Sei sulla pagina 1di 1



(G.R. NO. 145927 AUGUST 24, 2007)


COA Regional Director solicited for the authentication and report on the sub-allotment advises issued to
highway engineering districts in Cebu particularly Cebu City, Cebu 1st, Cebu 2nd and Mandaue City Highway
Engineering Districts. Apparently, the two sets of LAAs were received by the districts. One set consists of regular
LAAs in authenticated and normally processed manner while the other set consists of fake LAAs all of these were
approved for the Finance Officer by Chief Accountant Rolando Mangubat. Mangubat, however, had no authority to
approve them because he had already been detailed to the MPH Central Office. It was found out that the practice of
using fake LAAs had been going on for years.

Four of the accused hatched an ingenious plan to siphon off large sums of money from the government coffers
using fake LAAs, vouchers and other documents to conceal the traces.

The anti-graft court has found the case has merit and that Fernan Jr. and Expedito Torrevilas along with the
other accused guilty as co-principals in the crime of Estafa through falsification of Public Documents as defined and
penalized in Articles 318 and 171, in relation to Article 48 of the Revised Penal code, and there being no modifying
circumstances in attendance, sentenced each of them to imprisonment and payment of the penalties.


Whether or not the honourable sandiiganbayan erred in convicting petitioners as co-conspirators despite the
prosecutions failure to specifically prove beyond reasonable doubt the facts and circumstances that would implicate
them as co-conspirators and justify their conviction.


No. The Sandigan Bayan has accurately ruled on conviction of the petitioners as co-conspirators in
spite of the prosecutions failure to prove such. The court explained why direct proof of prior agreement is
not necessary: Secrecy and concealment are essential features of a successful conspiracy. It may be
inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime, showing
that they had acted with a common purpose and design. Conspiracy may be implied if it is proved that two
or more persons aimed their acts toward the accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part
so that their combined acts, though apparently independent of each other, were in fact, connected and
cooperative, which indicates closeness of personal association and concurrence of sentiment. To hold an
accused guilty as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy, he must have shown to have performed a concerted
act to the furtherance of the common design and purpose.