G.R. Nos. 228097-103 & 228139-41 - ERIC A. CABARIOS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.

Ruling

Accordingly, the ten (10) aforementioned Informations were filed before the Sandiganbayan against petitioner, Navalta, and Revantad. Warrants of arrest were consequently issued on them. On January 19, 2012, petitioner voluntarily surrendered [25] while Navalta and Revantad remained at large. [26] On arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty to all the charges. Trial ensued. Atty. Bernardo Rubio Sumicad (Atty. Sumicad), Provincial Social Welfare and Development Officer (PSWDO) Cherlita Arnad Garate (Garate), Alicia Y. Alvarado (Alvarado) and Atty. Samuel P. Naungayan (Naungayan) testified for the prosecution. [27] On the other hand, petitioner, Indang Mohamad Garrido, Perry Boy Q. Baltazar (Baltazar), Maria Evelyn Austero T. Monasterio (Monasterio), Barangay Captain Dante Silva ( Barangay Captain Silva), Ferdinand Maco Baylosis (Baylosis), and Allan Barnido Acas (Acas) testified for the defense. [28] Though listed as prosecution witness, Alvarez was not allowed to testify for the defense as she was not included as defense witness in the pre-trial order, The defense nevertheless tendered her testimony as excluded evidence. [29] Version of the Prosecution Atty. Sumicad , [30] Team Leader of COA-Regional Office IX, testified that his audit team gathered the disbursement vouchers and attachments pertinent to petitioner's transactions under the Program. They, too, personally searched for the individual beneficiaries indicated in these documents but failed to locate them. Even the barangay officials from the reported addresses were not able to identify the supposed beneficiaries. Meanwhile, confirmation letters sent to beneficiaries yielded only two (2) responses from Alvarez and Dominado who both denied receiving any assistance under the Program. Two (2) other letters were returned with mark "Return to sender, Party unknown," while the rest did not merit a response or simply got lost. They also sent confirmation letters to the MLGOOs of the various municipalities where the beneficiaries allegedly resided. [31] The MLGOOs though certified that the alleged beneficiaries are not residents of their assigned municipalities based on the voters' list. [32] Thus, the audit team concluded that twenty-nine (29) out of thirty-one (31) of petitioner's supposed beneficiaries were either fictitious or non-existent while two (2) others did not actually receive any financial aid. [33] All the vouchers were in the form of reimbursement to petitioner who claimed to have directly paid or advanced the corresponding financial assistance to the supposed beneficiaries. Notably, the vouchers were all signed by petitioner who attested that he certified that he paid personally the beneficiaries. [34] But the audit team did not believe this statement since they could not locate the alleged beneficiaries and, in two (2) cases, the alleged beneficiaries denied receiving any amount under the Program. Consequently, the audit team recommended the filing of appropriate criminal and