Jaca V People

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 689 29/01/2018, 8:46 PM
G.R. No. 166967. January 28, 2013.*
EDNA J. JACA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES and the SANDIGANBAYAN, respondents.
G.R. No. 166974. January 28, 2013.*

ALAN C. GAVIOLA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondent.
G.R. No. 167167. January 28, 2013.*

EUSTAQUIO B. CESA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondent.
Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Information; As long as the

crime is described in intelligible terms and with such particularity
and reasonable certainty that the accused is duly informed of the
offense charged, then the information is considered sufficient. In
particular, whether an information validly charges an offense
depends on whether the material facts alleged in the complaint or
information shall establish the essential elements of the offense
charged as defined in the law.―Pursuant to the constitutional right
of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him, the Revised Rules of Court require, inter
alia, that the information state the designation of the offense given
by the statute and the acts or omissions imputed which constitute
the offense charged. Additionally, it requires that these acts or
omissions and their attendant circumstances „be stated in ordinary
and concise language‰ and „in such form as is sufficient to enable a
person of common understanding to know what offense is intended
to be charged and enable the court to pronounce proper judgment.‰
As long as the crime is described in intelligible terms and with such
particularity and reasonable certainty that the accused is duly
informed of the offense charged, then the information is considered
sufficient. In particular, whether an information validly charges an
offense depends on whether the material facts alleged in the
complaint or information shall establish the essential elements of
the
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
271
VOL. 689, JANUARY 28, 2013 271
Jaca vs. People
offense charged as defined in the law. The raison dÊetre of the
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016141e8c7c24615bd6d003600fb002c009e/p/ARP806/?username=Guest Page 1 of 41
requirement in the Rules is to enable the accused to suitably

prepare his defense.
Criminal Law; Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No.
3019); A violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 may be committed
either by dolo, as when the accused acted with evident bad faith or
manifest partiality, or by culpa as when the accused committed gross
inexcusable negligence.―Notably, a violation of Section 3(e) of R.A.
No. 3019 may be committed either by dolo, as when the accused
acted with evident bad faith or manifest partiality, or by culpa as
when the accused committed gross inexcusable negligence. Unlike
in the commission of ordinary felonies however, the law requires
that the intent or negligence, which must attend the commission of
the prohibited acts under Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019, should meet
the gravity required by law. Thus, in construing these phrases, the
Court observed that bad faith or partiality, on the one hand, and
negligence, on the other hand, per se are not enough for one to be
held criminally liable under the law; that the bad faith or partiality
is evident or manifest, or, that the negligent act or omission is gross
and inexcusable must be shown.
Same; Same; Gross Inexcusable Negligence; Words and Phrases;
Gross inexcusable negligence is negligence characterized by the want
of even slight care; acting or omitting to act in a situation where
there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and
intentionally, with a conscious indifference to consequences in so far
as other persons may be affected.―Gross inexcusable negligence is
negligence characterized by the want of even slight care; acting or
omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not
inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a conscious
indifference to consequences in so far as other persons may be
affected. It is the omission of that care which even inattentive and
thoughtless men never fail to take on their own property; in cases
involving public officials, it takes place only when breach of duty is
flagrant and devious.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; A witness can only testify
on facts within his or her personal knowledge. This personal
knowledge is a substantive prerequisite in accepting testimonial
evidence establishing the truth of a disputed fact.―Basic under the
rules of evidence is that a witness can only testify on facts within
his or her
272
272 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Jaca vs. People
personal knowledge. This personal knowledge is a substantive

prerequisite in accepting testimonial evidence establishing the
truth of a disputed fact. Corollarily, a document offered as proof of
its contents has to be authenticated in the manner provided in the
rules, that is, by the person with personal knowledge of the facts
stated in the document.
Same; Same; Presumption of Regularity; Under the Rules on
Evidence and considering the Commission on Audit (COAÊs)
expertise on the matter, the presumption is that official duty has been
regularly performed unless there is evidence to the contrary.―The
COAÊs findings are accorded great weight and respect, unless they
are clearly shown to be tainted with grave abuse of discretion; the
COA is the agency specifically given the power, authority and duty
to examine, audit and settle all accounts pertaining to the revenue
and receipts of, and expenditures or uses of fund and property
owned by or pertaining to, the government. It has the exclusive
authority to define the scope of its audit and examination, and to
establish the required techniques and methods. An audit is
conducted to determine whether the amounts allotted for certain
expenditures were spent wisely, in keeping with official guidelines
and regulations. Under the Rules on Evidence and considering the
COAÊs expertise on the matter, the presumption is that official duty
has been regularly performed unless there is evidence to the
contrary. The petitioners failed in this regard.
Criminal Law; Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No.
3019); Elements of.―Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 has „three
elements: (1) the accused is a public officer discharging
administrative, judicial, or official functions; (2) [he or she] must
have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or [gross and]
inexcusable negligence; and (3) [his or her] action caused any undue
injury to any party, including the government, or [gave] any private
party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference in the
discharge of his or her functions.‰
Public Officers; Republic Act No. 7160; City Treasurers; City
Accountants; The City Treasurer is tasked with, inter alia, the
following duties: (1) to take custody of and exercise proper
management of the funds of the local government unit concerned;
and (2) to take charge of the disbursement of all local government
funds and such other funds the custody of which may be entrusted to
him by law or
273
VOL. 689, JANUARY 28, 2013 273
Jaca vs. People
other competent authority.―Under Section 470 of RA No. 7160, the

City Treasurer is tasked with, inter alia, the following duties: (1) to
take custody of and exercise proper management of the funds of the
local government unit concerned; and (2) to take charge of the
disbursement of all local government funds and such other funds
the custody of which may be entrusted to him by law or other
competent authority. It is from the viewpoint of CesaÊs duties as a
City Treasurer that CesaÊs good faith should be measured, not
simply from the fact that he acted because a subordinate from his
office is the one asking for a cash advance. By certifying that the
cash advances were „necessary and lawful and incurred under his
direct supervision,‰ Cesa cannot escape the obligation to determine
whether Badana complied with Section 89 of PD No. 1445, although
the same requirement would have to be ultimately determined by
the City Accountant.
Actions; As a rule, exoneration in the administrative case is not

a bar to a criminal prosecution for the same or similar acts which
were the subject of the administrative complaint or vice versa.―That
an administrative case is independent from the criminal action,
although both arose from the same act or omission, is elementary.
Given the differences in the quantum of evidence required, the
procedure observed, the sanctions imposed, as well as in the
objective of the two proceedings, the findings and conclusions in one
should not necessarily be binding on the other. Thus, as a rule,
exoneration in the administrative case is not a bar to a criminal
prosecution for the same or similar acts which were the subject of
the administrative complaint or vice versa.
Same; If there was a categorical finding in the administrative
case that expressly rules out one (or more) of the essential elements of
the crime for which the respondent is likewise sought to be held
liable, then his exoneration in the administrative case can be
pleaded for his acquittal in the criminal case.―The Court is not
unaware of the rule that if there was a categorical finding in the
administrative case that expressly rules out one (or more) of the
essential elements of the crime for which the respondent is likewise
sought to be held liable, then his exoneration in the administrative
case can be pleaded for his acquittal in the criminal case. This rule,
however, obviously finds no application in the present case. The CA
and, subsequently, this Court merely affirmed the administrative
finding of the Ombudsman
274
Jaca vs. People
that Cesa and his co-petitioners are guilty of neglect of duty.

Nowhere did the uniform rulings in the administrative case even
hint that the administrative finding bars or forecloses a further
determination of the gravity of the petitionersÊ negligence as was
the prosecutionÊs theory for purposes of criminal prosecution.
Local Government Units; Public Officers; City

Accountants.―RA No. 7160 charges the city accountant with both
the accounting and internal audit services of the local government
unit and, among others, to (1) install and maintain an internal
audit system in the local government unit; (2) review supporting
documents before the preparation of vouchers to determine the
completeness of the requirements; (3) prepare statements of cash
advances, liquidation, salaries, allowances, reimbursements and
remittances pertaining to the local government unit; (4) prepare
statements of journal vouchers and liquidation of the same and
other adjustments related thereto; (5) post individual
disbursements to the subsidiary ledger and index cards; and (6)
maintain individual ledgers for officials and employees of the local
government unit pertaining to payrolls and deductions.
Pre-Audit; Words and Phrases; A pre-audit is an examination of
financial transactions before their consumption or payment; a pre-
audit seeks to determine, among others, that the claim is duly
supported by authentic underlying pieces of evidence.―A pre-audit

is an examination of financial transactions before their
consumption or payment; a pre-audit seeks to determine, among
others, that the claim is duly supported by authentic underlying
pieces of evidence. If the setup then prevailing in the Cebu City
government directly conflicts with the COA regulations, Jaca should
have, at the very least, informed the City Mayor of the risk in the
process of disbursement of local funds or at least she should have
set up an internal audit system―as was her duty―to check against
possible malversation of funds by the paymaster. That no one
claimed that his/her salaries has not been paid is beside the point.
In the present case, aside from JacaÊs admission that she knowingly
affixed her signature in Box B of the disbursement voucher contrary
to what it certifies, i.e., all previous cash advances had been
liquidated and accounted for, the amount requested was
consistently way above the total amount covered by the supporting
payrolls, thereby allowing Badana to have accumulated excess
funds in her hands.
275
VOL. 689, JANUARY 28, 2013 275
Jaca vs. People
Criminal Law; Conspiracy of Silence; Considering that the

gravity of negligence required by law for a violation of Section 3(e) of
RA No. 3019 to exist falls short of the degree of bad faith or
partiality to violate the same provision, a conspiracy of silence and
inaction arising from gross inexcusable negligence.·Considering
that the gravity of negligence required by law for a violation of
Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019 to exist falls short of the degree of bad
faith or partiality to violate the same provision, a conspiracy of
silence and inaction arising from gross inexcusable negligence
would almost always be inferred only from the surrounding
circumstances and the partiesÊ acts or omissions that, taken
together, indicate a common understanding and concurrence of
sentiments respecting the commission of the offense. The duties and
responsibilities that the occupancy of a public office carry and the
degree of relationship of interdependence of the different offices
involved here determine the existence of conspiracy where gross
inexcusable negligence was the mode of commission of the offense.
For emphasis, the petitioners are all heads of their respective
offices that perform interdependent functions in the processing of
cash advances. The petitionersÊ attitude of buck-passing in the face
of the irregularities in the voucher (and the absence of supporting
documents), as established by the prosecution, and their
indifference to their individual and collective duties to ensure that
laws and regulations are observed in the disbursement of the funds
of the local government of Cebu can only lead to a finding of
conspiracy of silence and inaction, contemplated in Sistoza.
PETITIONS for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Sandiganbayan.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Abrenica Duque Sicat Law Offices and Neri &

Associates (Atty. Florante L. Abad) counsel for petitioner in
G.R. No. 166967.
Bohol, Bohol II Jimenez Law Offices counsel for
petitioner in G.R. No. 166974.
Vicente A. Espina, Jr. counsel for petitioner in G.R. No.
167167.
276

Jaca vs. People
BRION, J.:
Before the Court are the petitions for review on
certiorari1 assailing the December 16, 2004 decision2 and
the February 1, 2005 resolution3 of the Sandiganbayan in
Criminal Case No. 24699, finding Alan C. Gaviola, Edna J.
Jaca, Eustaquio B. Cesa (collectively, petitioners) and
Benilda N. Bacasmas guilty of violating Section 3(e) of
Republic Act (RA) No. 3019.4
Antecedent Facts
The petitioners occupied appointive positions in the

different divisions of the Cebu City government at the time
material to the controversy: Gaviola was the City
Administrator;5 Cesa was the City Treasurer;6 Bacasmas
was the Chief Cashier of the Cash Division, which is under
the Office of the City Treasurer, and Jaca was the City
Accountant.7
The steps followed in the grant of cash advances to a
paymaster in the Cebu City government are as follows:
1. Processing of payment:
a. Paymasters request for cash advance and prepare
cash advance disbursement vouchers (voucher) to be
submitted to the Chief Cashier, as head of Cash Division;
b. Chief Cashier
_______________
1 Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Rollo (G.R. No. 166967), pp. 31-
56; Rollo (G.R. No. 166974) pp. 3-61; Rollo (G.R. No. 167167), pp. 11-77.
2 Rollo (G.R. No. 166974), pp. 60-94.
3 Id., at pp. 95-114.
4 Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Pursuant to the CourtÊs April
4, 2005 resolution, the cases of Gaviola and Cesa were consolidated; Rollo
(G.R. No. 167167), p. 9.
5 Rollo (G.R. No. 167167) p. 357; Rollo (G.R. No. 166974) p. 6.
6 Rollo (G.R. No. 167167), p. 14.
7 Rollo (G.R. No. 166967), p. 33.
277
VOL. 689, JANUARY 28, 2013 277
Jaca vs. People
1. affixes her initials on Box A of the voucher; and

2. forwards the voucher to the City Treasurer if he sees
that the vouchers and its supporting documents are
in order.
c. City Treasurer affixes his signature on box A. Description of
Box A is as follows:
1. „BOX A‰ ― Certified ― Expense, cash advances
necessary, lawful and incurred under my direct
supervision.
d. The voucher is then forwarded to the City Accountant for
processing (recording) and pre-audit procedure. The City
Accountant signs BOX B described as follows:
1. „BOX B‰ ― Certified, Adequate available
funds/budgetary allotment in the amount of P_____,
expenditures properly certified, supported by
documents marked (x) per checklist on back
hereof, account under checklist on back hereof,
account codes proper, previous cash advance
liquidated/accounted for.
e. City Accountant prepares and attaches an accountantÊs advice
to the voucher.
f. The voucher and the accountantÊs advice are returned to Chief
Cashier for preparation of check.
g. Chief Cashier prepares the check and initials/
countersigns the check
h. City Treasurer signs the check →
i. The voucher is forwarded to City Administrator for approval on
Box C.
1. City AdministratorÊs Internal Control Office (ICO)
reviews the supporting documents, and if in order,
will recommend its approval.
2. City Administrator approves BOX C of the voucher
and countersigns the check.
j. The voucher, check and the accountantÊs advice are returned to
Cash Division.
278

Jaca vs. People
k. Paymaster signs the receipt portion of the voucher and

the warrant/check register to acknowledge receipt of the
check for encashment later at a bank.
2. Payment
a. The paymaster and the Cash Division prepare a report
of disbursement of payrolls paid and supporting papers and
record it in the official cashbook;
b. COA auditors go to Cash Division to examine, check
and verify the reports of disbursements, payrolls, cashbook
and other supporting documents;
c. Cashier forwards report and supporting papers to City
Accountant for recording and posting.
On March 4, 1998, City Auditor Rodolfo Ariesga created

a team of auditors, with the task of conducting a surprise
audit8 of the cash and other accounts handled by all
accountable officers assigned at the Cash Division, Office of
the City Treasurer. Among these disbursing officers was
Rosalina G. Badana, who was the paymaster in charge of
paying the salaries of the employees in eight (8) different
departments or offices in the Cebu City government.9
While Badana reported for work in the early morning of
March 5, 1998, she immediately left upon learning of the
planned surprise audit to be conducted that day; she has
not reported for work since.10
_______________
8 Per Order No. 98-001, dated March 5, 1998; Rollo, (G.R. No.
166967), p. 34.
9 Rollo, (G.R. No. 166974), pp. 7-8.
10 To prevent the possible loss of records, funds and other official
documents, the audit team sealed the vault and other fixtures inside
BadanaÊs office cubicle and its door. For failure of Badana to report back
for work, Cebu City Mayor Alvin Garcia created a committee to open
BadanaÊs sealed vault and receptacles. On March 11, 1998, the committee
broke the seal and opened the fixtures inside BadanaÊs cubicle in the
presence of the media and the Cebu City government officials. The
committee turned over the cash they found to the City Cashier. (Rollo
[G.R. No. 166967], p. 35).
279
VOL. 689, JANUARY 28, 2013 279

Jaca vs. People
The audit teamÊs cash examination covered the period

from September 20, 1995 to March 5, 1998. Cecilia Chan
and Cecilia Tantengco, the audit team leader and assistant
team leader, respectively, conducted an examination of the
cash and other accounts in BadanaÊs custody.11 The audit
team reported that Badana incurred a cash shortage of
P18,527,137.19. Based on the procedure in the processing
of cash advances, the audit team found out that the failure
of the petitioners to observe the provisions of Presidential
Decree (PD) No. 1445,12 RA No. 716013 and the rules and
regulations governing the grant, utilization and liquidation
of cash advances under Commission on Audit (COA)
Circular Nos. 90-331, 92-382 and 97-002 „facilitated,
promoted, if not encouraged, the commission of
malversation of public funds[.]‰14
On March 13, 1998, Cebu City Mayor Alvin Garcia filed
with the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas (Ombudsman)15
a complaint against Badana for malversation of public
funds and for violation of RA Nos. 3019 and 6713.16 The
complaint resulted in administrative and criminal
investigations.17
On April 3, 1998, the Ombudsman motu proprio
required the petitioners and Bacasmas to submit their
respective counter-affidavits and countervailing evidence.18

On July 1, 1998, the Ombudsman charged the petitioners
and Bacasmas
_______________
11 Id., at p. 62.
12 Ordaining and Instituting a Government Auditing Code of the
Philippines.
13 Local Government Code of 1991.
14 Rollo (G.R. No. 166967), p. 71.
15 Rollo (G.R. No. 167167), pp. 138-139.
16 Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees.
17 Docketed as OMB-VIS-CRIM-980221 and OMB-VIS-ADM-98-0150;
Rollo (G.R. No. 167167), p. 20. The administrative case was filed by the
Commission on Audit, Regional Office No. VII against the petitioners
and several other local officials, including Badana.
18 Id., at p. 142.
280

Jaca vs. People
with violation of Section 3(e) of RA No. 301919 before the

Sandiganbayan under the following Information:20
That on or about the 5th day of March 1998, and for [sometime]
prior thereto, at Cebu City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, above-named accused, public officers,
having been duly appointed to such public positions above-
mentioned, in such capacity and committing the offense in relation
to Office, conniving and confederating together and mutually
helping xxx each other, with deliberate intent, with manifest
partiality, evident bad faith and with gross inexcusable negligence,
did then and there allow Rosalina G. Badana, Cashier I of the Cebu
City Government to obtain cash advances despite the fact that she
has previous unliquidated cash advances, thus allowing Rosalina G.
Badana to accumulate Cash Advances amounting to
P18,522,361.96, Philippine Currency, which remains unliquidated,
thus accused in the performance of their official functions, had
given unwarranted benefits to Rosalina G. Badana and themselves,
to the damage and prejudice of the government, particularly the
Cebu City Government.
On July 2, 1998, the COA Regional Office No. VII (COA

Regional Office) submitted a Narrative Report on the
Results of the Examination of the Cash Accounts (COA
Report) of Badana.21 Pertinent portions of the COA Report
read:
„A.1. During the period [between] September 20, 1995 to March 5,

1998, records show that additional cash advances were granted, even if
the previous cash advances were not yet liquidated. For example in the
Trust Fund, a cash advance of Php800,000 was granted on December 8,
1997 even if Ms. Badana has an unliquidated cash advance balance of
Php4,940,065.50 as of November 20, 1997 (Annex 19). The situation was

true in granting all other cash advances from September 20, 1995 to
March 5, 1998.
_______________
19 Dated May 14, 1998. Docketed as Criminal Case No. 24699; id., at
p. 20.
20 Id., at p. 143.
21 Rollo (G.R. No. 166967), p. 36.
281
VOL. 689, JANUARY 28, 2013 281

Jaca vs. People
Another example in the General fund, cash advance of

Php1,000,000.00 was granted on December 1, 1997 even if the
unliquidated balance of Ms. Badana as of November 28, 1997 was
Php8,469,054.19 (Annex 20). The situation is likewise true in granting
all other cash advances during the same period mentioned in the
preceding paragraph. This practice resulted in excessive granting of cash
advances which created the opportunity to misappropriate public funds
since idle funds were placed in the hands of the paymasters under their
control and custody.
The practice is in violation of Section 89, PD 1445; Section 339, RA
7160 and paragraph 4.1.2 of COA Circular No. 97-002 resulting [in the]
accumulation of excess cash in the custody of the accountable officer.
A.2 The following practices also facilitated the incurrence of the
shortage:
a. The amount of cash advance for salary payments was not equal to
the net amount of the payroll for a pay period in violation of par.
4.2.1, COA Cir. No. 90-331, Section 48(g), COA Cir. No. 92-382 and
par. 4.2.2, COA Cir. No. 97-002.
All disbursement vouchers covering the cash advances were not
supported by payrolls or list of payees to determine the amount of
the cash advance to be granted in violation of par. 4.2.2, COA Cir.
No. 90-331. Ms. Rosalina G. Badana, who was assigned as
paymaster to eight different offices/departments with a total
monthly payroll of P5,747,569.96 (Annex 21) was granted an
average monthly cash advance of P7,600,000.00 (Annex 22) or an
excess of P1,900,000.00 monthly. As a result, idle funds were again
placed in the hands and the total control of the Paymaster.
b. The face of the disbursement voucher (sample voucher marked as
annex 23) did not indicate the specific legal purpose for which the
cash advance was granted in violation of par. 4.1.5 COA Cir. No.
90-331, Section 48(e) COA Cir. 92-382 and par. 4.1.7 COA Cir. No.
97-002. It is so because all disbursement vouchers covering the
granting of cash advances to the paymaster did not show the
office/department, the number of payees and the payroll
282

Jaca vs. People
period covered by the cash advance. The city officials

signed, certified and approved these vouchers despite the
aforementioned deficiencies. It makes difficult to identify
which liquidating report pertains to what particular cash
advance, thus contributing to the opportunity to
misappropriate the funds.
c. The provisions of par. 5.1.1 COA Cir. 90-331 and 97-002 and
Section 48.k of COA Cir. No. 92-382 on the liquidation of cash
advances within 5 days after the end of the month pay period was
not followed due to the existing practice/procedure in the granting
of cash advances⁄ Likewise, unliquidated cash advance balance
(audited) at the end of December 31, 1997 amounted to
P15,553,475.61 consisting of P11,690,639.44 and P3,862,836.17 for
General and Trust Fund respectively, in violation of par. 5.8 COA
Cir. Nos. 90-331 and 97-002 and Section 48 (o) COA Cir. No. 92-
382, resulting in the accumulation of unliquidated cash advances.
In January 1998, the paymaster was granted cash advances
before the foregoing unliquidated balance (audited) was settled.
Detail as follows:
Date Check No. Amount of Cash Amount of

Advance Granted Cash Returns
1/05/98 852367 P2,000,000.00
1/08/98 25983919 P1,000,000.00
1/09/98 P2,000,000.00
1/09/98 P18,846.00
1/12/98 852430 P1,000,000.00
1/12/98 ______________ P2,000,000.00
Total P4,000,000.00 P4,018,846.00
It appears that the new cash advance of Php4,000,000.00 was

used to liquidate partially the previous yearÊs unliquidated
balance of P15,553,475.61 in violation of par. 4.1.5 COA Cir. 90-
331, Section 48.e of COA Cir. 92-382 and par. 4.1.7 of COA Cir. 97-
002.
283
VOL. 689, JANUARY 28, 2013 283

Jaca vs. People
d. As discussed in letter „C‰ above, accounting records show that

these cash advances were granted and taken up in January, 1998
while the cash returns made after granting these cash advances
were taken up in December, 1997. This is contrary to the generally
accepted principles of Time period which requires that accounting
should be time bounded[;] meaning cut-off date should be properly
and strictly observed.
e. Submission of financial reports and its supporting schedules and
vouchers/payrolls by the Accounting Division was very much
delayed (Annex 25) in violation of Section 122, PD 1445 despite of
several communications from the Auditor, latest of [(]which is
attached as Annex 26[)] thus verification and reconciliation on the
paymasterÊs accountability cannot be determined immediately.
xxxx
C. The following practices led to the concealment of the shortage
of P18,527,137.19 from the September 20, 1995 to March 5, 1998:

1. Accounting practices which resulted in inaccurate and
misleading information in the financial statements in
violation of Section 111, PD 1445 are enumerated below:
a. Cash returns in January, 1998 were recorded as credits to
accountability in December, 1997 amounting to
P4,018,846.00 as follows:
x x x x
In effect, the balance of unliquidated cash advances as of
December 31, 1997 was understated.
b. Some liquidations/disbursements in January, 1998 were
included as credits to accountability in December, 1997
amounting to P1,974,386,45 Details are as follows:
xxxx
284

Jaca vs. People
x x x As a result, the unliquidated cash advances as of

December 31, 1997 is understated by P1,974,386.45.
c. Verification of accounting records maintained in the Accounting
Division revealed that the index cards as a control device in the
processing of cash advance voucher recorded only cash advances
granted to paymasters (Annex 24). It failed to show the
liquidation/disposition of public funds. Hence, unliquidated
balance of cash advances cannot be determined instantly when a
cash advance voucher is being processed by the accounting
personnel.
Summarizing pars. a and b, the total understatement to Ms.
BadanaÊs unliquidated cash advances per accounting records as of
December 31, 1997 amounted to P5,993,232.45 for the General
Fund. This practice is in violation of Section 111 of PD 1445. The
financial statements appeared inaccurate and misleading because
of „window dressing.‰
2. Presentation of paid payrolls and vouchers already recorded in
the cash book/subsidiary ledgers as cash items thus misleading
the auditors into believing them as valid cash items. There is
untruthful presentation of facts constituting deceit or fraud.
The scheme is explained below.
Paid payrolls and vouchers already recorded in the cashbook and
in the subsidiary ledgers were presented as cash items during the
count on May 13, 1996, November 27, 1996, June 9, 1997 and
November 19, 1997. These cash items were treated as credits to
her accountability, thereby reducing her accountability and
consequently concealing her shortage. This scheme was made
possible as the paymaster can readily have access to paid payrolls
and vouchers x x x. The following facilitated the use of fraudulent
scheme:
285
VOL. 689, JANUARY 28, 2013 285

Jaca vs. People
1.1 The paid payrolls and vouchers were placed in an

unlocked box (carton) under the table of the bookkeeper.
1.2 The paymaster was allowed to get/retrieve paid payrolls
and vouchers from the said box kept by the bookkeeper.
1.3 Failure of the Disbursing officer to stamp „PAID‰ all paid
payrolls and vouchers. This is a control measure to avoid re-
use or recycling of documents.
The accountable officer resorted to the scheme
abovementioned with the intention of claiming double
credit when in truth and in fact, she had been credited
already of said transactions: These are the following:
Date Amount
May 13, 1996 P 3,016,239.07
Nov. 27, 1996 P 5,983,102.94
June 9, 1997 P 7,959,677.07
Nov. 19, 1997 P12,438,954.88
In effect, as early as May 13, 1996 and subsequently
thereafter, she had already incurred shortages but was able
to conceal them through deceit and fraudulent means
22
as explained above⁄.
The petitioners moved for reinvestigation; the prosecution

interposed no objection, provided that the petitionersÊ
motions would be treated as a motion for reconsideration of
the OmbudsmanÊs resolution directing the filing of
information.23 The prosecution manifested that, upon its
recommendation, the Ombudsman resolved to maintain the
information.24
_______________
22 Records, Exhibit „F,‰ pp. 7-12.
23 Records, Volume II, p. 142.
24 Id., at p. 171.
286

Jaca vs. People
On arraignment,25 the accused pleaded not guilty.26

During the pre-trial of December 7, 1999, the prosecution
and the petitioners entered into a stipulation of facts:
1. That at all times material to this case, all of the accused are public
officials of the City of Cebu.
xxxx
5. That the cash advance voucher has three boxes: Box A, Box B, and
Box C.
6. That Box A is to be signed by the head of the office requesting the
cash advance;
7. That Box B is to be signed by the head of the office which would
conduct pre-audit of the cash advances;
8. That Box C is to be signed by the person of authority who will
finally approve the cash advances.27
The prosecution presented Ariesga and Chan as its
witnesses. Relying on the audit teamÊs findings, the

prosecution claimed that the shortage was incurred due to
the failure of Badana and of the petitioners to comply with
the laws, rules and regulations governing the granting,
utilization and liquidation of cash advances.28 For one, the
vouchers for cash advances lacked an indication of the
specific purpose for which an amount was being requested;
the office or department to be paid, the number of payees,
and the payroll period to be paid were not specified.29 For
another, the amounts requested were not equal to the
amount of payroll for the pertinent pay period; the
vouchers covering the cash advances for the payment of
government employees were not supported by payrolls for a
proper determination of the amount needed for the
_______________
25 On September 13, 1999; Rollo (G.R. No. 166974), p. 9.
26 Upon motion of the prosecution, the petitioners were placed under
preventive suspension; Rollo (G.R. No. 167167), p. 21.
27 Records, Volume II, p. 14.
28 Rollo, (G.R. No. 166967), p. 63.
29 Rollo, (G.R. No. 167167), pp. 360-361.
287
VOL. 689, JANUARY 28, 2013 287

Jaca vs. People
purpose. Thus, although the monthly payroll of the eight

departments within BadanaÊs responsibility required more
than P5 million, the cash advance granted for each month
averaged more than P7 million. Also, the petitioners
repeatedly affixed their signatures and allowed the
disbursement of public funds through cash advances,
regardless of previous unliquidated cash advances.30 Cash
advances were not liquidated within the period prescribed
by law, enabling the use of subsequent cash advances to
liquidate previous cash advances.
Meanwhile, the Ombudsman rendered a decision31 in
the administrative aspect of the case, finding Jaca and
Cesa guilty of simple neglect of duty and imposed on them
the penalty of suspension for six (6) months. The case
against petitioner Gaviola was dismissed for being moot
and academic. On CesaÊs appeal, the Court of Appeals and,
eventually, this Court sustained the OmbudsmanÊs ruling.
SandiganbayanÊs Ruling
On December 16, 2004, the Sandiganbayan promulgated

its decision32 finding the petitioners and Bacasmas guilty
as charged. The Sandiganbayan held the petitioners
solidarily liable to the Cebu City government for the
amount of P18,527,137.19.
The Sandiganbayan ruled that all the elements under
Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 were established by the
prosecution: first, the petitioners are all public officials;

second, the public officials committed the prohibited acts
during the performance of their official duties; third, based
on the audit teamÊs examinations, the undue injury
suffered by the government amounted to
P18,527,137.19―the amount of BadanaÊs accu-
_______________
30 Id., at p. 361.
31 On August 16, 2001; Rollo (G.R. No. 166974), pp. 553-572.
32 Supra note 2.
288

Jaca vs. People
mulated shortage; fourth, the petitioners gave unwarranted

benefits to Badana, which resulted in undue injury to the
government, by illegally allowing her to obtain cash
advances; and fifth, the petitioners acted with gross
inexcusable negligence in the performance of their duties.
The Sandiganbayan relied largely on the COA Report to
support a finding that the Cebu City government lost the
amount of P18,527,137.19 under the petitionersÊ collective
watch.
The Sandiganbayan explained that while the
information charged and recited all the modes of violating
Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019, the prosecution is only
required to prove any of these modes to warrant conviction.
The Sandiganbayan held:
ACCORDINGLY, accused ALAN C. GAVIOLA, EUSTAQUIO B.

CESA, BENILDA N. BACASMAS and EDNA J. JACA are found
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of having violated Sec. 3(e) of RA
3019; and each accused is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate
penalty of twelve (12) years and one day as minimum and fifteen
(15) years as maximum, with the accessory penalty of perpetual
disqualification from public office. These Accused are directed to
indemnify jointly and severally the City Government of Cebu the
amount of Eighteen Million Five Hundred Twenty-Seven Thousand
One Hundred Thirty-Seven and 19/100 Pesos (Php18,527,137.19).33
The petitioners separately moved for reconsideration,34

but the Sandiganbayan denied their motions on February
1, 2005.35 Hence, these present petitions.
The PetitionersÊ Arguments
Due to the (i) commonality of the factual circumstance

that led to the petitionersÊ prosecution and conviction, as
well as (ii) the different positions occupied by each of the
petitioners, various and varied arguments were submitted.
We narrate
_______________
33 Rollo, (G.R. No. 166967), p. 93.

34 Rollo (G.R. No. 167167), pp. 174-199.
35 Supra note 3.
289
VOL. 689, JANUARY 28, 2013 289

Jaca vs. People
these arguments based on the positions of each of the

petitioners.
a. The hierarchical positions occupied
i. Cesa as City Treasurer
Cesa argues that he simply adhered to the procedure
long observed and prevailing at the time of (and even prior
to) his assumption of office as City Treasurer. In the
processing of cash advance vouchers coming from the Cash
Division, the divisionÊs chief―Bacasmas―first determines
that the voucher and its supporting documents are in order
before Cesa affixes his signature on Box A.
Under RA No. 7160, City Treasurers cease to be an
approving authority in the grant of cash advances. It is the
City Accountant who can approve or disapprove cash
advances or disbursements. The City TreasurerÊs previous
function of pre-audit and internal audit functions are now
vested with the City Accountant. He claims that he signed
Box A as a requesting party and not as approving
authority.
ii. Jaca as City Accountant
Jaca argues that strict compliance with prior and
complete liquidation of BadanaÊs previous cash advances is
„impractical and unrealistic.‰36 About half of the Cebu City
governmentÊs employees are weekly-paid and the rest are
paid at the middle and at the end of the month (quincena
basis)―a practice within the power of the Chief Executive,
not the City Accountant, to determine,37 and which has
long been observed before he became City Accountant. This
set up resulted in a situation where, before she can process
the liquidation and posting of a previous cash advance,
another request for a
_______________
36 Rollo (G.R. No. 166967), p. 137.
37 See Section 455 of RA No. 7160.
290

Jaca vs. People
subsequent cash advance already comes in; the request has

to be acted upon if only to avoid delay in the payment of
salaries.38
While she certified that Badana had liquidated her
previous cash advances, she had previously informed Cesa

and the City Auditor (at that time) of the unliquidated cash
advances.39
iii. Gaviola as City Administrator
Gaviola argues that he affixed his signature on Box C of
the vouchers because the City Accountant had earlier
certified that BadanaÊs previous cash advances were
liquidated and accounted for. For him, the approval of
vouchers was a ministerial act done not only after the City
Accountant had pre-audited the vouchers (by affixing her
signature in Box B), but after the Internal Control Office40
and a member of his staff, Virginia Peña, had determined
the regularity of the vouchers and their attachments.41
Gaviola avers that the prosecution failed to present
evidence to show the absence of supporting documents
when he affixed his signature on the vouchers. He adds
that his duties do not impose upon him accountability for
the funds entrusted to Badana or the City Treasurer;
neither is he tasked with pre-audit activities nor with the
record keeping of a paymasterÊs accountabilities.
The following are the defenses common to the
petitioners:
b. Good faith in affixing their signatures to the
disbursement vouchers
The petitioners invoked good faith in affixing their
signatures to the disbursement vouchers. They deny any
knowl-
_______________
38 Rollo (G.R. No. 166967), p. 128.
39 Id., at p. 138.
40 TSN, Volume 16, p. 20.
41 Rollo (G.R. No. 166974), p. 110.
291
VOL. 689, JANUARY 28, 2013 291

Jaca vs. People
edge of BadanaÊs shortages until after the surprise audit

was conducted on March 5, 1998.
They argue that since the COA did not send them any
notice of disallowance of BadanaÊs cash advances,42 despite
the COAÊs semestral cash examination, they had the right
to presume regularity in BadanaÊs performance of her job
as paymaster.
c. Fatally defective information
The petitioners argue that the information is fatally
defective for violating their right to be informed of the
nature and cause of accusation against them. The
prosecution could not have validly alleged that the
petitioners committed the offense „with deliberate intent,
with manifest partiality, evident bad faith and with gross
inexcusable negligence‰43 since these several modes of
committing the crime are inconsistent with each other; the
violation is more so when one considers the prosecutionÊs

allegation of conspiracy, which presupposes intent and the
absence of negligence.44 Because of this serious flaw in the
information, the information effectively charged no offense
for which they can be convicted.
Cesa particularly assails the validity of the information
because the preliminary investigation which preceded its
filing was allegedly fatally defective. Cesa argued that the
Ombudsman cannot motu proprio require him to submit
his counter-affidavit in the preliminary investigation
without any prior complaint against him.45
_______________
42 Under Section 348 of RA No. 7160.
43 Rollo, (G.R. No. 166967), p. 115.
44 Rollo, (G.R. No. 166974) pp. 107-108.
45 Citing Duterte v. Sandiganbayan, 352 Phil. 557; 289 SCRA 721
(1998).
292

Jaca vs. People
d. Evidence
The petitioners argue that the prosecution witnesses
were incompetent to testify. On the one hand, Ariesga did
not actually prepare the COA Report, but merely received
it from the persons who did the actual audit and thereafter
submitted it to the COA Regional Office. On the other
hand, while Chan is the head of the audit team, she did not
actually conduct the cash examination and audit of
BadanaÊs accountabilities. In view of the incompetence of
the prosecution witnesses, the Sandiganbayan should not
have admitted, much less relied on, the COA Report as its
contents are all hearsay.
e. Proof beyond reasonable doubt
and the elements of Section 3(e) of
RA No. 3019 were not established.
Since the petitioners received no prior notice of
disallowance from the auditors of the COA at the time
material to the controversy, then the petitioners could not
have been charged with knowledge of BadanaÊs previous
unliquidated cash advances. This lack of knowledge
negates the element of „giving unwarranted benefits or
causing undue injury.‰46
Particularly, Cesa argues that the existence of
unliquidated cash advances was not established because
there has been no complete cash examination, audit and
post audit of BadanaÊs accountability, citing Madarang v.
Sandiganbayan.47 Neither was „undue injury‰ established
since, as previously argued, the COA Report is hearsay.
Also, the fact that no government employee complained of
not being paid his salary/receivables only shows that no
party was ever unduly injured.
_______________
46 See Uriarte v. People, G.R. No. 169251, December 20, 2006, 511
SCRA 471, 486.
47 407 Phil. 846; 355 SCRA 525 (2001).
293
VOL. 689, JANUARY 28, 2013 293

Jaca vs. People
OSPÊs Comment
The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) prays for the
denial of the petitions on the ground that the issues raised
in the petitions are factual in nature and, hence, not
covered by Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The OSP defends
the validity of the information, arguing that there is
nothing inconsistent in the allegations because gross
inexcusable negligence also connotes conscious indifference
to duty, and not mere inadvertence. While conspiracy
necessitates intent, conspiracy does not negate gross
inexcusable negligence, as recognized in Sistoza v.
Desierto.48
On the merits, the OSP asserts that no amount of good
faith can be appreciated for adhering to a practice if this
practice is illegal. As a certified public accountant and a
former state auditor himself, CesaÊs familiarity with the
pertinent laws and regulations should have cautioned him
against making a certification in Box A.
Delay in the payment of salaries cannot be used as an
excuse to violate the law and pertinent COA regulations.
JacaÊs repeated certification in Box B of the vouchers
despite the lack of liquidation of prior cash advances
establishes her gross inexcusable negligence in the
performance of her duties.
Unlike in Sistoza, the vouchers Gaviola signed: (i) were
on their face palpably irregular for lack of entries required
by law―i.e., the net amount of payroll to be paid, the
intended payees and the period covered by the payroll; and,
(ii) lacked supporting documents. Gaviola failed to
substantiate his claim that he signed the vouchers with
supporting documents. None of the documents alleged to
have supported the vouchers were presented. In contrast,
ChanÊs finding and unbiased testimony (that the vouchers
were signed without supporting documents) enjoy the
presumption of regularity.
_______________
48 437 Phil. 117, 122, 132; 388 SCRA 307, 328 (2002).
294

Jaca vs. People
The petitionersÊ claim of good faith has no basis,

considering that the procedure they adopted in approving
the disbursement vouchers was made in violation of
existing laws and COA circulars. Also, Ariesga and Chan
are competent to testify on the COA Report as they were
part of, and directly participated in, the audit process.
Our Ruling
We deny the petitions.

At the outset, we emphasize that, as a rule, the Court
does not review factual questions under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court. In appeals from the Sandiganbayan, only
questions of law and not issues of fact may be raised.
Issues raised before the Court on whether the prosecutionÊs
evidence proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt, whether the presumption of innocence was properly
accorded the accused, whether there was sufficient
evidence to support a charge of conspiracy, or whether the
defense of good faith was correctly appreciated are all, in
varying degrees, questions of fact. As a rule, the factual
findings of the Sandiganbayan are conclusive on this Court,
subject to limited exceptions.49 We find none of these
exceptions in the present case.
The information is valid
Pursuant to the constitutional right of the accused to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against
_______________
49 Among the exceptions are: (1) the conclusion is a finding grounded
entirely on speculations, surmise[s], and conjectures; (2) the inference
made is manifestly mistaken; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4)
the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts; and [(5)] the findings
of fact of the Sandiganbayan are premised on the absence of evidence and
are contradicted by evidence on record. (Pareño v. Sandiganbayan, 326
Phil. 255, 279; 256 SCRA 242, 265 [1996]).
295
VOL. 689, JANUARY 28, 2013 295

Jaca vs. People
him,50 the Revised Rules of Court51 require, inter alia, that

the information state the designation of the offense given
by the statute and the acts or omissions imputed which
constitute the offense charged.52 Additionally, it requires
that these acts or omissions and their attendant
circumstances „be stated in ordinary and concise language‰
and „in such form as is sufficient to enable a person of
common understanding to know what offense is intended to
be charged and enable the court to pronounce proper
judgment.‰53 As long as the crime is described in
intelligible terms and with such particularity and
reasonable certainty that the accused is duly informed of
the offense charged, then the information is considered
sufficient. In particular, whether an information validly

charges an offense depends on whether the material facts
alleged in the complaint or information shall establish the
essential elements of the offense charged as defined in the
law. The raison dÊetre of the requirement in the Rules is to
enable the accused to suitably prepare his defense.54
_______________
50 Section 14, Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution reads:
Section 14. (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal
offense without due process of law.
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed
innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be
heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of
the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial,
to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to
secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his
behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding
the absence of the accused: Provided, that he has been duly notified and
his failure to appear is unjustifiable.
51 The law in effect when the information was filed.
52 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended, Rule 110, Section
6.
53 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 110, Section 9. See
Fernando Q. Miguel v. The Honorable Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 172035,
July 4, 2012, 675 SCRA 560.
54 Ibid.
296

Jaca vs. People
Admittedly, the prosecution could have alleged in the

information the mode of committing a violation of Section
3(e) of RA No. 3019 with technical precision by using the
disjunctive term „or‰ instead of the conjunctive term „and.‰
Nonetheless, in the early case of Gallego, et al. v.
Sandiganbayan,55 the Court already clarified that the
phrases „manifest partiality,‰ „evident bad faith‰ and „gross
inexcusable negligence‰ are merely descriptive of the
different modes by which the offense penalized in Section
3(e) of RA No. 3019 may be committed, and that the use of
all these phrases in the same information does not mean
that the indictment charges three distinct offenses.
Notably, a violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 may
be committed either by dolo, as when the accused acted
with evident bad faith or manifest partiality, or by culpa as
when the accused committed gross inexcusable
negligence.56 Unlike in the commission of ordinary felonies
however, the law requires that the intent or negligence,
which must attend the commission of the prohibited acts
under Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019, should meet the gravity
required by law. Thus, in construing these phrases, the
Court observed that bad faith or partiality, on the one
hand, and negligence, on the other hand, per se are not

enough for one to be held criminally liable under the law;
that the bad faith or partiality is evident or manifest, or,
that the negligent act or omission is gross and inexcusable
must be shown.57
Gross inexcusable negligence is negligence characterized
by the want of even slight care; acting or omitting to act in
a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently
but willfully and intentionally, with a conscious
indifference to consequences in so far as other persons may
be affected. It is
_______________
55 201 Phil. 379; 115 SCRA 793 (1982).
56 Supra note 46 at pp. 487-488.
57 Umipig v. People, G.R. No. 171359, July 18, 2012, 677 SCRA 53.
297
VOL. 689, JANUARY 28, 2013 297

Jaca vs. People
the omission of that care which even inattentive and

thoughtless men never fail to take on their own property;58
in cases involving public officials, it takes place only when
breach of duty is flagrant and devious.59
Considering the countless scenarios that may fall under
the provisions of Section 3 of RA No. 3019, particularly
paragraph e, and the avowed purpose of the law to repress
certain acts of public officers constituting graft or corrupt
practices or leading thereto,60 the law considers the gravity
of the bad faith (or partiality) or negligent act or omission
as a mode to commit the violation of Section 3(e) of RA No.
3019. In requiring the negligence to be both gross and
inexcusable, the law demands the neglect or disregard of
duty to be willful and intentional in order for a violation to
exist, although it may fall short of the required degree of
bad faith, which must be evident, or of partiality, which
must be manifest.
Contrary to the petitionersÊ claims, gross inexcusable
negligence, on one hand, and evident bad faith or manifest
partiality, on the other hand, are not two highly opposite
concepts that can result in a fatally defective information
should the terms be conjoined in the information. The fact
that the prosecution can properly allege these different
modes alternatively in the information only means that the
conviction may lie based simply on the evidence that is
supportive of a particular mode.61 Significantly, aside from
the petitionersÊ po-
_______________
58 Sison v. People, G.R. Nos. 170339 and 170398-403, March 9, 2010,
614 SCRA 670, 680 citing Fonacier v. Sandiganbayan, 238 SCRA 656,
687-688.
59 Siztoza v. Desierto, supra note 48, at p. 132; p. 326. See also De la
Victoria v. Mongaya, 404 Phil. 609, 619-620; 352 SCRA 12, 20 (2001).
60 Vacio v. People, G.R. Nos. 177105-06, August 4, 2010, 626 SCRA
782.
61 In fact, in Alvarez v. People (G.R. No. 192591, June 29, 2011, 653
SCRA 52, 59), the Court sustained the SandiganbayanÊs ruling that the
accused „acted with manifest partiality and gross inexcus-
298

Jaca vs. People
lemics, they have not shown how their right to be informed

of the nature and cause of accusation against them has
actually been violated; in fact, they advanced no claim that
the wordings in the information prevented them from
preparing their defense.
We likewise cannot support CesaÊs argument challenging
the validity of the information for being a product of an
invalid preliminary investigation. Suffice it to state that he
had already advanced this argument in opposing the
prosecutionÊs motion for the suspension of the petitioners
pendente lite. The Sandiganbayan granted the prosecutionÊs
motion and ordered the preventive suspension of the
petitioners who questioned the SandiganbayanÊs action on
certiorari.
In a February 28, 2001 Resolution, the Court dismissed
the petition for certiorari for the petitionersÊ failure to
establish grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
Sandiganbayan. Effectively, therefore, the Court passed
upon and upheld the validity of the proceedings that led to
the filing of the information below.62 Under the doctrine of
the law of the case, our earlier ruling continues to be the
rule governing the same
_______________
able negligence in awarding the BOT contract to an unlicensed and
financially unqualified private entity.‰ In Siztoza v. Desierto, supra note
48, at p. 131; p. 325, the Supreme Court observed that:
And, while not alleged in the Information, it was evidently the
intention of the Ombudsman to take petitioner to task for gross
inexcusable negligence in addition to the two (2) other modalities
mentioned therein. At any rate, it bears stressing that Sec. 3, par. (e), RA
3019, is committed either by dolo or culpa and although the Information
may have alleged only one (1) of the modalities of committing the offense,
the other mode is deemed included in the accusation to allow proof
thereof. [italics supplied]
62 See Socrates v. Sandiganbayan, 324 Phil. 151, 177-181; 253 SCRA
773, 794 (1996).
299
VOL. 689, JANUARY 28, 2013 299

Jaca vs. People
proceeding where the petitioners have been accused before

and convicted by the Sandiganbayan.63
COA Report is not hearsay evidence
Basic under the rules of evidence is that a witness can
only testify on facts within his or her personal knowledge.64
This personal knowledge is a substantive prerequisite in
accepting testimonial evidence establishing the truth of a
disputed fact.65 Corollarily, a document offered as proof of
its contents has to be authenticated in the manner
provided in the rules, that is, by the person with personal
knowledge of the facts stated in the document.66
The petitioners dispute the competence of both Ariesga
and Chan to testify on the contents of the COA Report:
allegedly, they are not the ones who conducted the actual
audit of BadanaÊs accountabilities. While this claim may be
asserted against Ariesga,67 the same conclusion does not
hold true with respect to Chan and her testimony. In fact,
Chan (together with Tantengco) was specifically assigned
to audit the cash and accounts of Badana. On cross-
examination, Chan testified:
_______________
63 Law of the case has been defined as the opinion delivered on a
former appeal. More specifically, it means that whatever is once
irrevocably established as the controlling legal rule or decision between
the same parties in the same case continues to be the law of the case,
whether correct on general principles or not, so long as the facts on which
such decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the case before
the court. As a general rule, a decision on a prior appeal of the same case
is held to be the law of the case whether that question is right or wrong,
the remedy of the party deeming himself aggrieved being to seek a
rehearing (Tolentino v. Loyola, G.R. No. 153809, July 27, 2011, 654 SCRA
420, at 430-431).
64 Rules of Court, Rule 130, Section 36.
65 Anna Lerima Patula v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 164457,
April 11, 2012, 669 SCRA 135.
66 Oscar M. Herrera, Remedial Law, Volume VI, p. 261.
67 TSN, Volume 1, December 8, 1999, pp. 16-17.
300

Jaca vs. People
Q: Were you actually the one who conducted the cash examination?
A: I assisted Mrs. Cecilia Tantengco in the cash counts and in the
gathering of the documents and also in the preparation of the
report.
Q: You assisted Mrs. Tantengco?
A: Yes sir.
Q: You did not assist any City Auditors office of Cebu City?
A: Being a team leader, I assisted members of the team.
xxxx
AJ Nario: What kind of assistance have you made?
A: During the cash examination I reviewed the working papers of the
team who conducted the periodic cash examination, review, your

Honor.
Q: What else?
A: I was shown some of the documents wherein I discovered that the
disbursement voucher do not indicate the information⁄ that is
required under the law, rules and regulations in granting cash
advances your Honor.
xxxx
Atty. Espina: So you did not actually conduct a cash examination but
you only review the alleged result of the cash examination
conducted by the members of the team?
A: AS I have said earlier, I performed the cash count. I assisted Mrs.
Tantingco in doing the cash count. We also have like certification of
this (sic) documents and reconciliation in coming up with the result
of shortage of 18 million.
xxxx
AJ Nario: How many members were there?
A: ⁄ there are ten of us I am the team leader so with that particular
accountable officers Mrs. Badana there is only one to audit the cash
examination, Mrs. Cecilia Tantingco, your Honor.68
_______________
68 TSN, Volume 7, August 10, 2000, pp. 10-12.
301
VOL. 689, JANUARY 28, 2013 301

Jaca vs. People
Given ChanÊs participation in the preparation of the

COA Report, the non-presentation of the other members of
the audit team does not diminish the character of ChanÊs
personal knowledge of the contents of the COA Report. If at
all, the case for the prosecution may rise or fall based on
the credibility of her testimony in establishing the
petitionersÊ acts or omissions amounting to a violation of
RA No. 3019. The Sandiganbayan found her testimony
credible and we find no reason to disagree with its finding.
Most importantly, the COAÊs findings are accorded great
weight and respect, unless they are clearly shown to be
tainted with grave abuse of discretion; the COA is the
agency specifically given the power, authority and duty to
examine, audit and settle all accounts pertaining to the
revenue and receipts of, and expenditures or uses of fund
and property owned by or pertaining to, the government. It
has the exclusive authority to define the scope of its audit
and examination, and to establish the required techniques
and methods. An audit is conducted to determine whether
the amounts allotted for certain expenditures were spent
wisely, in keeping with official guidelines and regulations.
Under the Rules on Evidence and considering the COAÊs
expertise on the matter, the presumption is that official
duty has been regularly performed unless there is evidence
to the contrary. The petitioners failed in this regard.
Elements of RA No. 3019 and the
prosecutionÊs evidence
Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 has „three elements: (1) the
accused is a public officer discharging administrative,
judicial, or official functions; (2) [he or she] must have
acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or [gross
and] inexcusable negligence; and (3) [his or her] action
caused any undue injury to any party, including the
government, or [gave] any
302

Jaca vs. People
private party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or

preference in the discharge of his or her functions.‰69
The first element is not disputed. We shall first
determine the existence of the third element since the
prosecutionÊs theory depends on the existence of a shortage
upon audit of the Cebu City governmentÊs funds. We see no
point in discussing the second element if the third element
does not exist.
Causing undue injury or giving
unwarranted benefit
Citing Madarang v. Sandiganbayan,70 Cesa argues that
the prosecution has not established the fact of BadanaÊs
unliquidated cash advances because Ariesga himself
testified that the cash examination and audit of BadanaÊs
accountability has not been completed even at the time of
the prosecution of the case in the Sandiganbayan.
Similarly, Gaviola adds that no government employee has
in fact complained of not being paid his or her salary. In
effect, the petitioners argue that the third element of
violation of Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019 is wanting.
The petitioners cannot rely on Madarang, which merely
cited the case of Dumagat v. Sandiganbayan,71 to escape
liability. Dumagat is a case for malversation of funds where
the evidence of shortage, appropriation, conversion or loss
of public funds was necessary, among other elements, for
conviction. In acquitting the accused, the Court pointed out
that „the audit examination left much to be desired in
terms of thoroughness and completeness as there were
accounts which were not considered.‰72 The audit
examination was done not in the official station of the
accused. The accusedÊs other vaults
_______________
69 Estino v. People, G.R. Nos. 163957-58 and 164009-11, April 7, 2009,
584 SCRA 304, 316.
70 Supra note 47, at pp. 629-630; p. 535.
71 G.R. No. 96915, July 3, 1992, 211 SCRA 171.
72 Id.
303
VOL. 689, JANUARY 28, 2013 303

Jaca vs. People
that were located in other places and the „records, receipts,

and cash contained therein were not made part of the audit
report.‰73 Lastly, the prosecution itself admitted where the
accused deposited her collections from particular areas.
In Tinga v. People,74 again a case involving malversation
of public funds, the Court ruled that the prosecution failed
to establish beyond reasonable doubt that there were
actually missing funds chargeable to the accused. The
Sandiganbayan itself found the many errors committed by
the COA in its audit, by including sums which were
supposed to be excluded. The Court expressly observed the
„incomplete and haphazard‰ manner by which the audit
was conducted.
Unlike Dumagat and Tinga, however, the various
irregularities found by the COA itself, and affirmed by the
Sandiganbayan, were the very ones which actually
contributed to the audit teamÊs difficulty in completing the
audit. Significantly, nowhere does it appear that the
incompleteness of the audit pertains to its scope or that the
audit team conducted the audit in a haphazard manner.
The fact that the person (Badana), who could actually shed
light on the shortage the COA found, is nowhere to be
found cannot be taken against the prosecution. The
undisputed accumulation of funds in BadanaÊs hands,
considering the amount given; the fact that the
disbursement vouchers do not exactly represent the
amount of payroll to be paid; and the COAÊs findings that
there was a shortage merely reflect the consequences of the
petitionersÊ acts or omissions and facilitated the
commission of possible malversation by Badana. Thus,
undue injury was sufficiently established.
Gross inexcusable negligence and
the petitionersÊ defense of good faith
a1. CesaÊs defense of good faith
_______________
73 Id., at pp. 174-175.
74 243 Phil. 626; 161 SCRA 694 (1988).
304

Jaca vs. People
Under Section 470 of RA No. 7160, the City Treasurer is

tasked with, inter alia, the following duties: (1) to take
custody of and exercise proper management of the funds of
the local government unit concerned; and (2) to take charge
of the disbursement of all local government funds and such
other funds the custody of which may be entrusted to him
by law or other competent authority. It is from the
viewpoint of CesaÊs duties as a City Treasurer that CesaÊs

good faith should be measured, not simply from the fact
that he acted because a subordinate from his office is the
one asking for a cash advance. By certifying that the cash
advances were „necessary and lawful and incurred under
his direct supervision,‰75 Cesa cannot escape the obligation
to determine whether Badana complied with Section 89 of
PD No. 1445, although the same requirement would have
to be ultimately determined by the City Accountant.76
Section 89 of PD No. 1445 reads:
Sec. 89. Limitations on cash advance.―No cash advance shall

be given unless for a legally authorized specific purpose. A cash
advance shall be reported on and liquidated as soon as the purpose
for which it was given has been served. No additional cash advance
shall be allowed to any official or employee unless the previous cash
advance given to him is settled or a proper accounting thereof is
made.
The same requirement is reiterated in RA No. 7160:
Section 339. Cash Advances.―No cash advance shall be

granted to any local official or employee, elective or appointive,
_______________
75 Box of Disbursement Voucher.
76 It may not be amiss to point out, too, that violation of Section 89 of PD
No. 1445 is in itself an offense punishable under Section 128 of the same law.
The mere failure to timely liquidate the cash advance is the gravamen of the
offense (People v. Sandiganbayan [Third Division], G.R. No. 174504, March 21,
2011, 645 SCRA 726, 734). The criminal liability that may be incurred by the
accountable officer under the law emphasizes the importance of complying with
the limitation in granting cash advances.
305
VOL. 689, JANUARY 28, 2013 305

Jaca vs. People
unless made in accordance with the rules and regulations as the

Commission on Audit may prescribe. [italics supplied]
CesaÊs claim that he precisely required Bacasmas to affix

her initials first on Box A before he actually signed it
cannot exonerate him because Bacasmas herself admitted
that the „practice‰ then was simply to approve the written
request of the paymaster without requiring the
presentation of the supporting documents from the
requesting paymaster. Accused Bacasmas herself testified:
Q: Madam Witness, after preparing all these cash advances,
disbursement voucher and forwarded to the Office of the City
Accountant, what are those attachments your office prepared prior
to the receiving of these cash vouchers to the accountant.
A: What do you mean?
Q: What are those supporting documents?
A: Of the disbursement vouchers?
Q: Yes.
A: It is the written request of the paymaster concerned, sir. We
practice that so long ago, sir. It is only the written request of
the paymaster, no other requirements was required by us.
Q: How about those payrolls, are these payrolls attached to that
voucher?
xxxx
AJ Ferrer: The question is very simple, the voucher is prepared in your
office and then it is sent to the accountant. Now, the question is,
when you sent the vouchers to the accountant, is it
accompanied by the payrolls, yes or no?
Witness: No your Honor.
Atty. Abrenica: Only the vouchers were transmitted to the accountant
for approval, without any attachment?
A: That is prepared by the paymaster.
306

Jaca vs. People
Q: What was the basis of transmitting request as attached by you in

the vouchers?
xxxx
Pros. Somido: There is no showing that she was the one who attached
the disbursement vouchers.
AJ Ferrer: That is what she said that she attaches that to the
disbursement and sent to the accountant.
Q: What is the basis of your attaching the request to the voucher when
you sent it to the accountant?
A: The approved payrolls are there already in the paymaster,
so, they will sum up the payroll and then that is the amount
they will cash advance.77
As the immediate superior of Badana and who affixes

her initials before accused Cesa signs Box A, BacasmasÊ
testimony clearly establishes a „practice‰ in the Office of
the Cash Division of simply relying on the request of the
paymaster without actually requiring the submission of the
necessary documents in support of the request. Contrary to
CesaÊs claims, he was not trivially signing Box A of the
disbursement voucher as a mere requesting party; he has
performed a vital role in its processing and the consequent
disbursement of public funds.78 The instruction at the back
of the voucher itself states that:
1. x x x
6. Box A shall be signed by the responsible officer having
direct supervision and knowledge of the facts of the
transaction.79
In view of the clear duty of the City Treasurer to exercise

proper management of the funds of the local government,
CesaÊs insistence that he merely followed the established
_______________
77 TSN Volume 12, February 27, 2002, pp. 38-41.
78 See Recamadas v. Sandiganbayan, 239 Phil. 355; 155 SCRA 371

(1987).
79 Supra note 75.
307
VOL. 689, JANUARY 28, 2013 307

Jaca vs. People
„procedures and systems‰―which can only refer to the

„practice‰ observed in the Office of the Cash Division―all
the more negated his defense of good faith. He cannot rely
on good faith based on the act of a subordinate where the
documents that would support the subordinateÊs action
(Bacasmas countersignature) were not even in his (CesaÊs)
possession for examination.
Similarly, even ordinary diligence in the performance of
his duties as City Treasurer should have prompted Cesa to
determine if the cash advance requested is „necessary‰ not
only as to its purpose but also as to its amount to ensure
that local funds are properly spent up to the last centavo.
a2. The decision in the administrative
case against Cesa is not controlling in
the criminal case
Cesa argues that since the Ombudsman found him
administratively liable for simple neglect of duty only, then
the Sandiganbayan gravely erred in convicting him under
Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019 for gross inexcusable
negligence.
We disagree with this argument.
That an administrative case is independent from the
criminal action, although both arose from the same act or
omission, is elementary. Given the differences in the
quantum of evidence required, the procedure observed, the
sanctions imposed, as well as in the objective of the two
proceedings, the findings and conclusions in one should not
necessarily be binding on the other. Thus, as a rule,
exoneration in the administrative case is not a bar to a
criminal prosecution for the same or similar acts which
were the subject of the administrative complaint or vice
versa.80
_______________
80 Ferrer, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 161067, March 14, 2008, 548
SCRA 460, 466-467; Paredes, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, 322
308

Jaca vs. People
In the present case, we stress that the Ombudsman

made an express finding that Cesa failed to exercise the
diligence of a good father of a family in safeguarding the
funds of the city government. Thus, Cesa (together with

Bacasmas and Jaca) was found administratively liable by
the Ombudsman for neglect of duty. If the exoneration from
an administrative charge does not in itself bar criminal
prosecution, then with more reason should the principle
apply where the respondent was found to have committed
an administrative infraction.
The Court is not unaware of the rule that if there was a
categorical finding in the administrative case that
expressly rules out one (or more) of the essential elements
of the crime for which the respondent is likewise sought to
be held liable, then his exoneration in the administrative
case can be pleaded for his acquittal in the criminal case.81
This rule, however, obviously finds no application in the
present case. The CA and, subsequently, this Court merely
affirmed the administrative finding of the Ombudsman
that Cesa and his co-petitioners are guilty of neglect of
duty. Nowhere did the uniform rulings in the
administrative case even hint that the administrative
finding bars or forecloses a further determination of the
gravity of the petitionersÊ negligence as was the
prosecutionÊs theory for purposes of criminal prosecution.
b1. JacaÊs defense of good faith
According to Jaca, he affixed his signature on Box B of
the disbursement vouchers, as a ministerial duty, in order
to avoid delay in the payment of the Cebu City government
employeesÊ salaries. Jaca practically admitted having done
so
_______________
Phil. 709, 730; 252 SCRA 641, 657 (1996); and Tan v. Commission on
Elections, G.R. No. 112093, October 4, 1994, 237 SCRA 353, 359.
81 Nicolas v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 175930-31 and 176010-11,
February 11, 2008, 544 SCRA 324, 346-347; See also Constantino v.
Sandiganbayan (First Division), G.R. Nos. 140656 and 154482,
September 13, 2007, 533 SCRA 205, 229.
309
VOL. 689, JANUARY 28, 2013 309

Jaca vs. People
even if she knew that BadanaÊs previous cash advances had

not yet been liquidated, and, that she did not bother to
inform the COA that the accounting tools (index card and
subsidiary ledger) did not accurately monitor cash
advances.82 The Sandiganbayan tried to elicit a plausible
form of the defense of good faith from Jaca but her answer
could not be more categorical.
CHAIRMAN
No, no. The witness may answer. ItÊs very clear. Let me rephrase
your question and correct the Court if it is stated in a wrong
manner. The question of the prosecutor is something like this.
Whenever this (sic) is a document presented to you which covers the
salaries of other employees despite the fact that you are aware that
it also contains cash advances being requested by Rosalina Badana,
you have to sign it notwithstanding the fact that you know, you are
aware that the previous one were still unliquidated? You have to
sign it?
E. JACA
Yes, your honor.
CHAIRMAN
Will you please tell us why you have to do that? Could you not
make any qualification? Can you not say that I am signing the box
just for the release of the salaries of the employees but with respect
to Rosalina Badana, you are objecting to the additional cash
advances being requested? Can you not say that?
E. JACA
Precisely, it is because, your Honor, our records which COA insisted
should be effective tool for monitoring. It is simply not effective, the
index cards and subsidiary ledgers.
CHAIRMAN
Can you not execute additional documents to that effect saying that
I have to sign it because I have to do it. If not, it will affect the
salaries of other employees but, with
_______________
82 TSN Volume 15, pp. 47-48, 54-55.
310

Jaca vs. People
respect to Rosalina Badana, we are entering our objection. I cannot

sign it because there were amounts which were given and remain
unliquidated. Can you not do that, just to save your neck?
E. JACA
There is a pro-forma voucher, your Honor, and we find it did not
occur to us at that time that we may⁄ we will add anything in that
box.
CHAIRMAN
So, in other words, you agree to the question of the prosecutor that
you have no choice even though you are aware that what you are
doing is wrong, you have to blindly sign the box provided for in that
document?
E. JACA
ThatÊs it, your Honor.
xxxx
[PROSECUTOR MONTEROSO]
Q: Now, you said earlier that the internal control of the [COA] x x x
You said that these were not actually effective, am I correct, maÊam?
I am referring to the index cards and other forms that are supposed
to be used in the control system of the audit. You said these are not
effective?
xxxx
[A:] Yes, your Honor.
CHAIRMAN:
Why did you say that?
E. JACA
Because of the criteria of the [COA] for the tool to be effective, it
should be accurate and up-to-date. Our index cards and our

subsidiary ledgers do not qualify that, your Honor.
CHAIRMAN:
Are you not in a position to tell those audit people in the COA, that
what you are doing is not correct and not accurate? x x x
311
VOL. 689, JANUARY 28, 2013 311

Jaca vs. People
E. JACA
It was only at that time that these were brought out and the COA
mentioned that these devices are supposed to be our controls.
CHAIRMAN
DonÊt you feel that the amount of P18M is already substantial
enough for you to blow the whistle?
E JACA
That P18M, sir, came out after the cash examination of Badana.
During those years, during the months preceding that, we did not
know. There was no way of knowing at our end how much has
Badana incurred.83
RA No. 7160 charges the city accountant with both the

accounting and internal audit services of the local
government unit and, among others, to (1) install and
maintain an internal audit system in the local government
unit; (2) review supporting documents before the
preparation of vouchers to determine the completeness of
the requirements; (3) prepare statements of cash advances,
liquidation, salaries, allowances, reimbursements and
remittances pertaining to the local government unit; (4)
prepare statements of journal vouchers and liquidation of
the same and other adjustments related thereto; (5) post
individual disbursements to the subsidiary ledger and
index cards; and (6) maintain individual ledgers for
officials and employees of the local government unit
pertaining to payrolls and deductions.84 As the City
Accountant, Jaca is presumed conversant with the
pertinent COA rules and regulations in granting cash
advances, i.e., COA Circular No. 90-331, COA Circular No.
92-382 and COA Circular No. 97-002, but which were
consistently not observed by the petitioners.
1. No additional cash advance shall be allowed to any official or
employee unless the previous cash advance given
_______________
83 TSN, Volume 15, August 7, 2003, pp. 53-57.
84 RA No. 7160, Section 474.
312

Jaca vs. People
him is first settled or a proper accounting thereof is made.

2. The cash advance shall be equal to the net amount of the payroll for
a pay period.
3. The cash advance shall be supported by the following documents:
- Payroll or list of payees with their net payments
4. The accountable officer shall liquidate his cash advance as follows:
salaries, wages, etc.―within five days after each 15 day/end of the
month pay period.
The Court is not persuaded by JacaÊs argument that she

was merely avoiding any delay in the payment of salaries
of local government employees when she consequently
failed to observe the COA rules on the period of liquidation
of cash advances. The Sandiganbayan correctly observed
that as the City Accountant, foremost of her duties is to
ensure that the local funds out of which the salaries of local
government employees would be paid are properly
accounted for.85 As Cesa implicitly argued, the creation of
the Office of the City Accountant86 serves an important
function of pre-audit in the chain of processing cash
advances of individual paymasters.
_______________
85 Section 305 of RA No. 7160 reads:
Section 305. Fundamental Principles.―The financial affairs,
transactions, and operations of local government units shall be governed
by the following fundamental principles:
xxxx
(l) Fiscal responsibility shall be shared by all those exercising
authority over the financial affairs, transactions, and operations of
the local government units[.]
86 It was only on February 7, 1994 that the Cebu City government
created the new Office of the City Accountant pursuant to Section 474,
paragraph (a) of RA No. 7160. It was created precisely to assist the local
chief executive „in managing the resources to its optimum use through
proper accounting‰ (http://www.cebucity.gov.
ph/deptsoffices/support/accountant) last accessed November 19, 2012.
313
VOL. 689, JANUARY 28, 2013 313

Jaca vs. People
A pre-audit is an examination of financial transactions

before their consumption or payment; a pre-audit seeks to
determine, among others, that the claim is duly supported
by authentic underlying pieces of evidence.87 If the setup
then prevailing in the Cebu City government directly
conflicts with the COA regulations, Jaca should have, at
the very least, informed the City Mayor of the risk in the
process of disbursement of local funds or at least she
should have set up an internal audit system―as was her
duty―to check against possible malversation of funds by
the paymaster.
That no one claimed that his/her salaries has not been
paid is beside the point. In the present case, aside from
JacaÊs admission that she knowingly affixed her signature
in Box B of the disbursement voucher contrary to what it

certifies, i.e., all previous cash advances had been
liquidated and accounted for, the amount requested was
consistently way above the total amount covered by the
supporting payrolls, thereby allowing Badana to have
accumulated excess funds in her hands.
c1. GaviolaÊs defense of good faith
In his defense, Gaviola invokes our ruling in Arias v.
Sandiganbayan88 and argues that he signed Box C of the
disbursement vouchers (i) only after his co-accused had
previously affixed their signatures and (ii) only if they were
complete with supporting documents.
c1.1 The Arias ruling and subsequent cases
In the seminal case of Arias v. Sandiganbayan89
involving the prosecution and conviction of a public official
for violation of RA No. 3019, the Court ruled:
_______________
87 Director Villanueva v. Commission on Audit, 493 Phil. 887, 899-
901; 453 SCRA 782, 796 (2005).
88 259 Phil. 794; 180 SCRA 309 (1989).
89 Ibid.
314

Jaca vs. People
We would be setting a bad precedent if a head of office plagued

by all too common problems―dishonest or negligent subordinates,
overwork, multiple assignments or positions, or plain
incompetence―is suddenly swept into a conspiracy conviction
simply because he did not personally examine every single detail,
painstakingly trace every step from inception, and investigate the
motives of every person involved in a transaction before affixing his
signature as the final approving authority.
xxxx
We can, in retrospect, argue that Arias should have probed
records, inspected documents, received procedures, and questioned
persons. It is doubtful if any auditor for a fairly sized office could
personally do all these things in all vouchers presented for his
signature. The Court would be asking for the impossible. All heads
of offices have to rely to a reasonable extent on their subordinates
and on the good faith of those who prepare bids, purchase supplies,
or enter into negotiations. xxx There has to be some added
reason why he should examine each voucher in such detail.
Any executive head of even small government agencies or
commissions can attest to the volume of papers that must be signed.
There are hundreds of documents, letters, memoranda, vouchers,
and supporting papers that routinely pass through his hands. The
number in bigger offices or departments is even more appalling.
There should be other grounds than the mere signature or
approval appearing on a voucher to sustain a conspiracy charge
and conviction.90 (italics supplied; emphases ours)
The Court has since applied the Arias ruling to

determine not only criminal,91 civil92 and administrative93
liability, but
_______________
90 Id., at pp. 801-802; pp. 315-316.
91 Magsuci v. Sandiganbayan, a case involving estafa through
falsification of public documents.
92 Leycano, Jr. v. Commission on Audit, 517 Phil. 428; 482 SCRA 215
(2006); Albert v. Chairman Gangan, 406 Phil. 235; 353 SCRA 673 (2001).
93 Alfonso v. Office of the President, G.R. No. 150091, April 2, 2007,
520 SCRA 64, 66.
315
VOL. 689, JANUARY 28, 2013 315

Jaca vs. People
even the existence of probable cause to file an information94

in the context of an allegation of conspiracy.
In Siztoza v. Desierto, involving the OmbudsmanÊs
determination of probable cause for violation of RA No.
3019, the Court expounded on the reach of Arias, thus:
The fact that [Sistoza] had knowledge of the status of [the

contractor] as being only the second lowest bidder does not ipso
facto characterize [his] act of reliance as recklessly imprudent xxx.
Albeit misplaced, reliance in good faith by a head of office on a
subordinate upon whom the primary responsibility rests negates an
imputation of conspiracy by gross inexcusable negligence to commit
graft and corruption. As things stand, [Sistoza] is presumed to have
acted honestly and sincerely when he depended upon responsible
assurances that everything was aboveboard since it is not always
the case that second best bidders in terms of price are automatically
disqualified from the award considering that the PBAC reserves the
authority to select the best bid not only in terms of the price offered
but other factors as well. x x x
Verily, even if petitioner erred in his assessment of the
extrinsic and intrinsic validity of the documents presented
to him for endorsement, his act is all the same imbued with
good faith because the otherwise faulty reliance upon his
subordinates, who were primarily in charge of the task, falls
within parameters of tolerable judgment and permissible
margins of error. Stated differently, granting that there were
flaws in the bidding procedures, x x x there was no cause for
[Sistoza] to x x x investigate further since neither the defects in
the process nor the unfairness or injustice in the actions of
his subalterns are definite, certain, patent and palpable from
a perusal of the supporting documents.95 (emphases ours)
In Leycano, Jr. v. Commission on Audit,96 the Court

clarified that for one to successfully invoke Arias, the
public offi-
_______________
94 Sistoza v. Desierto, supra note 48, a prosecution for Section 3(e) of

RA No. 3019.
95 Id., at pp. 134-135.
96 517 Phil. 426, 435; 482 SCRA 215, 228 (2006).
316

Jaca vs. People
cial must then be acting in his capacity as head of office.97

In Cruz v. Sandiganbayan,98 where the Court sustained the
petitionerÊs conviction for violation of Section 3(e) of RA No.
3019, it observed that the fact that „the checks issued as
payment for construction materials purchased by the
municipality were not made payable to the supplier x x x
but to petitioner himself even as the disbursement
vouchers attached thereto were in the name of [the
supplier]‰ constitute an „added reason‰ for the petitioner to
further examine the documents.99
c2.2 The Arias ruling and the present case
The Arias ruling squarely applies where, in the perfor-
mance of his official duties, the head of an office is being
held to answer for his act of relying on the acts of his
subordinate. In its Memorandum,100 the prosecution
submitted that the petitioners were the heads of the three
„independent‰ offices at the time material to the
controversy, i.e., the Office of the City Treasurer, the Office
of the City Accountant and the Office of the City
Administrator. On this point alone, GaviolaÊs reliance on
Arias already stands on shaky grounds.
However, the Court observes that the key functions of
the City Administrator do not relate either to the
management of or accounting of funds of the local
government or to internal audit. His concern is the overall
administration and management of the affairs of the local
government as a whole. Given the prior certifications of the
two other offices; the internal check employed by Gaviola
before affixing his signature; and the intervening process
before the voucher actually reaches
_______________
97 See also Dugayon v. People, 479 Phil. 930, 941; 436 SCRA 262, 271
(2004).
98 504 Phil. 321, 334-335; 467 SCRA 52, 65 (2005).
99 See also Santillano v. People, G.R. Nos. 175045-46, March 3, 2010,
614 SCRA 164.
100 Rollo (G.R. No. 166974), p. 311.
317
VOL. 689, JANUARY 28, 2013 317

Jaca vs. People
the City Administrator, the Court cannot consider the

deficiency in the „particulars of payment‰ alone to charge
Gaviola with knowledge that something was amiss and
that his failure to do so would amount to gross and
inexcusable negligence. Unlike the signatures on the
disbursement vouchers of the City Treasurer and of the
City Accountant, the City Administrator signs Box C
ultimately as an „approving officer‰ without any direct
involvement in the management and audit of local
government funds before and after the disbursement. It
would seem, therefore, that GaviolaÊs own reliance on the
signatures of the heads of the two other offices is not
entirely misplaced.
The signatures of the other petitioners, however, are
only part of the picture. GaviolaÊs reliance on these alone
does not establish good faith if the bare signatures on the
voucher and the written request from the paymaster are all
that he has with him when he affixed his signature on Box
C.101 Amidst conflicting assertions, the Sandiganbayan
gave credence to the prosecutionÊs evidence that the
disbursement vouchers did not have the required
supporting documents when Gaviola affixed his signature.
While the vouchers themselves indicate that it had gone
through the Internal Control Office, allegedly for a
determination of the completeness of the supporting
documents before Peña finally turned it over to Gaviola,
the Sandiganbayan gave emphasis on GaviolaÊs failure to
present evidence that he indeed requested the submission
of the supposed attachments from the COA and put a
premium on ChanÊs testimony.
We find no reason to reverse the Sandiganbayan.
Additionally, we observe that while payment of salaries of
employees of the Cebu City government is either on a
quincena or
_______________
101 This sets GaviolaÊs case apart from Dr. Alejandro v. People, 252
Phil. 412; 170 SCRA 400 (1989). In Alejandro, the Court acquitted the
petitioner-accused who merely relied on the certifications of his
subordinates. Whether the supporting documents are in order or
complete is not a factual issue in Alejandro.
318

Jaca vs. People
weekly basis, still there are only two payrolls prepared,

corresponding to the first and second halves of the month.
The payroll for the first quincena is prepared on the first
week of the month, in time for the weekly-paid employees
to receive their first week salary. For purpose of payment
for the next pay periods―the payment of the 2nd week
salary and the 1st quincena―the payroll (together with its
supporting documents) stays with the
paymaster/disbursing officer.102 This arrangement only

means that if Badana would make a cash advance for the
1st week or 3rd week, the disbursement vouchers could not
actually be supported by complete documents since the
same stay with the paymaster herself.
As described by the prosecution, the offices involved in
the processing of cash advances are technically
independent of each other; one office does not form part of,
or is strictly under, another. Thus, each has independent
functions to perform to ensure that the funds of the local
government are disbursed properly and are well accounted
for. While the Court views GaviolaÊs failure to inquire
further before affixing his signature despite the absence of
the „particulars of payment‰ in the disbursement vouchers
as negligence on his part,103 to additionally affix his
signature despite the lack of supporting documents only
shows a gross and inexcusable disregard of the
consequences of his act as approving authority. If Gaviola
bothered to glance at the supporting documents, he could
have signaled to his co-accused that their acts or omissions
opened an opportunity for Badana to commit malversation
that would result in a loss to the local governmentÊs coffers.
_______________
102 TSN, Volume 15, pp. 29-31; Volume 13, p. 13.
103 Magsuci v. Sandiganbayan, 310 Phil. 14, 20; 240 SCRA 13, 18
(1995).
319
VOL. 689, JANUARY 28, 2013 319

Jaca vs. People
Conspiracy and conviction

In Sistoza, the Court already intimated on the
possibility of committing a violation of Section 3(e) of RA
No. 3019 through gross and inexcusable negligence, and of
incurring collective criminal responsibility through a
conspiracy.
x x x As we have consistently held, evidence of guilt must be

premised upon a more knowing, personal and deliberate
participation of each individual who is charged with others as part
of a conspiracy.
Furthermore, even if the conspiracy were one of silence and
inaction arising from gross inexcusable negligence, it is nonetheless
essential to prove that the breach of duty borders on malice and is
characterized by flagrant, palpable and willful indifference to
consequences insofar as other persons may be affected.104
As earlier discussed, considering that the gravity of

negligence required by law for a violation of Section 3(e) of
RA No. 3019 to exist falls short of the degree of bad faith or
partiality to violate the same provision, a conspiracy of
silence and inaction arising from gross inexcusable
negligence would almost always be inferred only from the

surrounding circumstances and the partiesÊ acts or
omissions that, taken together, indicate a common
understanding and concurrence of sentiments respecting
the commission of the offense.105 The duties and
responsibilities that the occupancy of a public office carry
and the degree of relationship of interdependence of the
different offices involved here determine the existence of
conspiracy where gross inexcusable negligence was the
mode of commission of the offense.
For emphasis, the petitioners are all heads of their
respective offices that perform interdependent functions in
the processing of cash advances. The petitionersÊ attitude of
buck-
_______________
104 Supra note 48, at p. 316.
105 Guy v. People, G.R. Nos. 166794-96, 166880-82 and 167088-90,
March 20, 2009, 582 SCRA 107, 125.
320

Jaca vs. People
passing in the face of the irregularities in the voucher (and

the absence of supporting documents), as established by
the prosecution, and their indifference to their individual
and collective duties to ensure that laws and regulations
are observed in the disbursement of the funds of the local
government of Cebu can only lead to a finding of conspiracy
of silence and inaction, contemplated in Sistoza. The
Sandiganbayan correctly observed that―
Finally, it bears stressing that the separate acts or omissions of

all the accused in the present case contributed in the end result of
defrauding the government. Without anyone of these acts or
omissions, the end would not have been achieved. Suffice it to say
that since each of the accused contributed to attain the end goal, it
can be concluded that their acts, taken collectively, satisfactorily
prove the existence of conspiracy among them.106
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby DENY

the petitions for lack of merit and thereby AFFIRM the
decision dated December 16, 2004 and the resolution dated
February 1, 2005 of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case
No. 24699.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio (Chairperson), Del Castillo, Perez and Perlas-

Bernabe, JJ., concur.
Petitions denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.
Note.―For an action to constitute as gross inexcusable

negligence, it is essential to prove that the breach of duty
borders on malice and is characterized by flagrant,

palpable and willful indifference to consequences insofar as
other person may be affected. (M.A. Jimenez Enterprises,
Inc. vs. Ombudsman, 650 SCRA 381 [2011])
――o0o――
_______________
106 Decision of Sandiganbayan, Rollo (G.R. No. 167167), p. 110.
© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Jaca V People

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jaca V People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 689 29/01/2018, 8:46 PM

G.R. No. 166967. January 28, 2013.*

EDNA J. JACA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE

G.R. No. 166974. January 28, 2013.*

G.R. No. 167167. January 28, 2013.*

Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Information; As long as the

VOL. 689, JANUARY 28, 2013 271

Jaca vs. People

offense charged as defined in the law. The raison dÊetre of the

requirement in the Rules is to enable the accused to suitably

272 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Jaca vs. People

personal knowledge. This personal knowledge is a substantive

VOL. 689, JANUARY 28, 2013 273

Jaca vs. People

other competent authority.―Under Section 470 of RA No. 7160, the

Actions; As a rule, exoneration in the administrative case is not

274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Jaca vs. People

that Cesa and his co-petitioners are guilty of neglect of duty.

Local Government Units; Public Officers; City

supported by authentic underlying pieces of evidence.―A pre-audit

VOL. 689, JANUARY 28, 2013 275

Jaca vs. People

Criminal Law; Conspiracy of Silence; Considering that the

PETITIONS for review on certiorari of the decision and

Abrenica Duque Sicat Law Offices and Neri &

276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The petitioners occupied appointive positions in the

VOL. 689, JANUARY 28, 2013 277

Jaca vs. People

1. affixes her initials on Box A of the voucher; and

278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

k. Paymaster signs the receipt portion of the voucher and

On March 4, 1998, City Auditor Rodolfo Ariesga created

VOL. 689, JANUARY 28, 2013 279

The audit teamÊs cash examination covered the period

respective counter-affidavits and countervailing evidence.18

280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

with violation of Section 3(e) of RA No. 301919 before the

On July 2, 1998, the COA Regional Office No. VII (COA

„A.1. During the period [between] September 20, 1995 to March 5,

Php4,940,065.50 as of November 20, 1997 (Annex 19). The situation was

VOL. 689, JANUARY 28, 2013 281

Another example in the General fund, cash advance of

282 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

period covered by the cash advance. The city officials

Date Check No. Amount of Cash Amount of

Total P4,000,000.00 P4,018,846.00

It appears that the new cash advance of Php4,000,000.00 was

VOL. 689, JANUARY 28, 2013 283

d. As discussed in letter „C‰ above, accounting records show that

of P18,527,137.19 from the September 20, 1995 to March 5, 1998:

284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

x x x As a result, the unliquidated cash advances as of

VOL. 689, JANUARY 28, 2013 285

1.1 The paid payrolls and vouchers were placed in an

The petitioners moved for reinvestigation; the prosecution

286 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

On arraignment,25 the accused pleaded not guilty.26

The prosecution presented Ariesga and Chan as its

witnesses. Relying on the audit teamÊs findings, the

VOL. 689, JANUARY 28, 2013 287