Republic of the Philippines
Sandiganbayan
Quezon City
***
FIRST DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff,
CRIM. CASE NO. 25071
-versus-
Present:
POCIDIO C.M. QUIAMBAO, JR.,
EDUARDO F. BAUTISTA, JR., and
EDITHA A. PARAGAS,
Accused.
Leonardo-De Castro, P.J.,
Peralta, and
Jurado, JJ.
August 4, 2006
Promulgated
X---------------------------------------------X
DECISION
Jurado, J.:
Pocidio C.M. Quiambao, Jr. (hereinafter "accused Quiambao" for
brevity), Eduardo F. Bautista, Jr. (hereinafter "accused Bautista" for
brevity), and Editha A. Paragas (hereinafter "accused Paragas" for
brevity) stand charged with violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act
No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act, in an information quoted as follows:
“That on or about October 22, 1997, in Quezon City,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-named accused, all employees of the Commission on
Higher Education, National Capital Region (CHED-NCR) except
EDUARDO F. BAUTISTA, JR., while in the performance of their
official functions, POCIDIO C.M. QUIAMBAO, JR., in his
capacity as Regional Director with Salary Grade 28 under the
Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 (RA
6758), taking advantage of their positions, committing the
offense in relation to their office, conspiring and confederating
with one another, together with EDUARDO F. BAUTISTA, JR.,
Registrar, Philippine College of Criminology (PCCr), through
evident bad faith, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
maliciously cause undue injury to the government by then and
there processing and issuing Special Order No. (NCR) (c) 70100:31, s. 1997, dated October 22, 1997, in favor of J/SR.

This is an inherited case.
People vs. Quiambao, Jr., et al.
Criminal Case No. 25071
DECISION
Page 2 of 22
x-------------------------------------------x
Supt. MIGUEL A. BERNANTE, knowing that the supporting
documents upon which the Special Order was based e.g.
registration cards, official receipts etc., were all fabricated, said
J/Sr. Supt. Miguel A. Bernante not being legally entitled to said
Special Order of graduation, thereby, giving said J/Sr. Supt.
Miguel A. Bernante unwarranted benefit, advantage and
preference, to the damage and prejudice of the Government.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”1
All the above-named accused voluntarily surrendered before this
Court. Accused Quiambao did so on December 21, 1998 2; accused
Bautista on December 17, 1998 3; and, accused Paragas on January
5, 1999.4 They all posted their respective bail bonds for their
provisional liberty.
Thereupon, they all sought reinvestigation/reconsideration of
this
case,
with
accused
Quiambao
filing
a
"Motion
for
Reinvestigation",5 accused Bautista, a "Manifestation with Arguments
together with Offer of Counter-Affidavit of Merit",6 and accused
Paragas, a "Motion for Reconsideration".7 The Court, acting on the
said motions, directed the prosecution to conduct reinvestigation of
this
case.
In
compliance,
the
prosecution
conducted
the
reinvestigation, and on June 15, 1999, it manifested and/or reported
to the Court the final action of the Ombudsman on the said motions
maintaining the prosecution of the instant case.8
In its Resolution
dated August 2, 1999 9, the Court thus set the arraignment and pretrial of the case.
1Record,
Vol. I, pp. 1-2
p. 52
3Id., p. 43
4Id., p. 101
5Id., pp. 84-89
6Id., pp. 145-158
7Id., pp. 111-116
8Id., pp. 231-259
9Id., p. 272
2Id.,
People vs. Quiambao, Jr., et al.
Criminal Case No. 25071
DECISION
Page 3 of 22
x-------------------------------------------x
When arraigned on August 23, 1999, the accused Bautista and
Paragas, duly assisted by their respective counsel, separately entered
the plea of "Not Guilty".10 Accused Quiambao was arraigned earlier or
on May 31, 1999 because of his motion to travel, and, duly assisted
by counsel, he, too, entered the plea of "Not Guilty".11
Pre-trial was subsequently conducted.
issued
its
Pre-Trial
Order
dated
Thereafter, the Court
November
24,
1999 12
and
Supplemental Pre-Trial Order dated March 14, 2000. 13
EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION
Asterio L. Mancilla (hereinafter "Mancilla" for brevity) who was
presented as the lone witness for the prosecution testified that he has
been the Assistant Registrar of the Philippine College of Criminology
(PCCr) since 1985, and as such, he has custody of the records of the
students including those enrolled in the post-graduate program.14
On September 15, 1997, he received a letter15 from Erlinda
Limba-Tee,
MPSA,
Chief,
Intelligence
Unit,
Bureau
of
Jail
Management and Penology (BJMP), inquiring as to whether one J/Sr.
Supt. Miguel A. Bernante (hereinafter "Bernante" for brevity) was a
student of the school under its post-graduate program.
In reply
thereto, he issued a Certification16 on the same date to the effect that
he could not find any record of Bernante at that time.17Mr. Bernante
was enrolled in the off-campus program and his records as well as
those of the other students in the program were in the custody of its
10Id.,
pp. 287-288
p193
12Id., pp. 341-344
13Id., pp. 448-454
14TSN, August 23, 2000, pp. 17-18
15Exhibit "G", previously marked as Exhibit "D"
16Exhibit "H"
17TSN, August 23, 2000, pp. 2021
11Id.,
People vs. Quiambao, Jr., et al.
Criminal Case No. 25071
DECISION
Page 4 of 22
x-------------------------------------------x
director, Dr. Harry Lorenzo.18
The said records would be transmitted
to his office only when the students/participants of the program were
ready or about to graduate.
He admitted that the Certification that he issued to Erlinda
Limba-Tee (Exhibit "H") on September 15, 1997 was a mistake. He
was then so busy that he did not realize that earlier or on August 18,
1997, he had already indorsed the enrolment list of the enrollees
under the off-campus program to the DECS.19
The prosecution offered its documentary evidence consisting of
Exhibits "A" to "H"20 all of which were admitted by the Court in its
Resolution of August 27, 2002.21
EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE
The defense presented five (5) witnesses, namely: the accused
Quiambao, Bautista and Paragas, themselves, Harry Lorenzo, Jr., and
Marivic Iriberri.
Accused Eduardo F. Bautista, Jr., the Registrar of the
Philippine College of Criminology, testified that Assistant Registrar
Mancilla, prior to the issuance of the Certification (Exhibit "H"), had
already received the enrolment list of the Off-Campus Program which
included the name of J/Sr. Supt. Miguel A. Bernante per his signature
on the receiving copy and which he (Mancilla), thereafter, transmitted
to the CHED on August 18, 1997
18Id.,
22
together with the list of students
p. 23
p. 44
20Record, Vol. I, pp. 475-477
21Id., p. 372
221st Indorsement, Exhibit "12"; TSN, November 24, 2000, pp. 7-10
19Id.,
People vs. Quiambao, Jr., et al.
Criminal Case No. 25071
DECISION
Page 5 of 22
x-------------------------------------------x
taking up Master of Arts in Criminology
23
and the letter of Harry C.
Lorenzo, Jr., dated August 18, 1997.24
As registrar, he knows the documents required for the issuance
of the Special Order (S.O.) and they are: the enrolment list, Form 9 or
the Transcript of Records, and the Certification which is actually the
request for the issuance of the Special Order.25 These are all sent to
the CHED but only the request is returned together with the Special
Order itself.26
In the case of Bernante, the request for the issuance of the
Special Order was made on October 22, 1997, addressed to the
Director, Higher Education Regional Office, CHED, NCR and signed by
him.27
Dr. Harry C. Lorenzo, Jr.
(hereinafter "Lorenzo" for brevity),
the Director of the PCCr Off-Campus Graduate Program during the
period material to the case, testified that this program started to
operate in July 1995
Quezon City
29
28
and its venue of operations is Camp Crame in
with the conference room as the classroom. 30 Those
who were allowed to enroll in the program were the generals and
colonels of the Philippine National Police (PNP) as well as officials and
employees of the Department of the Interior and Local Government
(DILG) who have worked in the said agencies for at least ten (10)
years.31
23Exhibit
"14"; Id., p. 11
"13"
25Id., pp. 6-7
26TSN, December 13, 2000, p. 40
27Exhibit "B"; TSN, December 11, 2000, p. 7
28TSN, April 2, 2001, p. 12
29Id., p. 11
30TSN, April 4, 2001, p. 39
31TSN, April 2, 2001, p. 13
24Exhibit
People vs. Quiambao, Jr., et al.
Criminal Case No. 25071
DECISION
Page 6 of 22
x-------------------------------------------x
One enrollee in the said program was Bernante as evidenced by
his registration cards, the list of enrolment, his transcript of records, a
copy of his thesis, and a copy of the picture taken during the defense
of his thesis.32
Bernante likewise was listed as one of the participants in the
Special Course on Public Safety Strategic Management conducted by
the CDR International of London as required by DILG Department
Order No. 96-729 of DILG officials taking up post-graduate studies
under the PCCr Off-Campus Program.33
When Bernante completed the requirements for graduation, he
personally attended to the application for the issuance of the Special
Order. He sent a letter to Dr. Eduardo J. Bautista, President of the
PCCr, dated October 3, 1997
34
asking that Bernante be allowed to
graduate ahead of the others upon Bernante's request. Dr. Bautista
approved the request per the 1st Indorsement dated October 7,
1997.35
As he was also given authority by Dr. Bautista to apply for the
issuance of the Special Order for Bernante, he proceeded to prepare
the documents that needed to be submitted to the CHED, to wit: (1)
Form 9 of Bernante;36(2) his thesis;37and, (3) the list of students in
M.A. in Criminology.38 At that time, the CHED asked for the said list
to make sure that Bernante was indeed enrolled in the program. 39 He
submitted all these to the CHED on October 22, 1997 40 with a
32TSN,
April 4, 2001, pp. 20-21
pp. 31-35; Exhibit "15"
34Exhibit "1"
35Exhibit "2"; Id., pp. 9-12
36Exhibit "4"
37Exhibit "27"; TSN, July 2, 2001, pp. 19-20
38Exhibit "3"
39TSN, July 2, 2001, pp. 13-14.
40Id., p. 22
33Id.,
People vs. Quiambao, Jr., et al.
Criminal Case No. 25071
DECISION
Page 7 of 22
x-------------------------------------------x
covering letter addressed to the CHED Director, and the Special Order
applied for was subsequently issued.41
Accused Pocidio Clemente M. Quiambao, Regional Director of
the CHED-NCR from August 1, 1995 until November 23, 1998,
testified
that
his
duties
and
functions
as
such
include
the
disbursement of funds of the regional office, the supervision of the
work of his supervisors, the assignment to the supervisors for
evaluation the Form 9 of the students, and the signing of Special
Orders.42
He described the procedure observed relative to the processing of
Special Orders as follows: (1) the application or request for the
issuance of the Special Order is submitted to the receiving section; (2)
it goes next to the personnel in charge of the records to be checked
whether the name of the student-applicant appears in the enrolment
list; (3) it is forwarded to the office of the regional director so that the
same may be assigned to a supervisor for evaluation or for
determination as to whether the requirements for the course have
been complied with and which evaluation is reviewed by any of the
supervisors; (4) then, it is sent to the Special Order Section where
the one in charge would assign the Special Order Number and this is
done when the signatures of those involved in the processing thereof
are found therein; and, (5) finally, it is forwarded to the Office of the
Regional Director for his signature.43
An application or request for the Special Order is submitted to
the receiving clerk in general but there are instances when the
requesting party would go directly to his office especially when the
Special Order is needed for some purposes.
41Id.,
p. 23
January 23, 2002, pp. 5-7
43Id., pp. 7-9
42TSN,
People vs. Quiambao, Jr., et al.
Criminal Case No. 25071
DECISION
Page 8 of 22
x-------------------------------------------x
In the case of Bernante, the application or request for the
issuance of the Special Order was received by his office, then
forwarded to Mrs. Paragas, it was subsequently forwarded to Dr.
Chavez for evaluation and then to Mrs. Ramos for review.44
He recalled having issued the Special Order for Bernante
sometime in October 1997.45
He further testified that the administrative case filed against him
before the Ombudsman was dismissed on December 8, 2000 for
insufficiency of evidence.46
Accused Editha A. Paragas, Records Officer of the CHED,
National Capital Region since 1995, testified that her duties as such
include receiving, releasing and safekeeping of documents and doing
other related work that may be assigned to her like the processing and
releasing of Special Orders.47
According to her, the process for the issuance of the Special
Order starts with an application therefor by the school concerned.
The liaison officer or the school representative brings the application,
together with the letter-request of the school registrar for the issuance
of the Special Order, the Special Order Form, and the Form 9 or
Transcript of Records,48 to the Records Section of the CHED to have it
stamped "Received", then to the supervisor for verification against the
originals who thereafter affixes his signature on the Form 9 or the
44Id.,
pp. 20-22
p. 11
46Id., p. 23
47TSN, February 26, 2002, pp. 6-8
48When the Special Order applied for is in the graduate level, the Transcript of Records of the student-applicant
in the undergraduate level is also required, TSN, February 26, 2002, pp. 15-16
45Id.,
People vs. Quiambao, Jr., et al.
Criminal Case No. 25071
DECISION
Page 9 of 22
x-------------------------------------------x
Transcript of Records.49 The application is next brought back to the
records officer for course and enrolment verification who thereafter
signs the Special Order form.50 This course and enrolment verification
which involves only the verification of the transcript of records against
the enrolment list51 was a matter of policy52 until the issuance of
CHED-NCR Memorandum No. 126, Series of 1996
53
when this was
dispensed with.
Her function as course and enrolment verifier was just an
additional work given to her which work no longer required the crosschecking of the transcript of records against the enrolment list but for
her to simply to see to it that there is the certification of the registrar
and that verification has been made by the supervisor. 54 In Bernante's
case, she did not find the 1st Indorsement dated August 18, 1997
(Exhibit1”12”) with the attached list of students enrolled in Master of
Arts in Criminology as of 1995 of the Off-Campus Program of the
PCCr
55
and the letter of Dr. Harry Lorenzo dated August 18, 1997
56
as among the papers submitted together with the application for
Special Order the first time that she saw the same being only when
she returned to work from her maternity leave in November, 1998,
57
as evidenced by the stamp "Received" on the said document itself.
Nonetheless, she processed the said application considering that the
registrar has recommended the said processing, the certification that
Bernante was enrolled, that the same has been approved for the
issuance of the Special Order, and Memorandum No. 126 which
dispensed with the cross-checking against the enrolment list.58
49Id.,
pp. 8-13
pp. 20-21
51Id., p. 25
52Id., p. 22
53Exhibit "5"
54TSN, February 26, 2002, pp. 25-27
55Exhibit "14"
56Exhibit "13"
57TSN, June 6, 2002, pp. 23-25
58Id., p. 32
50Id.,
People vs. Quiambao, Jr., et al.
Criminal Case No. 25071
DECISION
Page 10 of 22
x-------------------------------------------x
To indicate that she had discharged this particular function of
hers, she would affix her initials, then write letter "E" which is her
code and the date on the Form 9. 59 She did just this in the case of
Bernante.
Thus, all these markings could be found in Bernante's
Form 9.60
She has determined Bernante's Form 9 to have been verified
against the original by CHED supervisor, Mrs. Ramos, per the latter's
initials on the said Form 9.61 She also identified Dr. Chavez as the
supervisor to whom the same was assigned for evaluation from Dr.
Chavez' initials with the notation "okay" over it, which meant that the
application for the Special Order for Bernante was approved for
issuance.62 The said application then was brought to the clerk
concerned for the purpose of assigning the Special Order Number. In
this case, it was Thelma Albacea who happened to assign the said
number63 reflected in the Special Order form although the same was
also indicated in the accompanying letter of Dr. Harry Lorenzo.64
There were three (3) of them who do the stamping of "Received"
on the applications for the Special Order and she happened to be the
one to do it in the application for Bernante.65
She clarified that it is ministerial on her part to receive the
application for Special Order.66 All that she has to do is to receive the
59TSN,
February 26, 2000, pp. 27-29
pp. 30-31
61Id., pp. 29-30
62Id., pp. 34-35
63Id., p. 38
64Id., pp. 39-40
65Id., p. 10
66Id., p. 13
60Id.,
People vs. Quiambao, Jr., et al.
Criminal Case No. 25071
DECISION
Page 11 of 22
x-------------------------------------------x
application and instruct the liaison officer or the school representative
to bring the application to the supervisor. 67
Marivic V. Iriberri (hereinafter "Iriberri for brevity), CHED-NCR
Education Supervisor II since 1995, testified that her functions as
such include the evaluation of the Form 9 as part of the process of the
application for the issuance of the Special Order. In other words, she
does the same functions as those of her fellow supervisors, Mrs.
Ramos and Dr. Chavez.68 Thus, the functions of accused Paragas as
records officer necessarily do not include the evaluation of records for
the purpose of the issuance of the Special Order. She testified that she
merely receives the documents, have them stamped "Received" and
brings or causes the same to be brought to the office concerned for the
"proper routine slip" for assignment purposes.69
The defense offered its documentary evidence as follows:
For accused Quiambao: Exhibits “1” to “4”, inclusive, with submarkings; Exhibit “29”, with sub-markings; and Exhibits “33” to
“34”.70
For accused Bautista: Exhibit “4”, with sub-markings; Exhibits
“12” to “18”, inclusive, with sub-markings; Exhibit “21”, with submarkings; Exhibits “24” to “27”, inclusive, with sub-markings; and,
Exhibits “30” to “32”, inclusive, with sub-markings.71
For accused Paragas: Exhibit “5”, with sub-markings;
Exhibit “28”, with sub-markings; Exhibit “F” of the prosecution;
Exhibit “4”, with sub-markings, of the accused Quiambao and
67Id.,
p. 17
TSN, June 26, 2002, pp. 7-8.
69 Id., p. 9.
70 Record,Vol. II, pp. 179-206
71 Id., pp. 202-359
68
People vs. Quiambao, Jr., et al.
Criminal Case No. 25071
DECISION
Page 12 of 22
x-------------------------------------------x
Bautista; Exhibit “29” of accused Quiambao; and, Exhibit “12” of
accused Bautista.72
The Court admitted all the foregoing exhibits in its Resolution of
August 27, 2002.73
All the three (3) accused submitted their respective memoranda,
accused Bautista, on October 3, 200274; and, accused Paragas, on
October 10, 200275; and particularly, accused Quiambao who
belatedly filed his memorandum on October 28, 200276 which the
Court resolves to take into consideration. The prosecution failed to file
its Memorandum.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT
The present controversy revolves around the allegedly irregular
issuance of Special Order No. (NCR) (c) 7-0100:31, Series of 1997 in
favor of J/Sr. Supt. Miguel A. Bernante for a degree in Master of Arts
in Criminology. The charge is that Bernante was never enrolled in the
PCCr so that, therefore, the basis for the Special Order was untruthful
and false.77
J/Sr. Supt. Miguel A. Bernante was an officer of the Bureau of
Jail Management and Penology (BJMP) during all the time material to
the case. Being then considered for promotion, he was consequently
subjected to a background investigation.
Erlinda Limba-Tee, MPSA, Chief, Intelligence Unit, BJMP,
conducted the said background investigation on Bernante, more
specifically, on his educational attainment.
72
Id., pp. 173-178
Id., p. 372
74 Id., pp. pp. 377-393
75 Id./ pp. 394-395
76 Id., pp. 406-413
77 Pre-Trial Order, supra
73
Thus, on August 11,
People vs. Quiambao, Jr., et al.
Criminal Case No. 25071
DECISION
Page 13 of 22
x-------------------------------------------x
1997, she verified from the PCCr the records of the subject officer on
his alleged M.A. in Criminology. The query yielded a negative answer,
embodied in a handwritten note that “there was (sic) no records on
file, please see Dr. Lorenzo about this”, dated August 11, 1997.
78
She
also made a similar inquiry from the CHED-NCR and the response
was that neither said office has any such records as of August 12,
1997.
79
In order to completely support her investigation on Bernante’s
educational record, she requested a certification from the PCCr as to
“no records on file” relative to the alleged M.A. in Criminology of
Bernante in a letter dated September 15, 1997, addressed to the
Registrar, PCCr (Exhibit “G”).
The Registrar, through Assistant
Registrar Asterio Mancilla, responded with a letter dated September
15, 1997
80
certifying that there is no record on file by the name
Bernante.
The PCCr operates an Off-Campus Program through its Director,
Dr. Harry C. Lorenzo, Jr. in Camp Crame, Quezon City. Dr. Lorenzo
is the custodian of the records of the students enrolled in the
program.
He transmits the said records to the PCCr when the
students are about or ready to graduate.
Thus, Dr. Lorenzo
transmitted to the PCCr the “List of Students Enrolled in M.A. in
Criminology”81 covered by a letter addressed to the President, PCCr,
through the Registrar, dated August 18, 1997
82
certifying that the
students listed therein are officially enrolled as of July 1995 in the
Off-Campus Program of the PCCr in Camp Crame, Q.C., and with the
information as well that the tentative graduation is scheduled to be
held in Malacanang in December, 1997.
Exhibit “G”
Ibid
80 Exhibit “H”
81 Exhibit “14”
82 Exhibit “13”
78
79
The enrolment list included
People vs. Quiambao, Jr., et al.
Criminal Case No. 25071
DECISION
Page 14 of 22
x-------------------------------------------x
J/Sr. Supt. Miguel Bernante and this was, in turn, forwarded to the
Director, CHED-NCR, per the 1st Indorsement dated August 18, 1997
and signed by Asterio L. Mancilla, Assistant Director. 83
Hence, the fact is that the PCCr has a record of Bernante on file
as early as August 18, 1997 and the Certification [Exhibit “H”] was
evidently a mistake, admitted by no less than Mancilla himself.
When Bernante completed the requirements for graduation, Dr.
Lorenzo found himself again transmitting some record appertaining to
Bernante.
On October 3, 1997, he wrote Dr. Eduardo J. Bautista,
PCCr President, asking that Bernante be allowed to graduate ahead of
the
others
upon
Bernante’s
request
as
he
was
then
being
recommended for promotion.84 Dr. Bautista replied with the “1st
Indorsement” dated October 7, 1997
85
where he directed Dr. Lorenzo
to attend to the matter since the latter being in custody of all the
records of students in the off-campus program is in a better position
to make compliance with the requirements of the CHED for the
issuance of the Special Order.
On October 22, 1997, the PCCr filed with the CHED the
application/request for the issuance of the Special Order in favor of
Bernante [Exhibit “B”] with the following documents: (1) Form 9 of
Bernante or his Transcript of Records for the post-graduate course
together with the Transcript of Records for the undergraduate course
[Exhibit “4”]; (2) his thesis [Exhibit “27”]; and, (3) the list of students
enrolled
in
M.A.
in
application/request were:
Criminology.
Also
attached
to
the
(1) the letter of Dr. Harry Lorenzo to the
Director, CHED, dated October 17, 1997 [Exhibit “E”/”28”]; (2) the
letter of Dr. Harry Lorenzo to Dr. Eduardo J. Bautista, PCCr
Exhibit “12”
Exhibit “1”
85 Exhibit “2”
83
84
People vs. Quiambao, Jr., et al.
Criminal Case No. 25071
DECISION
Page 15 of 22
x-------------------------------------------x
President, dated October 3, 1997 [Exhibit “1”]; and, (3) the 1 st
Indorsement of Dr. Eduardo J. Bautista to Dr. Harry Lorenzo, dated
October 7, 1997 [Exhibit “2”].86
The CHED, through its Director, the herein accused Quiambao,
issued Special Order No. (NCR) © 7-0100:31, s. 1997, dated October
22, 1997, in favor of Bernante [Exhibit “A”] on the basis of the records
submitted. It can be seen on its face that the application/request for
its issuance had been verified, evaluated and reviewed. In short, it
went through the process, so to speak.
THE ISSUES
The issues herein posed are: (1) whether the accused acted in
evident bad faith and in conspiracy with each other in effecting the
issuance of the Special Order in favor of J/Sr. Supt. Miguel A.
Bernante; and, (2) whether the issuance of the said Special Order
caused undue injury to the government in that it gave Bernante
unwarranted benefit by the latter obtaining a degree in M.A. in
Criminology.
DISCUSSION
Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, as amended, provides:
“Sec. 3 Corrupt Practices of Public Officers.- In
addition to acts or omissions of public officers already
penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute
corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby
declared to be unlawful:
xxx
xxx
xxx
86
TSN, January 23, 2002, p. 40
People vs. Quiambao, Jr., et al.
Criminal Case No. 25071
DECISION
Page 16 of 22
x-------------------------------------------x
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including
the Government, or giving any private party any
unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference in the
discharge of his official, administrative or judicial functions
through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross
inexcusable negligence. xxx xxx xxx.
The elements of the offense are:
1. The accused is a public officer or a private person charged in
conspiracy with the former;
2. The said public officer commits the prohibited acts during
the performance of his official duties or in relation to his
official functions;
3. He
causes
undue
injury
to
any
party,
whether
the
government or a private party; or, he gives any private party
any unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference; and,
4. He has acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or
gross inexcusable negligence.
There are two (2) ways of committing the offense:
1.
By causing any undue injury to any party, including the
government; and,
2.
By giving any private party any unwarranted benefit,
advantage or preference.
The Court resolves the first issue in the negative.
The information charges that the accused, in conspiracy with
one another, processed and issued Special Order No. (NCR) © 70100:31, s. 1997, dated October 22, 1997, in favor of J/Sr. Supt.
Miguel A. Bernante, knowing that the supporting documents upon
which the said Special Order was based were all fabricated.
People vs. Quiambao, Jr., et al.
Criminal Case No. 25071
DECISION
Page 17 of 22
x-------------------------------------------x
Indeed, the subject Special Order was issued on October 22,
1997.
However, it has not been shown that its issuance has been
attended with any irregularity, the same having gone through the
process, so to speak.
First, it was applied for only after Bernante
completed and/or complied with all the requirements for graduation.
Second, the accompanying documents in support thereof were duly
prepared/accomplished and submitted to the CHED. Third, the said
documents were accordingly verified, evaluated and reviewed and this
fact is apparent on the face of the Special Order itself.
Thus, it will be recalled that Dr. Harry Lorenzo, Jr., the Director
of the PCCr Off-Campus Program under which Bernante took his M.A.
in Criminology, transmitted to the PCCr the records of Bernante for
the purpose of the application for the Special Order, more specifically,
his Form 9 or Transcript of Records (Exhibit “4”); his registration
cards (Exhibits “16” to “18”); and, the List of Students Enrolled in
M.A. in Criminology (Exhibit “14”). Accused Eduardo F. Bautista, Jr.,
in
his
capacity
as
PCCr
Registrar,
made
the
corresponding
request/application for the issuance of the Special Order, addressed
to the Director, Higher Education Regional Office (Exhibit “B”/”34”),
attaching thereto the Form 9 of Bernante, his thesis and the
enrolment
list
of
students
in
M.A.
in
Criminology.
The
request/application and its supporting documents were transmitted to
the
CHED
on
October
22,
1997.
Considering
that
the
request/application involved only just Bernante, the same was
processed and issued on the same day.
The participations or roles of the accused in the processing of
the Special Order are borne out by the evidence. Accused Bautista
recommended the processing of the Special Order through the
request/application therefor which he signed as Registrar of the PCCr;
accused Paragas, as receiving clerk who was also assigned as course
People vs. Quiambao, Jr., et al.
Criminal Case No. 25071
DECISION
Page 18 of 22
x-------------------------------------------x
and
enrolment
verifier,
received
and
verified
the
said
request/application; and, accused Quiambao, as CHED-NCR Regional
Director, signed the Special Order.
These acts were performed by all
the accused as they were duty-bound to do and in accordance with
standard procedure.
Verily, the prosecution has been unable to sustain its charge
that the Special Order was based on fabricated documents because
Bernante was allegedly never enrolled in M.A. in Criminology under
the PCCr Off-Campus Program for the fact is that Bernante was so
enrolled.
There is ample proof of such enrolment, i.e., Bernante’s
registration cards, the enrolment list, the Form 9 of Bernante, his
thesis, the photographs and the list of participants in the Special
Course on Public Safety Strategic Management which was required by
the DILG of its officials who were taking their Ph.D. and M.A. in
Criminology under the Off-Campus Program of the PCCr (Exhibit ‘15”).
These documents evidently provided the basis for the issuance of the
Special Order and no evidence whatsoever has been presented that
they were fabricated. Indeed, if at all there was anything that the
prosecution had to support its case, it was only the Certification
(Exhibit “H”) that had been improvidently issued by Assistant
Registrar Mancilla, which, of course, did not serve the prosecution any
purpose. Not only did Mancilla admit that it was a mistake but also it
was completely negated by a clear showing that as early as August 18,
1997 or several days prior to the issuance of the Certification on
September 15, 1997, the PCCr already had the records of Bernante on
file.
Finding, thus, that the processing/issuance of the Special Order
has not been tainted with any irregularity insofar as the herein
accused are concerned, the Court holds that the accused did not act
with evident bad faith in the discharge of their respective roles in the
People vs. Quiambao, Jr., et al.
Criminal Case No. 25071
DECISION
Page 19 of 22
x-------------------------------------------x
said processing/issuance. Certainly, when one regularly performs a
duty, he cannot, in so doing, be in evident bad faith at the same time.
Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence,
it imputes a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious
doing of a wrong; a breach of sworn duty through some motive or ill
will; and, partakes of the nature of fraud. 87 It contemplates a state of
mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or some motive of selfinterest or ill will for ulterior purposes.88 Evident bad faith connotes a
manifest deliberate intent on the part of the accused to do wrong or
cause damage.89
In this case, the prosecution has not presented any evidence to
prove that the issuance of the Special Order was attended by bad
faith, much less, evident bad faith. The application/request for the
issuance of the Special Order was, accordingly, received, verified and
evaluated. To reiterate, the procedure taken by the accused in the
processing thereof was the regular office procedure. To be sure, as
there is no showing that the accused
knew or had any idea that the
documents they came across with in the processing of the Special
Order were fabricated, no dishonest purpose or ill will could be
imputed to them or that they could not have so processed the Special
Order with a manifest deliberate intent to do wrong or cause damage.
As to the issue of whether or not the issuance of the Special
Order caused undue injury to the government, suffice it to state that,
as the Court holds that the said Special Order was regularly issued,
the undue injury embodied by the issuance of the Special Order of
graduation for an M.A. in Criminology in favor of J/Sr. Supt. Miguel
A. Bernante which thereby gave him unwarranted benefit as
87
Andrade vs. Court of Appeals, 371 SCRA 555
Air France vs. Carrascoso, 18 SCRA 155, 166-167
89 Primitivo Marcelo vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division), G.R. No. 69983, May 14, 1990.
88
People vs. Quiambao, Jr., et al.
Criminal Case No. 25071
DECISION
Page 20 of 22
x-------------------------------------------x
contemplated or charged in the information was not sustained or
incurred by the government. As shown by the evidence, said Bernante
was enrolled in M.A. in Criminology under the PCCr Off-Campus
Program and had complied with all the requirements for graduation so
that the Special Order issued to him was but proper.
In fine, the prosecution has failed to establish the elements of
the offense charged. Clearly wanting in this case are the elements of
evident bad faith and the undue injury caused to the government.
The accused are therefore duly entitled to a judgment of acquittal.
“In our jurisdiction, accusation is not synonymous with guilt; if
the prosecution fails to discharge the burden of proving the guilt of
the accused beyond reasonable doubt, then it is not only the
accused’s right to be freed - - - it is, even more, the Court’s
constitutional duty to acquit him.”90
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the accused Pocidio C.M.
Quiambao, Jr., Eduardo F. Bautista, Jr., and Editha A. Paragas are
hereby Acquitted of the offense of Violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic
Act No. 3019 for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. As there is no basis for civil liability, none is
adjudged against them.
The bail bonds posted by all the accused for their provisional
liberty are hereby ordered cancelled, and the Hold Departure Order
issued against them is hereby ordered lifted with due notice to the
Bureau of Immigration and Deportation.
SO ORDERED.
90
People vs. Mejia, 275 SCRA 127
People vs. Quiambao, Jr., et al.
Criminal Case No. 25071
DECISION
Page 21 of 22
x-------------------------------------------x
Quezon City, Philippines, March 24, 2006.
ROLAND B. JURADO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Presiding Justice
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached
in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Presiding Justice
People vs. Quiambao, Jr., et al.
Criminal Case No. 25071
DECISION
Page 22 of 22
x-------------------------------------------x
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13, of the Constitution and the
Division Chairman’s Attestation, it is hereby certified that the
conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s
Division.
TERESITA J. LEONARDO – DE CASTRO
Presiding Justice