VS. SANDIGANBAYAN AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Rolando Mangubat, Isaac T. Mananquil, Wilfredo Monte, Eugenio S. Machan, Cresencia L. Tan, Francisco Ganhinhin, Trinidad T. Manloloyo, Aurelio M. De la Peña, Zosimo S. Dinsay, Jose R. Veloso, Ediltrudes S. Kilat, Regino Jumawan, Arsenio A. Pakilit, Urbano Arcamo, Juan Sumagang, and Clodualdo G. Gomilla GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as co-principals in the complex crimes of Estafa thru Falsification of Public Documents, as defined and penalized under Articles 318 and 171, Paragraph 4, in relation to Article 48, all of the Revised Penal Code, and appreciating the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender in favor of all of the above-named accused, as well as the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law xxx. [13] DE LA PEÑAs motion for new trial was denied [14] hence, this petition where we are limiting the issue to whether or not DE LA PEÑAs alleged participation in the conspiracy has been established beyond reasonable doubt since he does not dispute the Sandiganbayans finding that there were anomalies in the issuance of LAAs. DE LA PEÑAs conviction is predicated solely on the finding of a conspiracy which the respondent court based on the following findings: Accused De la Peñas liability, as Administrative Officer, springs from his signing RIVs, Abstract of Bids, and Reports of Inspection, which he knew were fake, simulated or fictitious and in pursuance of the general conspiracy to defraud the government. xxx None of the accused regional and district officials can claim good faith or reliance on the regularity of the documents processed and signed by them or on the presumption that their subordinates and/or superiors have acted regularly, since by the very nature of their duties, they should have known or realized by mere scrutiny of the documents or by the exercise of ordinary diligence that there were irregularities or anomalies reflected on their very faces. This is exemplified by several circumstances patent on said documents, to wit, the irregular funding of the LAAs; the improper charging to prior years obligations; the unauthorized and/or improper action by officials on the supporting documents; the lack or incompleteness of supporting documents, and the splitting of payments. Neither can the accused-contractors claim good faith likewise and reliance on the actuations of their co-accused public officials since they knew fully well that their participation in the transactions under question were only make believe or a farce, and that their names, business standing and signatures were only utilized, with their whole hearted cooperation, in seeking the consummation of their plans to defraud the government. All in all, the evidence adduced by the prosecution have been subjected by this court to the utmost and rigid scrutiny, each and every facet thereof having been tested on the anvil of logic and reason, and the resultant conclusions unerringly and accurately lead to the e