Forces of the Philippines Mutual Benefit Association, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals,48 the
Court, citing Supreme Court Circular No. 2-90 dated March 9, 1990, held that a petition for review on certiorari
questioning the final judgment, order, or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial
Courts or other courts, may raise factual issues. In the exercise of its sound discretion, taking into account the
attendant circumstances, this Court retains the option of either taking cognizance of, and deciding such issues, or
referring the case to the proper court for determination. In these criminal cases, this Court chooses to take
cognizance of factual questions raised in the interest of proper administration of justice.

In their separate petitions, petitioners assert that there was no proof beyond reasonable doubt that they committed
the crimes charged principally because:

(a) the extrajudicial confessions of petitioner Estacio and Valentino are inadmissible in evidence as their right
to counsel was violated when said confessions were executed;

(b) the discharge of Valentino from the informations to be a state witness was improper; and

(c) conspiracy, which made all petitioners equally guilty, was not adequately proven.

Notably, petitioners Santos and Estacio aver that, should they be convicted as charged, they should be held
individually liable only as an accomplice.49

Relevant to petitioners’ contention on the admissibility of the extrajudicial confessions of petitioner Estacio and
Valentino is Article IV, Section 20 of the 1973 Constitution providing for the rights of an accused during custodial
investigation. It reads:

/
"No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. Any person under investigation for the commission
of an offense shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel, and to be informed of such rights. No force,
violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiates the free will shall be used against him. Any
confession obtained in violation of this section shall be inadmissible in evidence."

On the other hand, the first paragraph of Article III, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution states:

"(1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right
to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot
afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in
the presence of counsel."

A comparison of these provisions would readily show that the 1973 Constitution does not specify the right against
uncounselled waiver of the right to counsel, which is found in paragraph 1, Section 12, Article III of the 1987
Constitution. However, the latter constitutional provision cannot be applied to extrajudicial confessions made prior to
its date of effectivity. In Filoteo, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan, this Court held that:

"x x x the specific provision of the 1987 Constitution requiring that a waiver by an accused of his right to counsel
during custodial investigation must be made with the assistance of counsel may not be applied retroactively or in
cases where the extrajudicial confession was made prior to the effectivity of said Constitution. Accordingly, waivers
of the right to counsel during custodial investigation without the benefit of counsel during the effectivity of the 1973
Constitution should, by such argumentation, be admissible. Although a number of cases held that extrajudicial
confessions made while the 1973 Constitution was in force and effect, should have been made with the assistance
of counsel, the definitive ruling was enunciated only on April 26, 1983 when this Court, through Morales, Jr. vs.
Enrile, issued the guidelines to be observed by law enforcers during custodial investigation. The Court specifically
ruled that `(t)he right to counsel may be waived but the waiver shall not be valid unless made with the assistance of
counsel.’ Thereafter, in People vs. Luvendino, the Court through Mr. Justice Florentino P. Feliciano vigorously
taught:

`x x x. The doctrine that an uncounselled waiver of the right to counsel is not to be given legal effect was initially a
judge-made one and was first announced on 26 April 1983 in Morales vs. Enrile and reiterated on 20 March 1985 in
People vs. Galit. x x x.

‘While the Morales-Galit doctrine eventually became part of Section 12 (1) of the 1987 Constitution, that doctrine
affords no comfort to appellant Luvendino for the requirements and restrictions outlined in Morales and Galit have
no retroactive effect and do not reach waivers made prior to 26 April 1983 the date of promulgation of Morales.’"50

Clearly then, the Morales-Galit rulings are inapplicable in these cases as the extrajudicial confessions in question
here, were taken on February 13, February 17 and March 22, 1982, long before the date of promulgation of the
Morales Decision on April 26, 1983. Prior to this date, the guidelines requiring that waiver of the right to counsel by
an accused can be properly made only with the presence and assistance of counsel, had yet to be formulated and
pronounced by this Court.51

The rule on prospective application of "judge-made laws" was stressed in Co vs. Court of Appeals.52 In that case,
the Court, through then Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa, ruled that in accordance with Article 8 of the Civil Code
providing that "(j)udicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a part of the legal
system of the Philippines," and Article 4 of the same Code stating that "(l)aws shall have no retroactive effect,
unless the contrary is provided," the principle of prospectivity of statutes, original or amendatory, shall apply to
judicial decisions, which, although in themselves are not laws, are nevertheless evidences of what the law means.

As to the admissibility of the uncounselled waivers of Valentino and petitioner Estacio of their right to counsel during
custodial investigation, the intelligent and voluntary execution thereof should be determined. The pre-interrogation
advisories to the extrajudicial confessants uniformly state:

"01. QUESTION: Mr. MANUEL VALENTINO, we are informing you that you are under investigation in connection
with the alleged Estafa thru Falsification of Commercial/Official Documents committed at the Central Bank of the
Philippines. But before we ask you any question, you must understand your legal rights. You have the right to
remain silent. You have the right not to give any statement if you do not wish to. Anything you say may be used as
evidence against you in any proceeding. You are entitled to the assistance of counsel of your own choice. If you
cannot afford a lawyer and you want one, a lawyer will be appointed for you before we ask you any question. Now,
after having been so informed, are you still willing to give a free and voluntary statement and swear to tell the truth
and nothing but the truth in this investigation?

ANSWER: Yes, sir.

/
"02. Q: Are you willing to sign a Waiver of your rights?

"A: Yes, sir.

"WAIVER

"I have been advised of my right to remain silent; that anything that I say may be used as evidence against me and
that I have the right to a lawyer to be present with me while I am being questioned.

"I understand these rights and I am willing to make a statement and answer questions. I do not want the assistance
of counsel and I understand and know whag (sic) I am doing. No promises or threats have been made to me and no
force or pressure of any kind has been used against me.

(Sgd. with thumbmark)

MANUEL VALENTINO y SOCAN

13 February 1982, NBI, Manila"53

It is settled that once the prosecution has shown that there was compliance with the constitutional requirement on
pre-interrogation advisories, a confession is presumed to be voluntary and the declarant bears the burden of proving
that his confession is involuntary and untrue.54 The defense attempted to prove that Valentino and petitioner Estacio
were subjected to threats and intimidation at the NBI to obtain their confessions. Other than their bare assertions,
Valentino and petitioner Estacio miserably failed to present any convincing evidence to prove the NBI’s use of force
or intimidation on their persons. Before signing their statements, they never protested against any form of
intimidation, much more, of maltreatment that they could have relayed to relatives visiting them at the NBI. In
People vs. Pia,55 the Court said:

"x x x It has been held that where the defendants did not present evidence of compulsion or duress or violence on
their persons; where they failed to complain to the officers who administered the oaths; where they did not institute
any criminal or administrative action against their alleged intimidators for maltreatment; where there appeared to be
no marks of violence on their bodies and where they did not have themselves examined by a reputable physician to
buttress their claim, all these should be considered as factors indicating voluntariness of confessions."

That the statements were intelligently executed is borne out by the fact that both confessants have reached the
tertiary level of education: Valentino holds the degree of Bachelor of Science in Commerce56 while petitioner Estacio
reached the first year of college education in banking and finance.57 Possessed with sufficient education and not
proven to be mentally unfit, they could have protested the forced extraction of culpability from themselves if indeed
that was true.

Moreover, the extrajudicial confessions in question are replete with details on the manner in which the crimes were
committed, thereby ruling out the probability that these were involuntarily made.58 Voluntariness of a confession may
be inferred from its language such that, if upon its face the confession exhibits no sign of suspicious circumstances
tending to cast doubt upon its integrity, it being replete with details – which could possibly be supplied only by the
accused – reflecting spontaneity and coherence which, psychologically, cannot be associated with a mind to which
violence and torture have been applied, it may be considered voluntary.59 In U.S. vs. De los Santos,60 the Court
said:

"If a confession be free and voluntary – the deliberate act of the accused with a full comprehension of its
significance, there is no impediment to its admission as evidence, and it then becomes evidence of a high order;
since it is supported by the presumption – a very strong one – that no person of normal mind will deliberately and
knowingly confess himself to be the perpetrator of a crime, especially if it be a serious crime, unless prompted by
truth and conscience."

In these cases, the NBI investigator would not have known the members of the syndicate and the sophisticated
manner by which the crimes in question were perpetrated if Valentino and Estacio, who were directly involved
therein, did not reveal these.

With respect to the admissibility of the extrajudicial confessions of Valentino and petitioner Estacio against their co-
accused, once again, this Court declares that although an extrajudicial confession is admissible only against the
confessant, jurisprudence makes it admissible as corroborative evidence of other facts that tend to establish the
guilt of his co-accused.61 In People vs. Alvarez,62 this Court ruled that where the confession is used as
circumstantial evidence to show the probability of participation by the co-conspirator, that confession is receivable as
evidence against a co-accused. The Court elucidated further in People vs. Encipido63 as follows:

/
"It is also to be noted that APPELLANTS’ extrajudicial confessions were independently made without collusion, are
identical with each other in their material respects and confirmatory of the other. They are, therefore, also admissible
as circumstantial evidence against their co-accused implicated therein to show the probability of the latter’s actual
participation in the commission of the crime. They are also admissible as corroborative evidence against the others,
it being clear from other facts and circumstances presented that persons other than the declarants themselves
participated in the commission of the crime charged and proved. They are what is commonly known as interlocking
confession and constitute an exception to the general rule that extrajudicial confessions/admissions are admissible
in evidence only against the declarants thereof."

Petitioner Estacio claimed that, to his surprise, he found Valentino at the NBI. They talked for a while and Valentino
told him to say whatever he (Valentino) would say.64 That allegation alone cannot be considered as indicative of
collusion between them as their sworn statements both contain facts showing their deep involvement in the scheme
to defraud a bank. Human experience dictates that no one would volunteer to demonstrate one’s culpability unless it
was the truth. It may thus be safely presumed that in telling petitioner Estacio to say whatever he would say,
Valentino was merely cautioning petitioner Estacio to tell the truth. Nevertheless, even without the extrajudicial
confessions of petitioner Estacio and Valentino, evidence on record is sufficient to sustain a finding of culpability.65

On the validity of the discharge of Valentino from the information to be a state witness, the determination of who
should be used as a state witness to bolster the successful prosecution of criminal offenses is part of prosecutorial
discretion.66 However, it is the courts that finally determine whether the requirements of the Rules of Court67 have
been satisfied to justify the discharge of an accused to become a state witness.

It should be recalled that petitioner Estacio was originally discharged to be a state witness. Upon his manifestation
that he would rather remain an accused in these cases for the protection of his family, the court re-included him in
the information. Apparently considering the nature of the crimes and the secrecy by which these were perpetrated,
the prosecution was left with no recourse but to side with Valentino’s motion for his discharge to be a state witness.
The absolute necessity for the testimony of someone who was a participant in the criminal scheme is buttressed by
the ruling that where a crime is contrived in secret then the discharge of one of the conspirators is essential so he
can testify against the other conspirators.68 In a conspiracy which was done in secret, there is a necessity to
discharge one of the accused to provide direct evidence of the commission of the crime.69

Worth noting, however, is that Valentino’s testimony and his sworn statements differ with regard to petitioner
Estacio’s participation in the commission of the October 19, 1981 criminal act, and the participation of petitioner
Fajardo in the three crimes. Valentino stated in his sworn statement that on October 19, 1981, when he noticed that
the BPI representative had placed the demand envelope containing the BPI-Laoag checks for clearing at the Laoag
counter behind him, petitioner Estacio, who was the syndicate’s messenger, immediately came with a push cart.
Petitioner Estacio placed the demand envelope in the pushcart and proceeded to the comfort room in the fourth floor
where Valentino followed him to alter the documents to suit the syndicate’s purposes. On the other hand, when he
testified, Valentino asserted that he did not see petitioner Estacio at the meeting when they hatched the first
operation on October 16, 1981. When the alterations were made on October 19, 1981, Valentino claimed that
petitioner Estacio was not with them70 for it was he himself who brought the bundle of checks to the fourth floor
comfort room where Villasanta took the checks and altered the bank statements.

With respect to petitioner Fajardo, Valentino averred in his supplementary sworn statement that petitioner Fajardo
was present in three or four conferences where he participated in the discussion to defraud a bank.71 However, on
the witness stand, Valentino swore that petitioner Fajardo had "no participation in these cases"72 or in the three
operations subjects of these cases.

These discrepancies in Valentino’s sworn statements and testimony are material ones as far as petitioners Estacio
and Fajardo are concerned. On this issue, the Court has consistently held that:

"x x x discrepancies between the statement of the affiant in his affidavit and those made by him on the witness stand
do not necessarily discredit him since ex-parte affidavits are generally incomplete. Affidavits are generally
subordinate in importance to open court declarations because they are oftentimes not in such a state as to afford
him a fair opportunity of narrating in full the incident which has transpired in his affidavit and those made by him.
This is so because affidavits are frequently prepared by the administering officer and cast in the latter’s language or
the latter’s understanding of what the affiant had said, while the affiant frequently simply signs the affidavit after the
same has been read to him." 73

In People vs. Fabro, the Court ruled that repudiation and recantation of confessions which have been obtained in
accordance with the Constitution are looked upon with disfavor as unreliable.74 However, that ruling may not find
application under the circumstances of these cases. In Fabro, it was the accused himself who recanted his
confession when, on the witness stand, he denied he committed the crime. No other witness testified for the
defense. On the other hand, in these cases, Valentino, a co-conspirator who appeared as a state witness before the
/
court, adhered to his confession as regards the participation of the accused, except that he testified that petitioner
Estacio was absent when the first crime was planned and committed, and that petitioner Fajardo was not involved in
the three cases. It has been held that where a witness who testified for the prosecution subsequently testifies for the
defense by retracting his previous testimony, the test to decide which testimony to believe is a comparison coupled
with the application of the general rules of evidence.75 Although these cases do not involve the conflicting
testimonies of a witness, that rule may be applied in a conflict between a sworn statement and the testimony while
recognizing the inferiority of a sworn statement to a testimony. In these cases, the narration of facts in Valentino’s
sworn statements were in substance reproduced in his testimony which, in turn, was supported by other testimonial
evidence and the voluminous documentary evidence.

In the absence of any reason to question the credibility of Valentino and that of his testimony, that portion of his
testimony on the nonparticipation of petitioner Estacio in Crim. Case No. 5949 and petitioner Fajardo in all three
cases shall be controlling. We deem the variance in Valentino’s testimony as endeavors to rectify his sworn
statements to conform to the truth. To reiterate, such variance, does not make him a less credible witness or affect
the merit of his testimony, as the other pieces of prosecution evidence support it and do not prove that it is untruthful
or contrived.

The value of Valentino’s testimony in the prosecution of these cases cannot be underestimated. It fills in the gaps in
the prosecution evidence that the other prosecution witnesses failed to cover. Without it, conspiracy to defraud the
BPI-Laoag of ₱9,000,000.00 through falsification of the clearing statement and manifest would not have been
proven beyond reasonable doubt.

A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and
decide to commit it.76 As creditably shown by the prosecution, the crimes were committed not solely by the person
who altered the clearing statement and manifest. That all-important act, the conception of which could have been
hatched only by one familiar with banking procedures, would not have been possible if not for the indispensable
cooperation of others. Thus, Valentino testified:

"Q Will you please describe in detail what was agreed upon during the meeting?

A It was agreed upon that Salamanca and Villasanta will open an account at Laoag Branch of the Bank of the
Philippine Islands and Desiderio also and Santos are also in charge in opening accounts in Metro Manila,
particularly Citibank, Greenhills. Basilio Tan, he is stationary in the office. Jaime Tan and Rolando San Pedro are the
ones in charge in withdrawals at the Citibank."77

However, the liability of each of the petitioners must be considered within the purview of the following
pronouncement in the celebrated case of People vs. Berroya78 where the Court said that:

"x x x to hold an accused liable as co-principal by reason of conspiracy, he must be shown to have performed an
overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the conspiracy. That overt act may consist of active participation in the
actual commission of the crime itself, or it may consist of moral assistance to his co-conspirators by being present at
the time of the commission of the crime, or by exerting moral ascendancy over the other co-conspirators by moving
them to execute or implement the conspiracy. Hence, the mere presence of an accused at the discussion of a
conspiracy, even approval of it without any active participation in the same, is not enough for purposes of
conviction. Thus, assuming Vienes was a participant in the planning to abduct a Taiwanese national, in the
absence of eyewitnesses to the actual abduction, there is a paucity of evidence as to whether or not Vienes carried
out his part of the plan." (emphasis supplied)

In these cases, even if Valentino’s supplementary sworn statement stating that petitioner Fajardo participated in the
discussion of the scheme to milk money from a bank should be given evidentiary weight, still, that evidence is not
enough to convict him. There is no evidence showing that he participated in opening a bank account in the
procedure to alter the clearing manifests and statements, or in the withdrawal of substantial amounts resulting from
such alteration of documents. There is thus insufficient evidence against petitioner Fajardo to find him culpable for
the crimes charged in these cases and hence, he should be acquitted.

Similarly situated as petitioner Fajardo, is petitioner Santos. His admission to having attended several meetings of
Salamanca’s group did not satisfactorily define his liability as a conspirator considering the absence of any proof
that he committed an overt act in pursuance of the syndicate’s scheme. His pretext of having entered into a "car
sale" with Salamanca may ring hollow in truth but the weakness of his defense cannot be taken against him
considering the insufficiency of prosecution evidence on his participation in the actual commission of the crime. His
acquittal is, therefore, likewise in order.

With respect to petitioner Estacio, Valentino’s testimony on the first syndicate operation on October 16, 1981 should
be counted in his favor. There is insufficient evidence that he participated in the alteration of documents at the
/
Central Bank Clearing Office on October 19, 1981 much more in the prior discussion to perpetrate the crime. Hence,
his acquittal in Criminal Case No. 5949 should follow. However, as regards the syndicate operations on October 30,
1981 and November 20, 1981, there is proof beyond reasonable doubt of his role in carrying the demand envelopes
to the Central Bank’s fourth floor comfort room where alterations were made. By the nature of his work, he had
access to these demand envelopes containing BPI checks. His participation in the conspiracy was therefore vital to
the realization of the syndicate’s objectives.

Parenthetically, the Court notes with dismay the Sandiganbayan’s pronouncement that petitioner Estacio’s "wishy-
washy" attitude in offering himself as a state witness "confirmed his knowledge of the intimate details of the
conspiracy and the mode or manner by which its operations and schemes would be initiated and consummated."79
Such conclusion is in consonance with the presumption of guilt, not with that of innocence. An accused may have
some reasons for his irresolute action as far as testifying for the prosecution is concerned. Petitioner Estacio had
such reason – he feared for the safety of his family considering that he would be up against a syndicate that,
because of the success of its evil scheme, had the money to harm their perceived "enemies." That petitioner Estacio
was deeply enmeshed in the syndicate’s activities to bleed money from banks is shown by the fact that in Crim.
Case No. 6603 involving the syndicate’s operation in the Solidbank, his conviction for the crime of estafa thru
falsification of public/commercial documents was affirmed by this Court in G.R. No. 75362.80 But such conviction for
another crime must not be the basis for a conclusion that the accused is guilty of another crime charged, although
basically, the same criminal acts were committed. We therefore find the Sandiganbayan’s pronouncement totally
unexpected of a court that must determine the culpability of an accused based on the prosecution evidence and not
on the weakness of the defense or the reputation of an accused.

Petitioner Desiderio, on the other hand, has been proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt for having participated
both in the discussion and mapping out of the malevolent scheme and in its actual execution. Desiderio’s knowledge
of banking procedures provided the rationale for his giving "birth", or having "authored" the scheme along with
Salamanca and Villasanta.81 He had served as branch manager in the BPI where he was employed for twenty-seven
years, or until he was charged with estafa for accommodating a client’s loan against an uncollected deposit.82
Nieves Garrido, a personal banker at Citibank-Greenhills, who entertained him when he made queries about
opening a current account, confirmed his having opened said account for Magna Management Consultant, thereby
lending credence to and corroborating Valentino’s testimony on his role in the implementation of the criminal
scheme.

Petitioner Desiderio’s claim that he opened that account in accordance with his legitimate role as consultant in
Mardes Management Consultant is a lame excuse. Anyone, especially a businessman such as San Pedro or
Salamanca, could have opened a current account without hiring the services of a management consultant. That
lame excuse sounds even lamer considering the evidence showing that his alleged client was also engaged in
management consultancy. Desiderio thus relied on denial as a mode of defense. A denial, like other defenses,
remains subject to the strength of the prosecution evidence which is independently assessed. When the evidence
for the prosecution convincingly connects the crime and the culprit, the probative value of the denial is negligible.83
Desiderio’s denial of complicity in the scheme cannot, therefore, prevail over the positive testimonies of Nieves
Garrido and Valentino that he played the important role of opening the current account that paved the way to the
"inside jobs" of petitioner Estacio, Valentino and, probably, Villasanta. His sole overt act under the syndicate’s
scheme facilitated the commission of all three counts of estafa thru falsification of public documents.

Notably, in these cases, the Sandiganbayan observed that none of the accused refuted the documentary exhibits
offered in evidence by the prosecution.84 The pieces of documentary evidence consist of bank records including
deposit slips, ledger cards, specimen cards, checks for deposit and withdrawal, clearing statements and clearing
manifests. All of these clearly and positively buttress the prosecution’s theory as to how the pilferage scheme was
successfully implemented. The defense obviously could not demolish the evidentiary weight of the prosecution’s
documentary evidence and hence, it focused on the prosecution evidence on the membership of the accused in the
syndicate, and on the probative value of the interlocking confessions of Valentino and petitioner Estacio. There is
thus no alternative to giving full credence and merit to the prosecution’s documentary evidence, and to declaring
them to be in complete accord with the prosecution theory on the commission of the offenses and the nature and
extent of participation of the accused.

The informations filed in these cases individually charge an offense "defined and penalized under Article 315, par. 2
(a) in relation to Article 171, par. 2" of the Revised Penal Code. The elements of estafa are as follows: (1) the
accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence, or by means of deceit; and (2) the offended party or a third
party suffered damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation.85 It is indubitable that estafa was committed by
abuse of confidence in these cases. The conspirators that enlisted and utilized the assistance of Central Bank
employees abused the confidence that the banking system reposed upon such employees. As a result of such
abuse of confidence, the BPI sustained damage in the aggregate of Nine Million Pesos (₱9,000,000.00). Verily, the
perpetrators of the crimes breached even the confidence that people reposed on the Central Bank and the whole
banking system. /
By falsifying clearing documents, the offenders committed the complex crime of estafa thru falsification of public
documents. Under Article 171 (4) of the Revised Penal Code, any public officer or employee who, taking advantage
of his official position, makes untruthful statements in a narration of facts, commits the crime of falsification of public
documents. This kind of falsification requires the concurrence of the following requisites: (a) the offender makes in a
document untruthful statements in a narration of facts; (b) he has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts
narrated by him; and (c) the facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false.86

The prosecution has duly proven these requisites. Valentino occupies a public position as bookkeeper at the
Clearing Office of the Central Bank. He intercepted and pilfered BPI-Laoag checks with the assistance of petitioner
Estacio, a janitor-messenger at the Central Bank. In the comfort room, Valentino and/or Villasanta, who has so far
avoided the clutches of the law, tampered with the clearing statements and clearing manifests which Estacio had
taken from Valentino’s desk. The tampered documents, along with the pilfered demand envelopes, were then sent to
the Central Bank Regional Clearing Center in Laoag. These "inside jobs" were perpetrated as part of the decadent
scheme that private individuals had hatched to gain monetary gratification.

Article 315, paragraph 2 (a) under which the defendants were charged in these cases, states that any person who
shall defraud another by means of "using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence,
qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar deceits"
shall be held liable for the crime of swindling (estafa). Under the peculiar circumstances proven in these cases, the
crime actually committed by the offenders is that defined in Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code on other deceits.
The first paragraph of this article states that "(t)he penalty of arresto mayor and a fine of not less than the amount of
the damage caused and not more than twice such amount shall be imposed upon any person who shall defraud or
damage another by any other deceit not mentioned in the preceding articles of this chapter." Although the
information charged the accused with violation of paragraph 2 of Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code defining the
crime of falsification by public officer of employee, the Sandiganbayan correctly found that the accused violated
paragraph 4 of the same Article which states as follows:

"The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed ₱5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer,
employee, or notary who, taking advantage of his official position, shall falsify a document by committing any of the
following acts:

xxx xxx xxx

"4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts."

Inasmuch as the crime committed in these cases is the complex crime of estafa thru falsification of public
documents and Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code states that when an offense is a necessary means for
committing another offense, "the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed" in its maximum period, the
penalty for the crimes committed in these cases is that imposed for falsification of public documents or prision mayor
in its maximum period and a fine of ₱5,000.00.

While it appears that the Sandiganbayan correctly held that the basis for imposition of penalty should be that
imposed by law for falsification of public documents, it erred in imposing the maximum penalty of the indeterminate
sentence it meted upon the accused. Finding no modifying circumstances, the Sandiganbayan imposed for each
complex crime of estafa thru falsification of public document, the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years, two (2)
months and one (1) day of prision correccional to ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor.

Under the procedural guidelines for imposing penalties for complex crimes enunciated in Nizurtado vs.
Sandiganbayan,87 the first step in determining the proper penalty is to consider whether or not aggravating and/or
mitigating circumstances attended the commission of the crimes.

Only petitioner Estacio claimed that he voluntarily surrendered. For said mitigating circumstance to be appreciated,
1âwphi1

surrender must be made spontaneously or in such a manner that it shows the intent of the accused to surrender
unconditionally to the authorities, either because he acknowledges his guilt, or because he wishes to save them the
trouble and expense of finding and capturing him.88 According to NBI Agent Ranin, petitioner Estacio went to the NBI
bearing a referral note from Atty. Agapito Fajardo, Chief of Anti-Fraud Unit of the Central Bank.89 However, it was
proven by the prosecution beyond peradventure of doubt that petitioner Estacio’s alleged surrender was anything
but spontaneous. He went to the NBI on February 17, 1982,90 five days after Atty. Fajardo had brought Valentino to
that office for questioning, and a day after a Presidential Commitment Order (PCO) had been issued against him
and Valentino.91 Moreover, the booking sheet and arrest report states that petitioner Estacio was "arrested" on
February 16, 1982.92 Voluntary surrender having been insufficiently proven, as far as penalty is concerned, petitioner
Estacio in Crim. Cases Nos. 5950-51 shall suffer the same penalty as petitioner Desiderio who did not present proof
that could mitigate the penalty that he should suffer for the crimes.
/
Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code states that when the penalty prescribed by law is a single divisible penalty, the
accused shall be imposed the medium period of such penalty when there are neither aggravating nor mitigating
circumstances. The propriety of imposing the medium period of the more serious penalty for a complex crime after
considering the modifying circumstances notwithstanding that Article 48 requires the imposition of the penalty in its
maximum period has been settled.93 It is supported by the doctrine that penal provisions shall be interpreted in favor
of the accused.

The medium period of prision mayor is eight (8) years and one (1) day to ten (10) years. In the absence of
impediments to the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, for each crime committed, the penalty that
should be imposed upon petitioner Estacio in Crim. Case Nos. 5950 and 5951, and upon petitioner Desiderio in
Crim. Case Nos. 5949, 5950 and 5951, shall be the indeterminate sentence comprising of the minimum penalty
within the range of prision correccional, to the maximum penalty of prision mayor medium plus a fine of P5,000.00. It
will be observed that the maximum penalty erroneously imposed by the Sandiganbayan is ten (10) years and one
(1) day which is already within the period of prision mayor maximum.

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, petitioner Rolando Santos y Ramirez in G.R. Nos. 71523-25,
petitioner Alfredo R. Fajardo, Jr. in G.R. No. 72384-86 and petitioner Jesus E. Estacio in G.R. No. 72420-22 with
respect to Criminal Case No. 5949 are hereby ACQUITTED of the crimes charged for lack of proof beyond
reasonable doubt. The Decision of the Sandiganbayan as far as petitioner Marcelo S. Desiderio in G. R. No. 72387-
89 and petitioner Jesus E. Estacio, with respect to Criminal Case Nos. 5950 and 5951 are concerned, is herby
AFFIRMED subject to the modification that, for each crime, they shall suffer the indeterminate sentence of four (4)
years, two (2) months, and one (1) day of prision correccional maximum to ten (10) years of prision mayor medium.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Pardo, Gonzaga-
Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1
Penned by Associate Justice Romeo M. Escareal and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon V. Jabson
and Amante Q. Alconcel.
2
The informations were filed with the Sandiganbayan although the accused other than Valentino and Estacio
who were the bookkeeper and janitor-messenger of the Central Bank, respectively, are private persons. Sec.
4 of P.D. No. 1606, as amended, allows the joint trial of private individuals and public officers if they are
charged as co-principals, accomplices or accessories.
3
Records, pp. 58-61 and 124.
4
Ibid., p. 135.
5
Ibid., pp. 401-406.
6
Ibid., pp. 535-536.
7
Ibid., pp. 567-575.
8
NBI Head Agent Salvador Ranin; BPI Loans Bookkeeper Zoilo Mamuad; BPI Administrative Assistant for
Communications Management Department Segundo Gonzaga, Jr.; Central Bank (CB) Assistant Chief of
Clearing Operations Division Floriano Sangalang; BPI-Laoag Senior Assistant Manager Rogelio Vicente; BPI-
La Union Distributing Clerk Evaristo Yapo; Citibank-Greenhills Bank Teller Virgilio Lozada; CB-Laoag
Bookkeeper Dante Fernandez; CB Chief of Clearing Operations Division Alfonso Magsalin; Citibank-
Greenhills Personal Banker Ma. Nieves Garido; Citibank-Greenhills Teller and Journal Clerk Renato de
Guzman; BPI Document Examiner Nicanor Rones; Citibank-Greenhills Teller Teresita Guzman; Citibank-
Greenhills Vault Teller and Utility Clerk Evelyn Pascual; CB-Laoag Regional Clearing Officer Jose Alcantara,
and Manuel Valentino, former bookkeeper of the Clearing Operations Division of the Central Bank.
9
Mariano Bustamante could be a fictitious name used by Romeo Portugal, alias Romeo Villasanta. When a
picture of Portugal was shown to employees of BPI Laoag, they claimed that the person in that picture
resembled "Mariano Bustamante."
10
Exhs. B, B-1, B-3 and B-4.
/
11
Exh. B-2.; TSN, November 16, 1982, pp. 29-30; March 10, 1983, pp. 81-93; December 2, 1982, pp. 7-12.
12
TSN, January 10, 1983, pp. 14-81.
13
Annex "U."
14
TSN, May 17, 1984, pp. 91-100.
15
TSN, March 10, 1983, pp. 13-38.
16
The Central Bank debited BPI the following amounts: October 19, 1981 – ₱1,076,416.95; October 30, 1981
– ₱3,148,894.01, and November 20, 1981 – ₱5,039,015.85 as against the following amounts received by the
BPI-Laoag: October 19, 1981 – ₱76,416.95; October 30, 1981 – ₱148,894.01 and November 20, 1981 –
₱39,015.85.
17
TSN, December 2, 1982, pp. 28-42.
18
TSN, November 16, 1982, pp. 13-14.
19
Exh. A. Included in the Memorandum Report are, among others, the joint letter request of Agapito Fajardo
of the Central Bank and Primer R. Leonen of BPI, the statements and supplementary statements of Manuel
Valentino, the statements and supplementary statements of Jesus Estacio, the statements of the prosecution
witnesses, photocopies of BPI checks, photocopies of Citibank checks, photocopies of Central Bank Clearing
Statements, and photocopies of Central Bank Manifests.
20
TSN, October 24, 1984, pp. 5-15.
21
TSN, October 25, 1984, pp. 3-9.
22
Ibid., pp. 9-10.
23
On cross-examination, Estacio claimed that he did not read his statement before signing it. (TSN,
December 19, 1984, p. 18).
24
TSN, October 25, 1984, p. 31
25
Exhs. C and C-1.
26
TSN, December 19, 1984, p. 21.
27
TSN, August 2, 1984, pp. 6-31.
28
Desiderio’s office was allegedly the Mardes Management Consultant located at the Doña Victoriana Bldg. in
Cubao, Quezon City. He was allegedly a consultant in that firm, Vice-President of Mardes Trading
Corporation, and proprietor of Mardes Farms.
29
TSN, January 22, 1985, pp. 4-9.
30
Ibid., pp. 10-25.
31
TSN, January 22, 1985, pp. 29-30.
32
Records, p. 1258.
33
Ibid., p. 1347.
34
Ibid., pp. 1352 and 1354.
35
Ibid., pp. 1718-1750.
36
Ibid., p. 1754.
37
Ibid., p. 1355.
38
Ibid., pp. 1440 and 1442.
39
Ibid., pp. 1612, 1619-1621. /
40
Ibid., p. 1755.
41
Ibid., pp. 1013, 970 and 978.
42
Order dated August 5, 1985, Records pp. 1009 and 1010.
43
Records, pp. 1085-1091.
44
Rollo of G.R. No. 71523-25, p. 167-B.
45
Ibid., pp. 179-200, 182-183.
46
263 SCRA 222, 255 [1996].
47
188 SCRA 475, 482-483 [1990].
48
G.R. No. 126745, July 26, 1999.
49
Rollo in G. R. Nos. 71523-25, pp. 35-36 and Rollo in G. R. No. 72420-22, p. 27.
50
Supra, pp. 258-260.
51
See: People vs. Fortich, 281 SCRA 601, 615 [1997].
52
227 SCRA 444, 448-449 [1993].
53
Annex "B."
54
People vs. Suarez, 267 SCRA 119, 134-135 [1997] citing People vs. Solis, 182 SCRA 182 [1990] People
vs. Estevan, 186 SCRA 34 [1990].
55
145 SCRA 581, 586 [1986] citing People vs. Villanueva, 128 SCRA 488 [1984]; People vs. Urgel, 134
SCRA 483 [1985] and People vs. Toledo, 140 SCRA 259 [1985].
56
TSN, May 17, 1984, p. 9.
57
TSN, October 25, 1984, p. 25.
58
Estacio vs. Sandiganbayan, 183 SCRA 12 [1990].
59
People vs. Villanueva, 266 SCRA 356, 362 [1997].
60
24 Phil. 329, 358 (1913).
61
People vs. Suarez, supra at p. 113 citing People vs. Cabiltes, 25 SCRA 112 [1968]; People vs. Simbajon,
15 SCRA 83 [1965].
62
201 SCRA 364, 377 [1991] citing People vs. Condemena, 23 SCRA 910 [1968] and People vs. Vasquez,
113 SCRA 772 [1982].
63
146 SCRA 478, 492 [1986].
64
TSN, October 25, 1984, p. 22.
65
Estacio vs. Sandiganbayan, supra at p. 21.
66
People vs. Espanola, 271 SCRA 689, 708 [1997].
67
Rule 119 of the Rules of Court provides:

SEC. 9. Discharge of one of several defendants to be witness for the prosecution. – When two or more
persons are charged with the commission of a certain offense, the competent court, at any time before they
have entered upon their defense, may direct one or more of them to be discharged with the latter’s consent
that he or they may be witnesses for the government when in the judgment of the court:

(a) There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the defendant whose discharge is requested;
/
 (b) There is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense committed, except the
testimony of said defendant;

(c) The testimony of said defendant can be substantially corroborated in its material points;

(d) Said defendant does not appear to be the most guilty;

(e) Said defendant has not at any time been convicted of any offense involving moral turpitude.
68
Chua vs. Court of Appeals, 261 SCRA 112, 119 [1996] citing People vs. Salbino, 134 SCRA 492 [1985] and
People vs. Villamor, 110 SCRA 199 [1981].
69
Chua vs. Court of Appeals, 261 SCRA 112 [1996].
70
TSN, May 17, 1984, pp. 34-36, 55-56.
71
Annex "B-1."
72
TSN, May 18, 1984, p. 6.
73
People vs. Banguis, 291 SCRA 279, 286 [1998].
74
277 SCRA 19, 41 [1997].
75
People vs. Navarro, 297 SCRA 331, 348 [1998].
76
Art. 8, Revised Penal Code.
77
TSN, May 17, 1984, p. 29.
78
283 SCRA 111, 129-130 [1997].
79
Sandiganbayan Decision, p. 85, Rollo in G. R. No. 72420-22, p.114.
80
Estacio vs. Sandiganbayan, supra.
81
TSN, May 17, 1984, p. 61.
82
TSN, January 22, 1985, pp. 16 and 18.
83
People vs. Fabro, supra, p. 40.
84
Sandiganbayan Decision, pp. 94-95, Rollo in G.R. No. 72420-22, pp. 123-124.
85
People vs. Reyes, 282 SCRA 105, 122 [1997].
86
Siquian vs. People, 171 SCRA 223, 230 [1989] citing Cabigas vs. People, 152 SCRA 18 [1987].
87
239 SCRA 33, 46-47 [1994].
88
People vs. Maalat, 275 SCRA 206, 213-214 [1997].
89
TSN, December 1, 1982, pp. 50-51.
90
Ibid., p. 50.
91
Ibid., p. 41; Records, pp. 46-48.
92
Annex "JJ."
93
Nizurtado vs. Sandiganbayan, supra.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

/
/