Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 36 views

    #1 584 SCRA 304 - DAYAWON - ESTINO Vs PEOPLE

    Uploaded by

    Karl Mark Felizardo Dayawon
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that a new trial was proper to determine the guilt of petitioners Munib S. Estino and Ernesto G. Pescadera for non-payment of Representation and Transportation Allowance (RATA) to provincial employees in violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Petitioners claimed they paid RATA under the 1998 reenacted budget and submitted documents to support this, arguing the Commission on Audit report did not sufficiently prove non-payment. While the documents were not strictly newly discovered, the Court found petitioners were mistaken to not produce them at trial, believing it unnecessary. A new trial would allow consideration of this evidence that could change the judgment if introduced.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    #1 584 SCRA 304 - DAYAWON - ESTINO Vs PEOPLE

    Uploaded by

    Karl Mark Felizardo Dayawon
    36 views1 page
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that a new trial was proper to determine the guilt of petitioners Munib S. Estino and Ernesto G. Pescadera for non-payment of Representation and Transportation Allowance (RATA) to provincial employees in violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Petitioners claimed they paid RATA under the 1998 reenacted budget and submitted documents to support this, arguing the Commission on Audit report did not sufficiently prove non-payment. While the documents were not strictly newly discovered, the Court found petitioners were mistaken to not produce them at trial, believing it unnecessary. A new trial would allow consideration of this evidence that could change the judgment if introduced.

    Original Title

    #1 584 SCRA 304 - DAYAWON - ESTINO vs PEOPLE

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that a new trial was proper to determine the guilt of petitioners Munib S. Estino and Ernesto G. Pescadera for non-payment of Representation and Transportation Allowance (RATA) to provincial employees in violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Petitioners claimed they paid RATA under the 1998 reenacted budget and submitted documents to support this, arguing the Commission on Audit report did not sufficiently prove non-payment. While the documents were not strictly newly discovered, the Court found petitioners were mistaken to not produce them at trial, believing it unnecessary. A new trial would allow consideration of this evidence that could change the judgment if introduced.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    36 views1 page

    #1 584 SCRA 304 - DAYAWON - ESTINO Vs PEOPLE

    Uploaded by

    Karl Mark Felizardo Dayawon
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that a new trial was proper to determine the guilt of petitioners Munib S. Estino and Ernesto G. Pescadera for non-payment of Representation and Transportation Allowance (RATA) to provincial employees in violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Petitioners claimed they paid RATA under the 1998 reenacted budget and submitted documents to support this, arguing the Commission on Audit report did not sufficiently prove non-payment. While the documents were not strictly newly discovered, the Court found petitioners were mistaken to not produce them at trial, believing it unnecessary. A new trial would allow consideration of this evidence that could change the judgment if introduced.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    ESTINO vs PEOPLE

    544 SCRA 304

    FACTS:
    For review before the Court under Rule 45 are the April 16, 2004 Decision and June 14, 2004
    Resolution of the Sandiganbayan in the consolidated Criminal Case Nos. 26192 and 26193 entitled
    People of the Philippines v. Munib S. Estino and Ernesto G. Pescadera.

    In G.R. Nos. 163957-58, petitioners Munib S. Estino and Ernesto G. Pescadera appeal their
    conviction of violation of Section 3(e), Republic Act No. (RA) 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
    Practices Act for failure to pay the Representation and Transportation Allowance (RATA) of the
    provincial government employees of Sulu. In G.R. Nos. 164009-11, petitioner Pescadera alone
    appeals his conviction of malversation of public funds under Article 217 Of the Revised Penal
    Code for failure to remit the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) contributions of the
    provincial government employees amounting to PhP 4,820,365.30.

    In these consolidated appeals, petitioners pray for their acquittal.

    ISSUE:
    Whether a new trial is proper in the determination the guilt of the petitioners in non-payment
    of RATA in violation of Sec 3(e) of RA 3019.

    RULING:
    YES. Petitioner’s defense is anchored on their payment of RATA, and for this purpose, they
    submitted documents which allegedly show that they paid the RATA under the 1998 reenacted
    budget. They also claim that the COA Report did not sufficiently prove that they did not pay the
    RATA because the alleged disbursement vouchers, which were supposed to be annexed to the
    COA Report as proof of nonpayment of RATA, were not submitted with said report. Rule 121 of
    the Rules of Court allows the conduct of a new trial before a judgment of conviction becomes final
    when new and material evidence has been discovered which the accused could not with reasonable
    diligence have discovered and produced at the trial and which if introduced and admitted would
    probably change the judgment. Although the documents offered by petitioners are strictly
    not newly discovered, it appears to us that petitioners were mistaken in their belief that its
    production during

    Rule 121 of the Rules of Court allows the conduct of a new trial before a judgment of
    conviction becomes final when new and material evidence has been discovered which the accused
    could not with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at the trial and which if
    introduced and admitted would probably change the judgment. Although the documents offered
    by petitioners are strictly not newly discovered, it appears to us that petitioners were mistaken in
    their belief that its production during trial was unnecessary.

    You might also like