ARIAS DOCTRINE

FOURTH (4TH) CASE DIGEST

G.R. No. 205576, November 20, 2017

MIGUEL D. ESCOBAR, EUGENE L. ALZATE, PERLA C. MAGLINTE, CESAR M. CAGANG, AND

VIVENCIA S. TELESFORO, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

Introductory Statement:

In Arias v. Sandiganbayan, this Court held that a head of office can rely on their
subordinates to a reasonable extent, and there has to be some reason shown why any
particular voucher must be examined in detail. Petitioners argue that this case can be
invoked to refute negligence on the part of petitioner Escobar, who relied in good faith that
his subordinates would perform their functions in accordance with the law. The voucher
presented to petitioner Escobar for signature appeared to have been prepared with
regularity, and nobody called his attention to any anomalies in the request for fund
assistance. Gadian made sure that her falsification of the fictitious documents would be
undetectable.

A. FACTS OF THE CASE

That on May 27, 2002, or prior or subsequent thereto in Sarangani, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused public officers Miguel Draculan
Escobar and Felipe Katu Constantino, being then the Governor and Vice-Governor,
respectively, of the Province of Sarangani, Margie Purisima Rudes and Eugene Lariza
Alzate, Provincial Board Members, Perla Cabilin Maglinte, Provincial Administrator,
Cesar Matas Cagang, Provincial Treasurer, Vivencia Sasam Telesforo, Management and
Audit Analyst III, and Amelia Carmela Constantino Zoleta, and Executive Assistant, all
accountable public officials of the Provincial Government of Sarangani, by reason of the
duties of their office[s], conspiring and confederating with one another, while
committing the offense in relation to office, taking advantage of their respective
positions, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, convert, and
misappropriate the amount of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P300,000.00),
Philippine Currency, in public funds under their custody, and for which they are
accountable, by falsifying or causing to be falsified the corresponding Disbursement
Voucher dated May 27, 2002 and its supporting documents, making it appear that
financial assistance had been sought by Nema Tamayo, the alleged Team Leader of
Malungon Market Vendors Association, Malungon, Sarangani, when in truth and in fact,
the accused knew fully well that no financial assistance had been requested by Nema
Tamayo and her association, nor did said Nema Tamayo and her association receive the
aforementioned amount, thereby facilitating the release of the above-mentioned public
funds in the amount of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P300,000.00), through the
encashment by the accused of Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) Check No.
282390 dated May 27, 2002, which amount they subsequently misappropriated to their

1
 personal use and benefit, and despite demand, the said accused failed to return the said
amount to the damage and prejudice of the government and the public interest in the
aforesaid sum.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

B. STATEMENT OF ISSUE (S)

1. WHETHER OR NOT THE SANDIGANBAYAN ERRED IN CONVICTING PETITIONERS

EUGENE L. ALZATE AND PERLA C. MAGLINTE OF ESTAFA THROUGH CONSPIRACY;

2. WHETHER OR NOT THE SANDIGANBAYAN ERRED IN NOT APPLYING THE CASE OF

ARIAS V. SANDIGANBAYAN121 TO FIND THAT PETITIONER MIGUEL D. ESCOBAR
PROPERLY RELIED ON GOOD FAITH THAT HIS SUBORDINATES WOULD PERFORM
THEIR FUNCTIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW;

3. WHETHER OR NOT THE SANDIGANBAYAN DENIED PETITIONER EUGENE L. ALZATE

DUE PROCESS WHEN IT DENIED HIS MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL AND DID NOT ALLOW
HIS PRESENTATION OF ADDITIONAL WITNESSES BASED ON TECHNICALITIES;

4. WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONERS MIGUEL D. ESCOBAR AND VIVENCIA S. TELESFORO

ARE ACCOUNTABLE PUBLIC OFFICERS;

5. WHETHER OR NOT THE SANDIGANBAYAN ERRED IN CONVICTING MIGUEL D.

ESCOBAR, EUGENE L. ALZATE, PERLA C. MAGLINTE, CESAR M. CAGANG, AND
VIVENCIA S. TE1ESFORO BASED PRIMARILY ON THE TESTIMONY OF PARTICIPANTS IN
THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME; AND

6. WHETHER OR NOT THE PRINCIPLE OF CONCLUSIVENESS OF JUDGMENT IN CRIMINAL

CASE NO. 28331 BINDS THE SANDIGANBAYAN IN THIS CASE.

C. DECISION

The dispositive portion of the Sandiganbayan Decision read:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows -

finding accused PERLA C. MAGLINTE, AMELIA CARMELA C. ZOLETA, and EUGENE ALZATE,
GUILTY as principals of the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public
documents defined and penalized under the provisions of Articles 315 and 171 in
relation to Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code and applying the Indeterminate
Sentence Law sentencing each of them to suffer indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years
as minimum, to eleven (11) years and four (4) months of prision mayor as maximum,
with the accessories provided by law, and to pay a fine of PhP5,000.00;

2
finding accused MIGUEL D. ESCOBAR, VIVENCIA S. TELESFORO and CESAR M. CAGANG
GUILTY of malversation and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law sentencing each
of them to suffer the indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision
mayor as minimum, to eighteen (18) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion
temporal as maximum, and to pay a fine of PhP300,000.00 and the penalty of perpetual
special disqualification to hold public office and other accessory penalties provided by
law; and ordering all the accused, jointly and severally, to indemnify the Provincial
Government of Sarangani the defrauded/malversed amount of PhP300,000.00, and to
pay the cost.
As for accused MARGIE P. RUDES, who is at-large and beyond the jurisdiction of the
Court, this case is ordered ARCHIVED.

SO ORDERED. (Emphasis in the original)

FIFTH (5th) CASE DIGEST

3
 G.R. No. L-101545 January 3, 1995

HERMENEGILDO M. MAGSUCI, petitioner,

vs.
THE HON. SANDIGANBAYAN (Second Division) and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
respondents.

Introductory Statements:

The Court is here confronted with the question of whether or not criminal responsibility
may be incurred by a head of office who, in the discharge of his official duties, has relied on
an act of his subordinate. There is no inflexible rule.

Xxx

There is conspiracy "when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it." 5 Conspiracy is not presumed. Like the
physical acts constituting the crime itself, the elements of conspiracy must be proven
beyond reasonable doubt. While conspiracy need not be established by direct evidence, for
it may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during and after the commission
of the crime, all taken together, however, the evidence therefor must reasonably be strong
enough to show a community of criminal design.

Xxx

When, however, that infraction consists in the reliance in good faith, albeit misplaced, by
a head of office on a subordinate upon whom the primary responsibility rests, absent a
clear case of conspiracy, the Arias doctrine must be held to prevail.

A. FACTS OF THE CASE

That on or about March 11, 1983 and prior sometime thereto, in Cagayan de Oro
City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused
Hermenegildo M. Magsuci, a public officer, being the Regional Director of the Bureau
of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR), Department of Natural Resources),
(formerly Ministry of Natural Resources), Region X, Cagayan de Oro City, and accused
Jaime B. Ancla, a private person, and Engineer and General Manager of Dexter
Construction, Cagayan de Oro City, conspiring, confederating, and helping one
another while the former in the discharge of his public position and committing the
offense in relation thereto, taking advantage of his public functions, with grave
abuse of confidence, did, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously issue
and make it appear in the Certificate of Completion, dated March 10, 1983 and the
undated Accomplishment Report, that the latter had satisfactorily completed the
Work Order on the forty (40) ton ice plant and cold storage located at Magallanes

4
 Street, Surigao City, when in truth and in fact, there were no such installation and
construction made thereon, thus, from the aforesaid falsities thereof, enabled the
accused to obtain and receive the sum of P412,729.24 through a Disbursement
Voucher and various Treasury Checks and once they are in possession of said sum,
with intent to defraud, misappropriate, misapply and convert to their own personal
use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of the government in the aforesaid
amount.

Contrary to law.

After trial, the Sandiganbayan rendered judgment, finding Magsuci guilty of the
offense charged, and sentenced him thusly:

WHEREFORE, the Court finds Hermenegildo M. Magsuci guilty beyond a

reasonable doubt as principal of the complex crime of estafa defined in
Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code, through falsification of public
documents penalized under Article 171 of the same Code.

The Sandiganbayan predicated its conviction of petitioner on its finding of conspiracy

among Magsuci, Ancla and now deceased Enriquez.

There is conspiracy "when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning

the commission of a felony and decide to commit it." 5 Conspiracy is not presumed.
Like the physical acts constituting the crime itself, the elements of conspiracy must
be proven beyond reasonable doubt. While conspiracy need not be established by
direct evidence, for it may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before,
during and after the commission of the crime, all taken together, however, the
evidence therefor must reasonably be strong enough to show a community of
criminal design.

B. STATEMENT OF ISSUE (S)

I. WHETHER OR NOT ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF ESTAFA THRU FALSIFICATION OF

PUBLIC DOCUMENT.

II. WHETHER OR NOT CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY MAY BE INCURRED BY A HEAD OF

OFFICE WHO, IN THE DISCHARGE OF HIS OFFICIAL DUTIES, HAS RELIED ON AN
ACT OF HIS SUBORDINATE

C. DECISION

Fairly evident, however, is the fact that the actions taken by Magsuci involved the
very functions he had to discharge in the performance of his official duties. There has
been no intimation at all that he had foreknowledge of any irregularity committed by
either or both Engr. Enriquez and Ancla. Petitioner might have indeed been lax and

5
administratively remiss in placing too much reliance on the official reports submitted
by his subordinate (engineer Enriquez), but for conspiracy to exist, it is essential that
there must be a conscious design to commit an offense. Conspiracy is not the
product of negligence but of intentionally on the part of cohorts.

In Arias vs. Sandiganbayan, this court, aware of the dire consequences that a
different rule could bring, has aptly concluded:

We would be setting a bad precedent if a head of office plagued by all too

common problems — dishonest or negligent subordinates, overwork,
multiple assignments or positions, or plain incompetence — is suddenly
swept into a conspiracy conviction simply because he did not personally
examine every single detail, painstakingly trace every step from inception,
and investigate the motives of every person involved in a transaction before
affixing his signature as the final approving authority.

xxx

. . . . All heads of offices have to rely to a reasonable extent on their

subordinates and on the good faith of those who prepare bids, purchase
supplies, or enter into negotiations. . . . There has to be some added reason
why he should examine each voucher in such detail. Any executive head of
even small government agencies or commissions can attest to the volume of
papers that must be signed. There are hundreds of documents, letters,
memoranda, vouchers, and supporting papers that routinely pass through his
hands. The number in bigger offices or departments is even more appalling.

We are not unaware of an observation made by this Court in People vs. Rodis to the
effect that a person may be so held liable as a co-principal if he, be an act of reckless
imprudence, has brought about the commission of estafa through falsification, or
malversation through falsification, without which (reckless negligence) the crime
could not have been accomplished. When, however, that infraction consists in the
reliance in good faith, albeit misplaced, by a head of office on a subordinate upon
whom the primary responsibility rests, absent a clear case of conspiracy, the Arias
doctrine must be held to prevail.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Sandiganbayan is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and
petitioner Magsuci is ACQUITTED of the charges against him. Costs de oficio.

SO ORDERED.