G.R. Nos. 158694-96 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. TEOFILO G. PANTALEON, JR. AND JAIME F. VALLEJOS, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , the accused, TEOFILO G. PANTALEON, JR., and JAIME F. VALLEJOS, are hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS THRU FALSIFICATION, in three counts, as defined and penalized under Article 217 in relation to Articles 48 and 171 of the Revised Penal Code, and each of said acc`ed is hereby sentenced in Criminal Case Nos. 25861, 25862, and 25863, respectively, to suffer three times the penalty of reclusion perpetua , to suffer the penalty of perpetual special disqualification and to pay a fine in the amounts of P166,242.72, P154,634.27, and P90,464.21, respectively, and to pay the costs. SO ORDERED . [41] [ Emphasis in the original ] Post-Sandiganbayan Developments and the Appeal Vallejos moved on February 17, 2003 to reconsider the decision. [42] Pantaleon, for his part, moved on February 18, 2003 for a new trial (with prayer to set aside judgment). [43] The Sandiganbayan denied these motions for lack of merit. [44] The records of the case were forwarded to this Court after the appellants filed their respective notices of appeal. In our Resolution of September 13, 2004, [45] we transferred the case to the CA for appropriate action and disposition pursuant to People v. Mateo . [46] The records disclose that Pantaleon was granted a conditional pardon on June 8, 2006. [47] Pantaleon filed on June 20, 2006 with the CA an urgent motion to withdraw appeal. [48] The CA denied the motion in its Resolution of July 7, 2006. [49] CA Associate Justice Arcangelita M. Ronilla-Lontok thereafter returned the entire records of the case to this Court reasoning out that the CA has no jurisdiction over the case pursuant to Sec.1[b] and [c], Rule X of the Revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan. [50] On September 24, 2007, this Court's First Division issued a Resolution reinstating the case in its docket. [51] Pantaleon filed with this Court on November 19, 2007 an urgent motion to withdraw his appeal. [52] We granted this motion in our Resolution of December 5, 2007, [53] and issued the corresponding entry of judgment on February 8, 2008. [54] Thus, this Decision at this point relates solely to appellant Vallejos. In the discussions that follow, however, we shall still refer to the parties as "appellants" because of the linkages that exist between them as common perpetrators of the offenses charged. In his brief, appellant Vallejos argued, among others, that the Sandiganbayan erred-- in convicting him of the crime charged despite merely occupying a salary grade (SG) 24 position; in convicting him of the crime charged despite the absence of notice to restitute from the Provincial Auditor of Zambales; in convicting him of the crime charged despite merely acting ministerially on the disbursement vouchers in question; and in finding that a conspiracy existed between him and Pantaleon. THE COURT'S RULING We DENY the appeal for lack of merit. Sufficiency of Prosecution Evidence Malversation is defined and penalized