Villa

v. Sandiganbayan
Supreme Court
April 24, 1992
G.R. No. 87186, 87281, 87466, 87524 (Villa, Montayre, Sucalit, Jimenez respectively as petitioners)
Facts
-Anomalous transactions at the Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA), Mactan International Airport, led to the filing in
1975 of criminal charges for violating Section 3, Paragraphs (a) and (h) of RA 3019 as well as Sec 12 Rule XVIII of the Civil
Service Rules and Section 1 of PD no. 6 in the Circuit Criminal Court of Cebu City against:
a. Casimiro David
b. Estanislao Centeno
c. Serafin Robles
d. Fernando Dario
-The case involved questionable payments made by the CAA Mactan to Rocen Enterprises and Sprayway Corp. dealers in
paper products and printed matter for the purchase of electrincal items and the cost of their installation in the total
amount of P299,175.00.
-Another accused, Mactan Airport General Manager Arturo Jimenez was dropped from the amended information after a
reinvestigation.
-Judge Romeo Escareal (1978 Judge of the Circuit Criminal Court of Cebu City) rendered a decision finding all the accused
guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
-The decision of the trial court included findings that the following also conspired and were equally liable with the
convicted accused:
a. Arturo Jimenez
b. Rodolfo Montayre
c. Camilo Villa
d. Josefina Sucalit
e. Hereto Leonor
f. Manuel Bustamante
-Judge Escareal directed Chief State Prosecutor Juan A. Sison of the ministry of Justice to assign a State prosecutor to
conduct an investigation for possible violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
-The investigation led to the filing of an information with the Sandiganbayan
-Upon arraignment, all the accused pleaded not guilty
Order of the transaction among the accused
-Dario, Centeno and Robles negotiated with Jimenez
-Montayre issued Requisition and Issue Voucher
-Jimenez approved the requisition and Leonor certified to the availability of funds
-Jimenez sent Sucalit to Manila to canvass
-Sucalit delivered Advertisement Form to:
a. Rocen Enterprises
b. Utilities Equipment and Supply Corporation (UTESCO)
c. Intrade Corporation
-The Committee prepared an Abtract of Bids
-Rocen Enterprises was awarded so a Purchase Order was prepared and signed by David and approved by
Jimenez.
-Rocen Enterprises, the winning bidder was ostensibly owned by Remedios Centeno wife of Estanislao Centeno
-The First Division of Sandiganbayan found all the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt with the same violations of
the previous case decided
-There was manifest partiality, evident bad faith and inexcusable negligence in accepting the bid of Rocen Enterprises a
business for paper products and printed materials where in fact electrical materials are needed for the brownout that
happened in the airport.
-While the Sandiganbayan case was pending, the CA in a decision reversed the judgment of conviction rendered by the
Circuit Criminal Court of Cebu City because of insufficient evidence.
-The CA decision was invoked by herein petitioners in separate motions for reconsiderations of the decision of the
Sandiganbayan
Issues
1. Whether or not the decision of the acquittal of the CA promulgated 6 months before the decision of the
Sandiganbayan bars their conviction pursuant to the doctrine of “the law of the case”
2. Whether or not the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, which were discredited by the CA as biased, merit belief by
the Sandiganbayan.
3. Whether or not there was conspiracy among the petitioners.
Holdings & Rationale
1. CA decision does not bar Sandiganbayan’s conviction
(Law of the case Doctrine – that principle under which determinations of questions of law will generally be held to govern a case
throughout all its subsequent stages where such determination has already been made on a prior appeal to a court of last resort. It is
merely a rule of procedure and does not go to the power of the court and will not be adhered to where its application will result in an
unjust decision. It relates entirely to questions of law and is confined in its operation to subsequent proceedings in the SAME CASE.)
-The present case is not merely a stage or subsequent proceedings of the case in CA. Although related, they are entirely
DISTINCT and separate cases.
-The persons accused in one differ from those in the other. There is therefore no way whereby the doctrine would apply.
-If ever the findings of the CA in the case decided by it would be considered operative as the law of the case, the same
would be confined in its operations solely to the case and to those accused therein.
(Res judicata- a matter that has been adjudicated by a competent court and may not be pursued further by the same parties)
-Res judicata does not apply because one of the requisites is that there must be substantial identity of parties (same
people involved) which is not present in the case in Sandiganbayan compared to the judgment in CA.
-The petitioners also invoke that since CA made a decision that conspiracy was never present, Sandiganbayan cannot
make a contrary conclusion. This defense is untenable because in United States v. Remigio, the Court held that although
a conspiracy is in its nature a joint offense, it does not follow that one person only cannot be convicted of conspiracy.
2. Testimonies of prosecution witnesses even though discredited by CA , merit belief by the Sandiganbayan
-The findings of fact of the Sandiganbayan are binding in the SC. Since it is a trial court, it is in a position to observe the
demeanor of the witnesses unlike the CA which had to rely only in the words of the Solicitor General on a mute
transcript of stenographic notes.
3. A close scrutiny of the circumstances clearly indicates Jimenez and Sucalit were indeed involved in a scheme
violative of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Montarye and Villa are not criminally liable.
-We agree that the issuance of and signatures on the reports of inspection, certificates of delivery and general vouchers
were innocent and justified by the emergency nature of the purchase and the need to beat the expiry dates of the Cash
Disbursement Ceilings (CDCs).
-What the SC cannot come to terms with is the glaring fact that the winning bidder Rocen Enterprises which was
represented by Centeno, Robles and Dario deals only in paper products and printed matter and merely procured the
electrical items it supplies to CAA Mactan from UTESCO, one of the losing bidders.
-Sucalit was responsible with canvassing of suppliers while Jimenez was responsible for awarding Rocen Enterprises.
-Mantayre having signed the reports of inspection, certificates of delivery and general vouchers before delivery of the
items requisitioned -> these are innocent acts in view of the emergency nature of the purchase and the need to beat the
expiry date of the CDCs
-Villa also signed invoices, reports of inspection, certificates of delivery and general vouchers before delivery of the
items requisitioned. -> Constituted negligence but not gross inexcusable negligence punishable by law bc of his reliance
to Jimenez and Sucalit’s discretion in awarding Rocen Enterprises
Disposition
-The appealed judgment of the Sandiganbayan is AFFIRMED insofar as petitioners Jimenez and Sucalit are concerned (3
to 6 yrs of imprisonment). Petitioners Villa and Montayre are hereby ACQUITTED.