6.1386 (Padaca) - Appellant's Brief - June 9 - CONTROL (CLEAN)
6.1386 (Padaca) - Appellant's Brief - June 9 - CONTROL (CLEAN)
SUPREME COURT
MANILA
Second Division
-versus-
APPELLANT’S BRIEF
9 June 2021
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.....................................................................iv
NATURE OF THE CASE...........................................................................1
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS....................................................................2
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS.................................................................2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE...................................................................6
ISSUES........................................................................................................15
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE APPEAL/DISCUSSION.....15
I. ACCUSED-APPELLANT WAS NOT AN ACCOUNTABLE
OFFICER UNDER ARTICLE 217 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE.
SHE HAD NO CUSTODY OR CONTROL OVER THE PUBLIC
FUNDS INVOLVED BY REASON OF THE DUTIES OF HER
OFFICE. MOREOVER, ACCUSED-APPELLANT DID NOT
PARTICIPATE IN THE USE OR APPLICATION OF THE
PHP25,000,000.00 BY EDWINLFI............................................................17
II. ACCUSED-APPELLANT WAS DULY AUTHORIZED BY THE
SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN OF ISABELA TO
NEGOTIATE AND ENTER INTO THE MOA WITH EDWINLFI.
THE MOA WAS EXPRESSLY AND UNQUALIFIEDLY RATIFIED
BY THE SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN....................................21
III. APPLYING THE STANDARD OF ORDINARY DILIGENCE,
ACCUSED-APPELLANT EXERCISED REASONABLE CARE AND
CAUTION IN EXECUTING THE MOA WITH EDWINLFI. THERE IS
NO MERIT TO THE CONCLUSION THAT SHE ALLOWED THE
TAKING OF PUBLIC FUNDS THROUGH GROSS NEGLIGENCE.
AMONG OTHERS, THE MOA CONTAINED SUFFICIENT
SAFEGUARDS TO ENSURE THE PROPER DISBURSEMENT AND
ACCOUNTING OF FUNDS. ALSO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT
ADEQUATELY PROVED THAT THE FARMER-BENEFICIARIES
WERE ABLE TO AVAIL OF LOANS UNDER THE PROGRAM. IN
CONTRAST, THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO PROVE GROSS
NEGLIGENCE AND CRIMINAL INTENT ON THE PART OF
ACCUSED-APPELLANT..........................................................................26
IV. THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO ESTABLISH ALL THE
ELEMENTS OF MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS UNDER
ARTICLE 217 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT. GIVEN THIS, THE CONSTITUTIONAL
ii
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE IN FAVOR OF ACCUSED-
APPELLANT MUST PREVAIL................................................................32
RELIEF.........................................................................................................38
iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
STATUTES/RULES
JURISPRUDENCE
Board of Liquidators v. Heirs of M. Kalaw
G.R. No. L-18805, 14 August 1967, 20 SCRA 987 22
Orencio v. Valeriano
G.R. No. 185559, 2 August 2017, 833 SCRA 649 31
iv
People of the Philippines v. Esquivel
82 Phil. 453, 459 (1948) 33
Rueda v. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 129064, 29 November 2000, 346 SCRA 341 35
Tabuena v. Sandiganbayan
G.R. Nos. 103501-03, 17 February 1997, 268 SCRA 332 30
v
Zafra v. People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 190749, 25 April 2012, 671 SCRA 396 37
Zoleta v. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 185224, 29 July 2015, 764 SCRA 110 20
vi
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES
Plaintiff-Appellee,
APPELLANT’S BRIEF
1
On 15 March 2021, Accused-Appellant received a copy of this Honorable Court’s Notice
of Resolution dated 23 February 2021 directing the parties to submit their respective
Briefs thirty (30) days from notice. Under the Supreme Court’s Administrative Circular
Nos. 22-2021 and 29-2021, the time for filing and service of pleadings and motions during
imposition of the Enhanced Community Quarantine (“ECQ”) and Modified Enhanced
Community Quarantine (“MECQ”) is suspended and shall resume seven (7) calendar
days counted from the first day of physical reopening of this Honorable Court. On 4 May
2021, Accused-Appellant filed a Motion for Extension of Time to file Brief of even date
requesting for a period of thirty (30) days from 10 May 2021, or until 9 June 2021, within
which to submit her Brief. Thus, this Brief is timely filed.
(“Assailed Resolution”)3 of the Sandiganbayan Third Division
(“Sandiganbayan” or “court a quo”) in Criminal Case No. SB 11-CRM-
0282.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS
2
farmers of Isabela. The Provincial Government of Isabela partnered
with the National Food Authority to increase the buying price of
Isabela farmers’ produce by up to Php 2.00 per kilo. This became the
centerpiece of Governor Padaca’s administration. The endeavor
proved very successful and benefitted thousands of Isabelino
farmers; even winning a Galing Pook Award, then the most
prestigious local government award which recognized innovative
practices by local government units.
4
Prosecution’s Formal Offer of Evidence dated 12 December 2016, Exhibit “M”, Records, Vol.
V, pp. 591-592.
5
Judicial Affidavit of Flordeluna A. Arriola dated 3 October 2017 (“Ms. Arriola”), Records,
Vol. VI, pp. 313-786; Vol. VII, pp. 1-895; Vol. VIII, pp. 1-743; Vol. IX, pp. 1-717; Vol. X, pp.
1-778; Vol. XI, pp. 1-774; Vol. XII, pp. 1-896; Vol. XIII, pp. 1-748; Vol. XIV, pp. 1-388.
6
Transcript of Stenographic Notes (“TSN”) dated 8 August 2017, p. 11.
7
Counter-Affidavit of Maria Gracia Cielo M. Padaca dated May 2007, Annex “A”, Records,
Vol. I, pp. 57-60.
3
10. After Governor Padaca had successfully obtained the loan
of Thirty-Five Million Pesos (PhP 35,000,000.00) from the DBP, which
was specifically earmarked for the Program, the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan authorized her to “negotiate and enter into a
Memorandum of Agreement with people’s organizations or non-
governmental organizations (“NGOs”) for the purpose of
implementing the Rice Program.”8 This was to ensure that an
organization composed of persons with technical, financial, and
managerial expertise would effectively manage and implement the
Supervised Credit Facility and other aspects of the Program.9
8
Prosecution’s Formal Offer of Evidence dated 12 December 2016, Exhibit “M”, Records, Vol.
V, pp. 591-592.
9
Prosecution’s Formal Offer of Evidence dated 12 December 2016, Exhibit “N”, Records, Vol.
V, pp. 593-595.
10
Prosecution’s Formal Offer of Evidence dated 12 December 2016, Exhibit “M”, Records, Vol.
V, pp. 591-592.
11
REP. ACT NO. 7160 (1991), Sec. 465 (b).
12
Prosecution’s Formal Offer of Evidence dated 12 December 2016, Exhibit “N”, Records, Vol.
V, pp. 593-595.
13
Prosecution’s Formal Offer of Evidence dated 12 December 2016, Exhibit “N”, Records, Vol.
V, pp. 593-595.
4
establish and maintain an efficient accounting, management, and
internal auditing system.14
5
the Program as they were able to obtain loans, maximize their
respective harvests, and accordingly repay such loans at a low
interest rate of 1.5%.
6
(EDWINLFI) to take such amount of public funds under
the authority of the Memorandum of Agreement dated 08
January 2006 which had not been ratified until after 31
January 2007 for the implementation of the Provincial
Rice Program of Isabela, more particularly the Supervised
Credit Facility, without terms of repayment to the
Provincial Government of Isabela of the funds which
were not, in fact, awarded to the farmers of Isabela who
are the supposed recipients of its provincial rice program
as proved by the absence of any report of quantified
accomplishment or disbursement of the funds, and by
then and there transferring said public funds in the
amount of P25,000,000.00 in favor of EDWINLFI for
services yet to be rendered.”20
7
otherwise known as the Government Procurement
Reform Act, and by then and there transferring public
funds in the amount of Twenty-Five Million Pesos,
Philippine Currency (PhP 25,000,000.00) in favor of
EDWINLFI for services yet to be rendered.”21
21
Records, Vol. 2, pp. 4-5
22
Joint Stipulation of Facts dated 4 March 2016, Records, Vol. IV, pp. 28-514.
23
Pre-Trial Order dated 7 March 2016, Records, Vol. V, pp. 7 to 405.
24
TSN dated 11 February 2016.
25
TSN dated 9 March 2016.
26
TSN dated 20 April 2016.
27
TSN dated 28 June 2016.
28
TSN dated 26 July 2016.
29
TSN dated 29 September 2016.
30
Formal Offer of Evidence dated 12 December 2016, Records, Vol. XIV, pp. 399-419;Vol. XV,
pp. 1-923; Vol. XVI, pp. 1-1109; Vol. XVII, pp. 1-1051; Vol. XVIII, pp. 1-1045; Vol. XIX, pp.
1- 1034; Vol. XX, pp. 1-1123.
31
Minute Resolution dated 24 January 2017, Records, Vol. VI, p. 42.
32
TSN dated 8 August 2017.
33
TSN dated 8 August 2017.
34
TSN dated 8 August 2017.
8
ii. She did not overstep her authority in so executing
the acts authorized by the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan;35
35
TSN dated 8 August 2017.
36
TSN dated 8 August 2017.
37
TSN dated 8 August 2017.
38
TSN dated 8 August 2017, pp. 11 & 13.
39
TSN dated 8 August 2017, p. 24.
40
TSN dated 8 August 2017, pp. 25-26.
41
TSN dated 8 August 2017, p. 33.
42
TSN dated 8 August 2017, p. 34.
9
b) Elmer G. Credo (“Mr. Credo”) was presented on 10
October 2017.43 He testified on the following matters,44
among others:45
10
i. He was one of the farmers who availed of the loans
provided by the Program where he received PhP
14,000.00 worth of farm inputs consisting of six (6)
sacks of fertilizer, one (1) bottle of insecticide, and
two (2) bags of hybrid rice seeds; and
iii. In March 2007, he was able to pay the first loan and
availed a second loan worth PhP 21,000.00 of farm
inputs consisting of ten (10) bags of urea, six (6)
bags of 16-20-0 fertilizer, two (2) bottles of
insecticide and one (1) bag of foliar fertilizer;
53
TSN dated 10 October 2017.
54
Sinumpaang Salaysay ni Rogelio A. Panduyos dated 3 October 2017, Records, Vol. VI, p.
280-286.
55
Translated from Filipino to English.
56
Sinumpaang Salaysay of Mr. Pardua dated 3 October 2017, Records, Vol. VI, pp. 294-301.
11
f) Flordeluna A. Arriola (“Ms. Arriola”) was presented on 7
November 2017.57 She testified on the following matters, 58
among others:
57
TSN dated 7 November 2017.
58
Judicial Affidavit of Flordeluna A. Arriola dated 3 October 2017, Records, Vol. VI, pp. 313-
786; Vol. VII, pp. 1-895; Vol. VIII, pp. 1-743; Vol. IX, pp. 1-717; Vol. X, pp. 1-778; Vol. XI,
pp. 1-774; Vol. XII, pp. 1-896; Vol. XIII, pp. 1-748; Vol. XIV, pp. 1-388.
59
TSN dated 10 October 2017.
60
Amended Formal Offer of Evidence dated 3 December 2018, Records, Vol. XXI, pp. 57-408.
12
admitted Accused-Appellant’s proffered exhibits in a Minute
Resolution dated 7 January 2019.61
13
six (6) years and one (1) month, as minimum, to ten
years and six (6) months, as maximum, with perpetual
disqualification from holding public office.”63
63
Assailed Decision, pp. 55-56.
64
Motion for Reconsideration dated 2 December 2019, Records, Vol. XXI, pp. 596-618.
65
Assailed Resolution, p. 31.
66
Assailed Resolution, p. 31.
67
Notice of Appeal dated 27 July 2020, Records, Vol. XXII, pp. 64 to 68.
14
30. On 15 March 2021, Accused-Appellant received this
Honorable Court’s Notice dated 23 February 2021, requiring the
parties to submit their briefs.68
ISSUES
ARGUMENTS
IN SUPPORT OF THE APPEAL
I.
68
Notice dated 23 February 2021.
69
Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief dated 10 May 2021.
15
PARTICIPATE IN THE USE OR APPLICATION
OF THE PHP25,000,000.00 BY EDWINLFI.
II.
III.
IV.
16
INNOCENCE IN FAVOR OF ACCUSED-
APPELLANT MUST PREVAIL.
DISCUSSION
I.
17
37. Indeed, among the elements of malversation is that the
person charged “had custody or control of funds or property by
reason of the duties of his or her office;” and that “those funds or
property were funds or property for which he or she was
accountable.”75 Moreover, in the crime of malversation of public
funds, it is necessary for conviction that “the accountable officer had
received the public funds and that such officer failed to account for
the said funds upon demand without offering a justifiable
explanation for the shortage.”76
75
Corpuz v. People, G.R. No. 241383, 8 June 2020, citing Venezuela v. People, G.R. No.
205693, 14 February 2018, 855 SCRA 331, 345; emphasis and underscoring supplied.
76
Ibid.
77
REP. ACT NO. 7160 (1991), Section 465 (b) (3) (iii).
78
REP. ACT NO. 7160 (1991), Section 465 (b) (3); emphasis and underscoring supplied.
79
REP. ACT NO. 7160 (1991), Section 470 (d) (2); emphasis and underscoring supplied.
80
REP. ACT NO. 7160 (1991), Section 470 (d) (3); emphasis and underscoring supplied.
18
42. In the case at bar, Governor Padaca only transacted on
behalf of the Provincial Government of Isabela and never received
public money for which she was bound to account for. The MOA
was entered into by the Provincial Government of Isabela, through
Governor Padaca, with EDWINLFI. The fact that Governor Padaca
may have approved the Disbursement Voucher and signed the DBP
check as representative of the Provincial Government of Isabela, in
favor of EDWINLFI, did not automatically make her accountable for
the custody and control of the PhP25,000,000.00. Under the law, it is
clear that the responsibility for the custody, management, and
disbursement of funds devolved upon the provincial treasurer’s
office.
81
Underscoring supplied.
82
Assailed Resolution, pp. 6-7; italics supplied.
83
REP. ACT NO. 7160 (1991), Sec. 340.
19
Indeed, a distinct line delineates the extent of Governor Padaca’s
participation.
84
G.R. No. 185224, 29 July 2015, 764 SCRA 110.
85
Ibid., at 115.
86
Corpuz v. People, G.R. No. 241383, 8 June 2020, citing Venezuela v. People, G.R. No.
205693, 14 February 2018, 855 SCRA 331, 345; emphasis and underscoring supplied.
20
Governor Padaca to account for said funds (as she was not the
officer accountable for the same); thus, no opportunity for her to
provide any “justifiable explanation” arose.
II.
87
Assailed Decision, p. 35.
88
Assailed Resolution, p. 20.
89
Prosecution’s Formal Offer of Evidence dated 12 December 2016, Exhibit “N”, Records, Vol.
V, pp. 593-595.
21
55. Nevertheless, assuming without conceding that there was
any lack of authority on Accused-Appellant’s part, it is a fact that the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan, through its Resolution No. 03, ratified
the MOA and cured it of all its defects:
90
Prosecution’s Formal Offer of Evidence dated 12 December 2016, Exhibit “O”, Records, Vol.
V, p. 596.
91
Emphasis and underscoring supplied.
92
University of Mindanao v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, G.R. No. 194964-65, 11 January
2016, 778 SCRA 458, 505.
93
Ibid.; emphasis and underscoring supplied.
94
Board of Liquidators v. Heirs of M. Kalaw, G.R. No. L-18805, 14 August 1967, 20 SCRA
987; emphasis and underscoring supplied.
22
60. In any case, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan expressly and
unqualifiedly ratified the MOA with EDWINLFI through Resolution
No. 03. The simple fact is that the Sangguniang Panlalawigan did
pass the necessary resolution, making the doctrine of ratification
relevant to this case. The delay in the ratification of the MOA is of no
legal consequence or significance. As long as the contract is ratified,
it is retroactively cleansed from the moment it was constituted.
23
aside the issue on the lack of authority of Governor Ocampo,
holding that “the MOA has been impliedly ratified by the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan as [the Sangguniang Panlalawigan]
has not directly impugned the validity of the contract despite
knowledge of the controversy.”98 It must be pointed that in Ocampo,
this Honorable Court did not make any qualifications as to when
and how such ratification is valid. As such, the court a quo went
beyond its authority by qualifying that the case of Ocampo is not
applicable just because the MOA in the present case was ratified
after a year. To reiterate, this Honorable Court, without
qualifications, explained that the MOA had been impliedly ratified
by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan thereby curing any lack of
authority of Governor Ocampo. There can be no other interpretation
other than that ratification cures the contract from any and all its
defects.
66. With all due respect, the ruling of the court a quo is
wrong.
98
G.R. No. 156547-51, 3 February 2008, 534 SCRA 847, 511; emphasis and underscoring
supplied.
99
Assailed Resolution, pp. 18-19.
24
69. To recall, Governor Padaca was authorized to negotiate
and enter into the MOA with EDWINLFI through Resolution No. 09.
Thus, any preconceived lack of authority from Governor Padaca is
clearly factually and legally incorrect.
100
The Missionary Sisters of Our Lady of Fatima v Alzona, G.R. No. 224307, 6 August 2018,
876 SCRA 309, 312.
101
Ibid., at 325.
25
75. Based on the foregoing, the Sandiganbayan incorrectly
ruled that Governor Padaca entered into the MOA without authority
from the Sangguniang Panlalawigan as the MOA was ratified by the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan effectively cleansing the contract from
inception.
III.
26
in allowing EDWINLFI to take public funds without any scheme for
repayment.”104
79. The court a quo itself states that the test by which to
determine the existence of negligence is: “Did the defendant in doing
the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which
an ordinary prudent person would have used in the same situation?
If not, he is guilty of negligence.”105
27
efficient accounting and management information system, to record
and monitor the transactions of EDWINLFI in relation to the
Program; establish and maintain an efficient internal auditing
system to ensure that assets are protected, accounting records are
reliable and accurate; and establish a system for the identification of
beneficiaries, loan evaluation, processing documentation, release
and collection, among others.108
108
Prosecution’s Formal Offer of Evidence dated 12 December 2016, Exhibit “N”, Records, Vol.
V, pp. 593-595.
109
Prosecution’s Formal Offer of Evidence dated 12 December 2016, Exhibit “N”, Records, Vol.
V, pp. 593-595.
110
Prosecution’s Formal Offer of Evidence dated 12 December 2016, Exhibit “Y”, Records, Vol. V,
pp. 544-717.
111
Sinumpaang Salaysay of Mr. Credo dated 3 October 2017, Records, Vol. VI, pp. 273-279;
Sinumpaang Salaysay of Mr. Panduyos dated 3 October 2017, Records, Vol. VI, pp. 280-286;
Sinumpaang Salaysay of Mr. Bareng dated 3 October 2017, Records, Vol. VI, pp. 287-293;
Sinumpaang Salaysay of Mr. Pardua dated 3 October 2017, Records, Vol. VI, pp. 294-301.
112
TSN dated 10 October 2017, pp. 8-28.
113
Sinumpaang Salaysay of Mr. Credo dated 3 October 2017, Records, Vol. VI, pp. 273-279.
28
89.2. In 2007, Mr. Bareng was granted a loan worth PhP
14,000 of farm inputs composed of six (6) sacks of fertilizer, one
(1) bottle of insecticide, and two (2) bags of hybrid seeds.114
114
Sinumpaang Salaysay of Mr. Bareng dated 3 October 2017, Records, Vol. VI, pp. 287-293.
115
Sinumpaang Salaysay of Mr. Panduyos dated 3 October 2017, Records, Vol. VI, pp. 280-286.
116
Sinumpaang Salaysay of Mr. Pardua dated 3 October 2017, Records, Vol. VI, pp. 294-301.
117
Assailed Decision, p. 16.
29
loans receivables due from the farmers.118 This belies the court a quo’s
erroneous conclusion that the farmer-beneficiaries did not
legitimately avail of the loans nor repay the same.
30
American jurisprudence echoes the same principle. It
adheres to the view that criminal intent in embezzlement
is not based on technical mistakes as to the legal effect of
a transaction honestly entered into, and there can be no
embezzlement if the mind of the person doing the act is
innocent or if there is no wrongful purpose. The
accused may thus always introduce evidence to show he
acted in good faith and that he had no intention to
convert. And this, to our mind, Tabuena and Peralta had
meritoriously shown.”121
121
Id. at 357, intext citations omitted.
122
Orencio v. Valeriano, G.R. No. 185559, 2 August 2017, 833 SCRA 649, 662.
123
Assailed Decision, p. 19.
124
Assailed Decision, p. 19.
31
Prosecution. In entering into the MOA, Governor Padaca did not
guarantee or warrant EDWINLFI’s strict or faithful performance of
its obligations under the MOA. Moreover, no proof of criminal intent
was recited in either the Assailed Decision or Assailed Resolution.
Indeed, it is not for Accused-Appellant to prove that she acted
without criminal intent, or that her supposed negligence, without
bad faith, amounted to criminal liability.
IV.
125
CONST., Art. III, Sec. 14(1).
126
See People v. Dramayo, G.R. No. L-21325, 29 October 1971, 42 SCRA 59.
127
Ibid., at 64.
128
People v. Mejia, G.R. Nos. 118940-41 and 119407, 7 July 1997, 275 SCRA 127.
32
prosecution. Save in certain circumstances as where, for
instance, the accused admits the commission of the acts
alleged to constitute a crime but interposes justifying
circumstances, the burden is never shifted to the accused
or diminished by the weakness of his defense. Indeed,
unless the prosecution successfully discharges that
burden, the accused need not even offer evidence in his
behalf.”129
33
offense charged; that not only did he perpetrate the act
but that it amounted to a crime.”136
34
Councilor Servando Soriano and Dionisio Pine, a private
individual, in their respective capacities as Director,
Chairman, and Manager, respectively, of the Economic
Development for Western Isabela and Northern Luzon
Foundation, Inc. (EDWINLFI), a non-government
organization, through manifest partiality, evident bad
faith, or gross inexcusable negligence, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously consent, or
through abandonment or negligence, permit said
Economic Development for Western Isabela and
Northern Luzon Foundation, Inc. (EDWINLFI) to take
such amount of public funds under the authority of
Memorandum of Agreement dated 08 January 2006
which had not been ratified until after 31 January 2007
for the implementation of the Provincial Rice Program of
Isabela, more particularly the Supervised Credit Facility,
without terms of repayment to the Provincial
Government of Isabela of the funds which were not, in
fact, awarded to the farmers of Isabela who are the
supposed recipients of its provincial rice program as
proved by the absence of any report of quantified
accomplishment or disbursement of the funds, and by
then and there transferring said public funds in the
amount of P25,000,000.00 in favor of EDWINLFI for
services yet to be rendered.”
143
Rueda v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 129064, 29 November 2000, 346 SCRA 341, 355.
144
Ibid., at 357.
145
Id.
146
Id.
35
110. Even the Prosecution admitted through its allegations in
the Information that Governor Padaca may only be held as an
accountable officer under the definition in Section 340 of the LGC.
The Prosecution failed to prove how Governor Padaca is directly
responsible for the accounting of the PhP 25,000,000.00, much less
that there was a demand (there was none) for her to account for the
cash that she received and held in custody (she did not). Besides,
even applying Section 340 of the LGC, the Prosecution failed to
establish how Accused-Appellant actually participated in the use or
application of said funds.
36
attesting that they received farm inputs from the Program 149 and that
they were able to repay them in due time.150
Sinumpaang Salaysay of Mr. Pardua dated 3 October 2017, Records, Vol. VI, pp. 294-301.
149
See Sinumpaang Salaysay of Mr. Credo dated 3 October 2017, Records, Vol. VI, pp. 273-279;
Sinumpaang Salaysay of Mr. Panduyos dated 3 October 2017, Records, Vol. VI, pp. 280-286;
Sinumpaang Salaysay of Mr. Bareng dated 3 October 2017, Records, Vol. VI, pp. 287-293;
Sinumpaang Salaysay of Mr. Pardua dated 3 October 2017, Records, Vol. VI, pp. 294-301.
150
See Sinumpaang Salaysay of Mr. Credo dated 3 October 2017, Records, Vol. VI, pp. 273-279;
Sinumpaang Salaysay of Mr. Panduyos dated 3 October 2017, Records, Vol. VI, pp. 280-286;
Sinumpaang Salaysay of Mr. Bareng dated 3 October 2017, Records, Vol. VI, pp. 287-293;
Sinumpaang Salaysay of Mr. Pardua dated 3 October 2017, Records, Vol. VI, pp. 294-301.
151
TSN dated 10 October 2017, pp. 8-28.
152
Patula v. People, G.R. No. 164457, 11 April 2012, 669 SCRA 135, 150.
153
People v. Guinto, G.R. No. 198314, 24 September 2014, 736 SCRA 431, 475 citing Zafra v.
People, G.R. No. 190749, 25 April 2012, 671 SCRA 396, 409, citing Malillin v. People, G.R.
No. 172953, 30 April 2008, 553 SCRA 619, 639.
37
the erroneous findings of the court a quo and firmly declare that
Accused-Appellant is INNOCENT of the crimes charged.
PRAYER
By:
ROGELIO A. VINLUAN
PTR No. A-4945143; 01/05/2021; Taguig City
IBP No. 139648; 01/08/2021; Makati City
Roll No. 15658
MCLE Exemption VI-001627; 02/19/19
38
PTR No. A-4945067; 01/05/2021; Taguig City
IBP No. 139710; 01/08/2021; Makati City
Roll No. 71749
MCLE Compliance No. VI–0021974; 04/12/19
Copy furnished:
SANDIGANBAYAN
Third Division
5/F Sandiganbayan Centennial Building,
COA Compound
Commonwealth Ave. cor. Batasan Road
Quezon City
(Criminal Case No. SB-11-CRM-0282 to 0283)
EXPLANATION
39
Undersigned counsel respectfully manifests that copies of the
foregoing APPELLANT’S BRIEF will be served by registered mail
because the health risks from the existing public health emergency,
mobility restrictions pursuant to the General Community Quarantine
within the National Capital Region, and limited personnel in view of
the internal safety protocols in place render personal service
impracticable.
40