Case Digest in ConstiLaw 2
Luis A. Tabuena, et al. vs. Sandiganbayan (268 SCRA 332, February 17, 1997) FACTS: Then Then Pres. Pres. Ferdin Ferdinand and Marcos Marcos instru instructe cted d Luis Luis Tabuen Tabuena, a, Genera Generall Manage Managerr of the Manila Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA), over the phone to pay directly to the president’s office office and in cash what what the MIAA owes the Phil. National National Construction Construction Corp. Corp. The verbal verbal instruction was reiterated in a Presidential memorandum. In obedience to Pres. Marcos’ instruction, Tabuena, with the help of Gerardo Dabao and Adol Adolfo fo Pera Peralt lta, a, the the Asst Asst.. Gen. Gen. Mgr. Mgr. and and the the Acti Acting ng Fina Financ nce e Serv Servic ices es Mgr. Mgr. of MIAA MIAA,, respec respectiv tively ely,, caused caused the releas release e of P55M P55M of MIAA MIAA funds funds of three three (3) withdraw withdrawals als and delivered the money to Mrs. Fe Fe Roa-Gimenez, private secretary secretary of Marcos. Gimenez issued a receipt for all the amounts amounts she received received from Tabuena. Tabuena. Later, Later, it turned out that PNCC never received the money. The case involves two (2) separate petitions for review by Luis Tabuena and Adolfo Peralta. They appeal the Sandiganbayan decision convicting them of malversation of MIAA funds in the amount of P55M. Furth Further, er, petiti petitione oners rs claime claimed d that that they they were were charge charged d with with intent intention ional al malver malversat sation ion,, as allege alleged d in the amend amended ed inform informati ation, on, but it would would appea appearr that that they they were were convic convicted ted for malversation with negligence. negligence. Hence, their conviction conviction of a crime different from from that charged violated their constitutional right to be informed of the accusation. ISSUE: (1) (1)
Whet Whethe herr or not not the Sand Sandig igan anba baya yan n convi convict cted ed them them of a crim crime e not char charge ged d in the the amended information; and
(2) (2)
Whet Whethe herr or or not not Tabu Tabuen ena a and and Per Peral alta ta acte acted d in good good fai faith th..
HELD: (1) (1)
No. No. Malve Malvers rsat atio ion n is commi committ tted ed eithe eitherr inten intenti tion onal ally ly or by negli neglige genc nce. e. The The dolo or the culpa present in the offense is only a modality in the perpetration of the felony. Even if the mode charged differs from the mode proved, the same offense of malversation is involved.
(2) (2)
Yes. Yes. Tabu Tabuen ena a acted acted in stric strictt compl complia ianc nce e with with the MARCO MARCOS S Memor Memoran andu dum. m. The The order order emanated from the Office of the President and bears the signature of the President himself, himself, the highest highest official of the land. It carries carries with it the presumption 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.
However, a more compelling reason for the ACQUITTAL is the violation of the accused's basic constitutional right to due process. Records show that the Sandiganbayan actively took too k part part in the question questioning ing of a defens defense e witnes witness s and and of the accused accused themselv themselves. es. The ques questi tion ons s of the the cour courtt were were in the the natu nature re of cros cross s exam examin inat atio ions ns char charac acte teri rist stic ic 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. The "cold "cold neutrality of an impartial judge " requirement of due process was certainly denied Tabuena and Peralta when the court, with its overzealousness, assumed the dual role of magistrate and advocate. advocate. Time and again the Court has has declared that due process requires requires no less than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge. That the judge must not only be impartial but must also appear to be impartial, to give added assurance to the parties that his decisio decision n will will be just. just. The parties parties are entitl entitled ed to no less less than than this, this, as a minimu minimum m guaranty of due process. HENCE, Luis Tabuena and Adolfo Peralta are acquitted of the crime of malversation.
/digested by ETLopez ETLopez
