Mangangey v People

Mangangey v People of the Philippines

GR No. 147773-74, 18 Feb 2008

Velasco, JR,. J:

FACTS:

                In October 1986, the Municipality of Paracelis (Mountain Province) awarded the widening and partial relocation of the Banilag-Minoli Road to private contractor Leon Acapen.  The stipulation provides that payments of the work shall be based on the quantities actually accomplished and completed which shall be measured and determined accurately and shall be accepted by the Municipal Mayor.

                The Certificate of Inspection and Acceptance signifies that the project was allegedly completed on 8 Dec. 1986 as attested by:

• Dennis Mangangey (Construction and Maintenance Foreman);
• Gabriel Wanason (Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator);
• Anselmo Forayo (Municipal Revenue Clerk), and;
• Bernardo Acapen (Engineer's representative)

                all alleging that they personally inspected the work; hence, payment was issued.

                Upon a complaint by Simon Naigsan, COA directed an actual inspection of the site.  Part of the report stated that Item 105-1 was not accomplished and Item 105-11 was only partially completed.  As an offshoot, the Amended Information docketed as Crim. Case No. 17008 for Estafa thru Falsification of Public Documents charged:

• Mayor Matthew Wandag;
• Forayo;
• Wanason, and;
• Mangangey.

                For defrauding the Government in making untruthful statements by making it appear that they have personally inspected the work for the widening and partial relocation of the Banilag-Minoli Road and that the same was fully accomplished. 

                On 27 Oct 2000, the Sandiganbayan, after joint trial, convicted petitioners for estafa through falsification of public documents, except Leon.  According to Leon, he was not the real contractor of the project for he was threatened and coerced by Mayor Wandag as reported in an affidavit shortly after he signed the certificate.  The Court ruled that Wandag had coerced Leon and used him as a dummy so he could himself get payment for the unfinished road.

                The Sandiganbayan ruled that the signatories, in their own official functions, falsified a public document when they attested that they personally inspected the work and reported that it was 100% completed notwithstanding that the project was not yet finished.

Petitioners:

                The findings of the Sandiganbayan are bereft of factual and legal basis, and that the evidences are insufficient to convict them for they are not proven.

Sandiganbayan:

                Relied on the following circumstances:

• Mangangey erroneously testified on the starting point of the project;
• Dilog and Odsey were not presented to corroborate Mangangey's testimony;
• Forayo and Wanason testified that no actual inspection was conducted;
• Bernardo, before his death, admitted he did not personally inspect the project;
• Mangangey could not attest to the measurements of the actual volume/quantity accomplished by the contractor;
• Wandag took flight to evade prosecution.

Petitioners’ answers:

• The Sandiganbayan merely speculated that Mangangey did not know the starting point of the road project and that the conclusion was based along on the uncorroborated testimony of the COA Audit report;
• The failure to present Dilog and Odsey violated their rights to remain silent and be presumed innocent.  Burden of proof lies with the prosecution;
• The admission of Forayo and Wanason are inadmissible and hearsay since the investigating officer was not presented to attest to the alleged admissions. Such admission would violate their right to due process, under res inter alios acta (Sec. 28 of Rule 130, Revised Rules on Evidence) "the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another."
• Bernardo did not personally inspect the project as a circumstance;
• The interpretation on the volume of the work accomplished is not a finding of fact but only the Sandiganbayan's conclusion and consequently cannot be considered circumstantial evidence;
• Sandiganbayan should not have considered the flight of Wandag as circumstantial evidence for they have been steadfast in their innocence, and they are willing to submit to judicial inquiry.

ISSUE:

                W/N the accused may be held liable for the offense of Estafa through Falsification of Public Document.

HELD:

                Yes.

All the Requisites of Art. 171 (4) are present: [ULAP]

1. Offender makes in a document untruthful statements in a narration of facts;
2. Offender has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated;
3. Facts narrated are absolutely false;
4. Perversion of truth was made with the wrongful intent to injure a third person.

All the Elements of Estafa (Art. 315, par. 2) [APID] are present:

1. Accused made fraudulent representations as to his power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business, or imaginary transactions;
2. Such fraudulent representations were made prior to or simultaneous with the commission of the fraud;
3. Such fraudulent representations constitute the very cause which induced the offended party to part with his money or property;
4. Offended party suffered damage.

 Petitioners were convicted of conspiracy on circumstantial evidence. Sec. 4, Rule 133 of the RoC on RRE, requisites:

• There is more than one circumstance;
• Facts from which the inferences are derived are proven;
• Ccombination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

Circumstances must be consistent with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty.