Tabuena VS Sandiganbayan

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2

NAIF U.

OMAR
20190179227
II-A-I

TABUENA VS SANDIGANBAYAN

Facts:
Then President Marcos instructed Luis Tabuena over the phone to pay directly to the
president’s office and in cash what the Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA)
owes the Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC), pursuant to the 7
January 1985 memorandum of then Minister Trade and Industry Roberto Ongpin.
Tabuena agreed. About a week later, Tabuena received from Mrs. Fe Roa-Gimenez,
then private secretary of Marcos, a Presidential Memorandum dated 8 January 1986
reiterating in black and white such verbal instruction. In obedience to President Marcos’
verbal instruction and memorandum, Tabuena, with the help of Gerardo G. Dabao and
Adolfo Peralta, caused the release of P55 Million of MIAA funds by means of three (3)
withdrawals. On 10 January 1986, the first withdrawal was made for P25 Million,
following a letter of even date signed by Tabuena and Dabao requesting the PNB
extension office at the MIAA the depository branch of MIAA funds, to issue a manager’s
check for said amount payable to Tabuena. The check was encashed, however, at the
PNB Villamor Branch. Dabao and the cashier of the PNB Villamor branch counted the
money after which, Tabuena took delivery thereof. The P25 Million in cash was
delivered on the same day to the office of Mrs. Gimenez. Mrs. Gimenez did not issue
any receipt for the money received. Similar circumstances surrounded the second
withdrawal/encashment and delivery of another P25 Million, made on 16 January 1986.
The third and last withdrawal was made on 31 January 1986 for P5 Million. Peralta was
Tabuena’s co-signatory to the letter- request for a manager’s check for this amount.
Peralta accompanied Tabuena to the PNB Villamor branch as Tabuena requested him
to do the counting of the P5 Million. After the counting, the money was loaded in the
trunk of Tabuena’s car. Peralta did not go with Tabuena to deliver the money to Mrs.
Gimenez’ office. It was only upon delivery of the P5 Million that Mrs. Gimenez issued a
receipt for all the amounts she received from Tabuena. The receipt was dated January
30,1986. Tabuena and Peralta were charged for malversation of funds, while Dabao
remained at large. One of the justices of the Sandiganbayan actively took part in the
questioning of a defense witness and of the accused themselves; the volume of the
questions asked were more the combined questions of the counsels. On 12 October
1990, they were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Tabuena and Peralta filed
separate petitions for review, appealing the Sandiganbayan decision dated 12 October
19990 and the Resolution of 20 December 1991.

Issue:
Whether or not petitioners are guilty of the crime of malversation.

 
Ruling:
No. Luis Tabuena and Adolfo Peralta are acquitted of the crime of malversation.
Tabuena acted in strict compliance with the MARCOS Memorandum. The order
emanated from the Office of the President and bears the signature of the President
himself, the highest official of the land. It carries with it the presumption that it was
regularly issued. And on its face, the memorandum is patently lawful for no law makes
the payment of an obligation illegal. This fact, coupled with the urgent tenor for its
execution constrains one to act swiftly without question. Records show that the
Sandiganbayan actively took part in the questioning of a defense witness and of the
accused themselves. The questions of the court were in the nature of cross
examinations characteristic of confrontation, probing and insinuation. Tabuena and
Peralta may not have raised the issue as an error, there is nevertheless no impediment
for the court to consider such matter as additional basis for a reversal since the settled
doctrine is that an appeal throws the whole case open to review, and it becomes the
duty of the appellate court to correct such errors as may be found in the judgment
appealed from whether they are made the subject of assignments of error or not.

You might also like