ChanRobles Virtual law Library

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this court dated JAN 13 2004.

G.R. Nos. 98494-98692 (Rogelio Alvizo, Florito Montecillo, Pompeyo Almagro and Catalino Magno, Jr. vs. SB and Pp.)

G.R. Nos. 99006-20 (Joselito J. Genzon vs. SB and Pp.)

G.R. Nos. 99059-99259 (Efren Coyoca vs. SB and Pp.)

G.R. Nos. 99309-18 (Oscar Belcina vs. SB and Pp.)

G.R. Nos. 99412-16 & 99436-99636 (Harvey Ruiz, Edgar Osme�a, Guilberto Hermosa and Aniceto Arriola vs. SB and Pp.)

G.R. Nos. 99417-21 & 99637-99837 (Santos Cabusas and Sofronio Mag-uyon vs. SB and Pp.)

G.R. Nos. 99887-100084 (Rafael Rabaya, Jr. and Nestor Rabaya vs. SB and Pp.)

Before us is a motion for reconsideration of our decision dated July 17, 2003 filed by petitioners Rogelio Alvizo, Pompeyo Almagro and Catalino Magno on the following grounds:

I

THE CONVICTION OF ACCUSED ROLANDO MANGUBAT IN PREVIOUS CASES AND HIS PLEA OF GUILTY IN THESE CASES DO NOT RELIEVE THE PROSECUTION FROM PROVING THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE INFORMATION AGAINST THE PETITIONERS AND IN THESE CASES THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO PROVE THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

II

THE PLEA OF GUILTY OF ACCUSED ROLANDO MANGUBAT DOES NOT CONFIRM THE TESTIMONY OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES MADE AFTER SUCH PLEA OF GUILTY AND THE PLEA OF GUILTY DOES NOT ADMIT THE CONCLUSIONS OF FACT ALLEGED IN THE INFORMATION. THE PROSECUTION HAS TO PROVE THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE INFORMATION.

III

THE PRESUMPTION OF SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE DOES NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE ALLEGED REPORTS, TRIP TICKETS, AND WORKERS PAYMENTS, PROVING THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE PROJECTS ARE AVAILABLE TO BOTH THE ACCUSED AND THE PROSECUTION AND IT IS THE DUTY OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE THE NEGATIVE ALLEGATION THAT THE DOCUMENTS SIGNED BY PETITIONERS ARE FALSIFIED BECAUSE NO SUCH PROJECTS OR DELIVERIES WERE ACCOMPLISHED.

IV

PETITIONERS CAN STILL RAISE FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THIS APPEAL THAT THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ON WHICH THEIR SIGNATURES APPEARED WERE ONLY RE-USED TO VALIDATE OR GIVE SEMBLANCE OF VALIDITY TO THE FAKE LAAS AND SACDCS.

V

PROSECUTION FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE PETITIONERS CONSPIRED WITH THE OTHER CO-ACCUSED. PETITIONERS' SIGNATURES IN THE DOCUMENTS IN QUESTION DO NOT PROVE CONSPIRACY BE ITSELF.

Petitioners claim that the previous convictions of Mangubat and his plea of guilty in these cases affected the appreciation of evidence against them, thus, their constitutional right to be presumed innocent was unduly prejudiced. Petitioners also contend that the unqualified plea of guilty of Mangubat only admits that material allegations in the Information but not the testimony of prosecution witness Delia Preagido as to the falsity of the LAAs.

We are not persuaded. The conviction of petitioners was based on the evidence presented by the prosecution which indubitably showed how the ghost projects anomaly in the Cebu 2nd HED was accomplished which we have thoroughly discussed in our decision. Although our decision made mention that the plea of guilty of Mangubat, the signatory of all the fake LAAs and SACDCs, confirmed the testimony of prosecution witness Delia Preagido on the falsity of the LAAs, such plea was only corroborative since the falsity of the LAAs was positively established by Preagido who had a first hand knowledge of the same since she was the one who was instructed by Mangubat to type the fake LAAs. Moreover, the falsity of the LAAs was also established by prosecution witnesses COA auditors Ruth Paredes and Felicitas Ona who had clearly identified the badges of fraud in the issuances of the fake LAAs and SACDCs. The evidence also established that,there were no deliveries made in the project sites and no projects were prosecuted covering the 199 general vouchers. The plea of guilty made by Mangubat during the trial was not the basis of petitioners' conviction. Even without such plea, the evidence of the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt that conspiracy existed among the regional and the district officials, petitioners included, which was initiated with the issuances of fake LAAs, followed by the irregular preparation, processing and approval of the 199 GVs supported by simulated supporting documents and the payment to contractors for ghost projects.

Petitioners contend that their failure to request for THE records at Cebu 2^nd HED; such as the records of machine reports, trip tickets and workers to prove that projects were actually undertaken, would not give rise to a presumption of suppressing evidence; that the prosecution could have presented the same since both parties have access to the records. We are not convinced. Petitioners lose sight of the fact that the prosecution had established that there were no deliveries in the project sites. Thus, it is incumbent upon petitioners to present countervailing proofs that would show that indeed projects were undertaken. It is elementary in our rules on evidence that a party must prove his own affirmative allegations.1

Petitioners next claim that we erred in stating that they cannot raise for the first time on appeal the issue that the subject documents were only re-used to validate or give semblance of validity to the fake LAAs and SACDCs. They contend that an appeal in criminal cases opens the entire case for review and said issue can be considered since every circumstance favoring the innocence of the accused must be taken into account.

We find the argument untenable. While it is true that an appeal opens the entire case for review and the Court has the authority to review matters not specifically raised or assigned as errors by parties, the same does not include matters which were neither alleged nor raised in the trial court. It is a rudimentary principle of law that matters neither alleged in the pleading - nor raised during the proceedings below cannot be ventilated for the first time on appeal before the Supreme Court.2 Petitioners' allegation that the subject supporting documents were merely re-used to give semblance of validity to the fake LAAs was only raised in their petitions filed before us. They could have brought the matter of re-used documents in the proceedings and presented proper evidence before the Sandiganbayan to enable the latter to make a comparison of the general vouchers to which the subject supporting documents were alleged to have been previously attached. It was incumbent upon petitioners to present competent evidence before the Sandiganbayan to support said claim. Thus, we find that the defense of re-used documents was a mere afterthought concocted by petitioners.

Finally, there is no merit in petitioners' contention that the evidence of alleged conspiracy was insufficient to establish their guilt; that they were convicted on the basis of their signatures in the subject documents. As we have stated in our decision, direct proof is not essential to show conspiracy. The existence of the assent of minds which is involved in a conspiracy may be inferred from proofs of facts and circumstances which, taken together, apparently indicate that they are parts of a complete whole. The prosecution evidence had established that there were no deliveries, thus, petitioners who affixed their signatures in the Requisition and Issue Vouchers (RIVs), tally sheets of alleged deliveries of materials certifying that they received the materials and projects were prosecuted were all simulated, and these documents, among others, were used to support the general vouchers and the issuances of checks as payment to contractors for ghost projects. The prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt that petitioners were knowing participants in the scheme to defraud the government.

WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED with finality. Let entry of judgment be entered in due course.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., no part.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court

By:

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Assistant Clerk of Court