LUIS A. TABUENA vs.

SANDIGANBAYAN

FACTS:
The disbursement of the P55 Million was, as described by Tabuena and Peralta themselves,
“out of the ordinary” and “not based on the normal procedure”. Not only were there no
vouchers prepared to support the disbursement, the P55 Million was paid in cold cash. Also, no
PNCC receipt for the P55 Million was presented. Defense witness Francis Monera, then Senior
Assistant Vice President and Corporate Comptroller of PNCC, even affirmed in court that there
were no payments made to PNCC by MIAA for the months of January to June of 1986.
The position of the prosecution was that there were no outstanding obligations in favor of
PNCC at the time of the disbursement of the P55 Million. On the other hand, the defense of
Tabuena and Peralta, in short, was that they acted in good faith. Tabuena claimed that he was
merely complying with the MARCOS Memorandum which ordered him to forward immediately
to the Office of the President P55 Million in cash as partial payment of MIAA’s obligations to
PNCC, and that he (Tabuena) was of the belief that MIAA indeed had liabilities to PNCC. Peralta
for his part shared the same belief and so he heeded the request of Tabuena, his superior, for
him (Peralta) to help in the release of P5 Million.
With the rejection by the Sandiganbayan of their claim of good faith which ultimately led to
their conviction, Tabuena and Peralta now set forth a total of ten (10) errors [6]committed by the
Sandiganbayan for this Court’s consideration.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Tabuena and Peralta acted in good faith (be justified in obedience to an order
from a superior)

HELD:
Yes. Tabuena had no other choice but to make the withdrawals, for that was what the MARCOS
Memorandum required him to do. Marcos was undeniably Tabuena’s superior – the former
being then the President of the Republic who unquestionably exercised control over
government agencies such as the MIAA and PNCC.[15] In other words, Marcos had a say in
matters involving inter-government agency affairs and transactions. Tabuena therefore is
entitled to the justifying circumstance of “Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued
by a superior for some lawful purpose.”[16] The subordinate-superior relationship between
Tabuena and Marcos is clear. And so too, is the lawfulness of the order contained in the
MARCOS Memorandum, as it has for its purpose partial payment of the liability of one
government agency (MIAA) to another (PNCC).
Since Tabuena is the superior of Peralta, it follows that he is also justified.