Republic of the Philippines

^anttsanbapanQuezon City

***

SEVENTH DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

- versus -

ANTONIO DE LA PENA

BELICENA, ET AL.,

Accused,

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Plaintiff,

- versus -

ANTONIO DE LA PENA

BELICENA, ET AL.,

Accused,

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Plaintiff,

- versus -

ANTONIO DE LA PENA

BELICENA, ET AL.,

Accused,

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Plaintiff,

Grim. Case No. SB-09-CRM-0040,0045, 0046

For: Violation of Section 3(e),R.A. No. 3019

Crim. Case No. SB-09-CRM-0048,0054, 0055

For: Estafa through Falsification ofOfficial/Public Documents

Crim. Case No. SB-09-CRM-0041

For: Violation of Section 3(e),R.A.No.3019

Crim. Case No. SB-09-CRM-0049

For: Estafa through Falsification ofOfficial/Public Documents

Crim. Case No. SB-09-CRM-0042

For: Violation of Section 3(e),R.A. No. 3019

Crim. Case No. SB-09-CRM-0050

For: Estafa through Falsification ofOfficial/Public Documents

Crim. Case No. SB-09-CRM-0058,0059, 0060, 0061, 0068, 0069For: Violation of Section 3(e),R.A. No. 3019

?

Resolution

People V. Antonio Belicena, et al.SB-09-CRM-0040-0042, 0045-0046,0048-0050, 0054-0055, 0058-0061, 0068-0069

Page 2 of 36X X

- versus -

ANTONIO DE LA PENA

BELICENA, ET AL.,

Accused.

X-

Present:

Gomez-Estoesta, J., Chairperson,Trespeses, J. andHidalgo, J.

Promulgated:

. Setts 1^-X

RESOLUTION

TRESPESES, J.

This resolves accused Grace Chingkoe's Demurrer to Evidence,' withprior leave of court, the Prosecution's Opposition^ thereto, accusedChingkoe's Reply,^ and the Prosecution's Motion to Expunge (Accused GraceChingkoe's Reply dated 11 May 2022'').^

The prosecution charged accused Grace Chingkoe, along with severalpublic officials of the One Stop Shop Inter-Agency Tax Credit and Duty DrawBack Center of the Department of Finance, and officers of Express ColourIndustries, Inc. with eleven (11) counts of violation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. No,3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. She wasalso charged with five (5) counts of Estafa through Falsification ofOfficial/Public Document defined and penalized under Art. 315, in relation toArt. 171 of the Revised Penal Code.

The Information for Violation of Sec. 3(e) ofR.A. No. 3019 docketed asCrim. Case No. SB-09-CRM-0040 reads:

That on or about 05 August 1996, or sometime prior or subsequentthereto, in the City of Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction ofthis Honorable Court, the above-named accused ANTONIO DE LAPENA BELICENA, ULDARICO P. ANDUTAN, JR., ASUNCION

• Record, Vol. 13, pp. 337-347.Hd. at 363-371 & 372-378.Md. at 380-385; 386-391." Inadvertently typed as 30 August 2021.5 Record, Vol. 13, pp. 394-397 &398-401.

7

Resolution

People V. Antonio Belicena, el al.SB-09-CRM-0040-0042,0045-0046, 0048-0050, 0054-0055, 0058-0061, 0068-0069Page 3 of36X X

MESA MAGDAET, AND AMELITA T. TIZON, all public officersbeing then the Undersecretary, Deputy Executive Director, Reviewer andEvaluator, respectively, all of the One Stop Shop Inter-Agency Tax Creditand Duty Draw-back Center of the Department of Finance, with the firsttwo accused classified as high ranking officials, conspiring andconfederating with accused private individuals FAUSTINO T.CfflNGKOE, GLORIA ENG ENG C CHINGKOE, GRACE T.CHINGKOE, GEMMA G. GALICHA, MA. CARMENCITA C.CAMARA, VIANITA O. ACILO, LUNINGNING C. LAMSON,SON!A G. CARMONA, AND SONIA L. DACASIN, all of the ExpressColour Industries, Inc., with the said accused public officials takingadvantage of their official functions and committing the offense in relationto office, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally causeundue injury to the government and give unwarranted benefits, advantageor preference to Express Colour Industries, Inc., through evident bad faith,manifest partiality and/or gross inexcusable negligence by allowing,processing, recommending and approving the issuance of Tax CreditCertificate No. 005405 in the amount of FIVE MILLION ONE

HUNDRED THIRTY NINE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED NINETY

ONE PESOS (P5,139,791.00) in favor of Express Colour Industries, Inc.,notwithstanding the fact that the said corporation is not entitled theretoconsidering that the supporting public documents attached to its tax creditapplication are spurious and/or contain spurious and falsedata/information, and thereafter transferring the Tax Credit Certificate forvaluable consideration, to the damage and prejudice of the government inthe aforestated amount.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

The Informations in Grim. Case No. SB-09-CRM-0041 and 0042 are

similarly worded except for the following details:

CASE

NUMBER

ACCUSED DATE OF

TRANSACTION

TCC

Nos.

AMOUNT

0041 Cherry L. Gomez 19 August 1996 005596 P5,094,678.00

0042 Melrose L. Tordesillas 19 August 1996 005597 P3,169,481.00

The Information docketed as Grim. Case No. SB-09-GRM-0045, alsofor Violation ofSec. 3(e) ofR.A. No. 3019 reads:

That on or about 27 March 1998, or sometime prior or subsequentthereto, in the City of Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction ofthis Honorable Court, the above-named accused ANTONIO DE LAPENA BELICENA, ULDARICO P. ANDUTAN, JR., ASUNCIONMESA MAGDAET, AND AMELITA T. TIZON, all public officersbeing then the Undersecretary, Deputy Executive Director, Reviewer andEvaluator, respectively, all of the One Stop Shop Inter-Agency Tax Credit

i 1

Resolution

People V. Antonio Belicena, et al.SB-09-CRM-0040-0042, 0045-0046,0048-

0050,0054-0055, 0058-0061, 0068-0069Page 4 of36X X

and Duty Draw-back Center of the Department of Finance, with the firsttwo accused classified as high ranking officials, conspiring andconfederating with accused private individuals FAUSTINO T.CHINGKOE, GLORIA ENG ENG C. CHINGKOE, GRACE T.CHINGKOE, GEMMA G. GALICHA, MA. CARMENCITA C.CAMARA, VIANITA O. ACILO, LUNINGNING C. LAMSON,SONIA G, CARMONA, AND SONIA L. DACASIN, all of the ExpressColour Industries, Inc., with the said accused public officials takingadvantage of their official functions and committing the offense in relationto office, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally causeundue injury to the government and give unwarranted benefits, advantageor preference to Express Colour Industries, Inc., through evident bad faith,manifest partiality and/or gross inexcusable negligence by allowing,processing, recommending and approving issuance of Tax CreditCertificate No. 009665 in the amount of SIX MILLION SEVENTY

SEVEN THOUSAND (sic) SIXTY SIX PESOS (6,077,066.00), in favorof Express Colour Industries, Inc., notwithstanding the fact that the saidcorporation is not entitled thereto considering that the supporting publicdocuments attached to its tax credit application are spurious and/or containspurious and false data/information, and to the damage and prejudice ofthe government in the aforestated amount.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

The Information in Crim. Case No. SB-09-CRM-0046 is similarlyworded except for the following details:

CASE NO. ACCUSED DATE TCC

NO.

AMOUNT

0046 Emelita T. Tizon 27 March 1998 009666 P9,090,487.00

Further, the accusatory portion of the Information in Crim. Case No.SB-09-CRM-0058 for Violation ofSec. 3(e) ofR.A. No. 3019 reads:

That on or about 07 June 1997, or sometime prior or subsequentthereto, in the City of Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction ofthis Honorable Court, the above-named accused ANTONIO DE LAPENA BELICENA, ULDARICO P. ANDUTAN, JR., ROWENA P.MALONZO, all public officers being then the Undersecretary, DeputyExecutive Director, Tax Specialist, respectively, all of the One Stop ShopInter-Agency Tax Credit and Duty Draw-back Center of the Departmentof Finance, with the first two accused classified as high ranking officials,conspiring and confederating with accused private individualsFAUSTINO T. CHINGKOE, GLORIA ENG ENG C. CHINGKOE,GRACE T. CHINGKOE, GEMMA G. GALICHA, MA.CARMENCITA C. CAMARA, VIANITA O. ACILO, LUNINGNINGC. LAMSON, and SONIA G. CARMONA, all of the Express Colour

?

Resolution

People V. Antonio Belicena, et at.SB-09-CRM-0040-0042, 0045-0046, 0048-

0050, 0054-0055, 0058-0061, 0068-0069Page 5 of36X X

Industries, Inc., with the said accused public officials taking advantage oftheir official functions and committing the offense in relation to office, didthen and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally cause undue injury tothe government and give unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference toExpress Colour Industries, Inc., through evident bad faith, manifestpartiality and/or gross inexcusable negligence by allowing, processing,recommending and approving the transfer of Tax Credit Certificate No.006540 in the amount of FOUR MILLION FOUR HUNDRED

NINETEEN THOUSAND THIRTEEN PESOS (P4,419,013.00) in favorof Moldex Products, Inc., notwithstanding the fact that the Express ColourIndustries, Inc. submitted documents containing spurious and falsedata/information to support its application, and that the transfer is notallowed under the Memorandum of Agreement dated 29 August 1989between the Board of Investments and Department of Finance, to thedamage and prejudice of the government in the aforestated amount.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

The Informations in Grim. Case No. SB-09-CRM-0059, 0060, 0061,0068 and 0069 bore the same allegations save for the following details:

Case

Number

Date TCC No. Amount TCC Issued to TCC

Transferred to

0059 24 March 1998 008109 P9,187,519.00 Express ColourIndustries, Inc.

Petron

Corporation0060 24 March 1998 007625 P7,933,764.00 Express Colour

Industries, Inc.

Petron

Corporation0061 31 March 1998 007624 P9,089,902.00 Express Colour

Industries, Inc.

Petron

Corporation0068 28 October 1996 005597 P3,169,481.00 Express Colour

Industries, Inc.

Pilipinas ShellPetroleum, Inc.

0069 28 October 1996 005596 P5,094,678.00 Express ColourIndustries, Inc.

Pilipinas ShellPetroleum, Inc.

On the other hand, the Information in Grim. Case No. SB-09-GRM-0048 ̂or Estafa through Falsification of Official/Public Documents reads:

That on or about 05 August 1996, or sometime prior or subsequentthereto, in the City of Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction ofthis Honorable Court, the above-named accused ANTONIO DE LAPENA BELICENA, ULDARICO P. ANDUTAN, JR., ASUNCIONMESA MAGDAET, AND AMELITA T. TIZON, all public officersbeing then the Undersecretary, Deputy Executive Director, Reviewer andEvaluator, respectively, all of the One Stop Shop Inter-Agency Tax Creditand Duty Draw-back Center of the Department of Finance, with the firsttwo accused classified as high ranking officials, conspiring andconfederating with accused private individuals FAUSTINO T.CHINGKOE, GLORIA ENG ENG C. CHINGKOE, GRACE T.CHINGKOE, GEMMA G. GALICHA, MA. CARMENCITA C.CAMARA, VIANITA O. ACILO, LUNINGNING C. LAMSON,

11

■)

Resolution

People V. Antonio Belicena, et al.SB-09-CRM-0040-0042, 0045-0046,0048-0050, 0054-0055, 0058-0061, 0068-0069Page 6 of 36X X

SONIA G. CARMONA, AND SONIA L. DACASIN, all of the ExpressColour Industries, Inc., with the said accused public officials takingadvantage of their official functions and committing the offense in relationto office, through deceit and false pretense did then and there, willfully,unlawfully and feloniously cause and allow the processing of tax creditapplication for, recommend the approval after review and eventuallyapprove and issue Tax Credit Certificate No. 005405 in the amount ofFIVE MILLION ONE HUNDRED THIRTY NINE THOUSAND SEVEN

HUNDRED NINETY ONE PESOS (P5,139,791.00), in favor of ExpressColour Industries, Inc., notwithstanding the falsity of the claimant'sapplication for tax credit as evidenced by the falsified supportingdocuments attached thereto, when in truth and in fact, and as the accusedknew fully well that the aforesaid supporting documents contain spuriousdata/information, and thereafter, transferring the said Tax CreditCertificate for valuable consideration to another Corporation/Entity, to thedamage and prejudice of the government, in the afore-stated amount.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

The Informations docketed as Grim. Case No. SB-09-CRM-0049 and

0050, are similarly worded except for the following details:

CASE

NUMBER

ACCUSED DATE TCC

NO.

AMOUNT

0049 Cherry L. Gomez 19 August 1996 005596 P5,094,678.00

0050 Melrose L. Tordesillas 19 August 1996 005597 P3,169,481.00

The accusatory portion of the Information in Grim. Case No. SB-09-GRJVl-0054 for Estafa through Falsification of Official/Public Documentsreads:

That on or about 27 March 1998, or sometime prior or subsequentthereto, in the City of Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of thisHonorable Court, the above-named accused ANTONIO DE LA PENABELICENA, ULDARICO P. ANDUTAN, JR., ASUNCION MESAMAGDAET, AND AMELITA T. TIZON, all public officers being thenthe Undersecretary, Deputy Executive Director, Reviewer and Evaluator,respectively, all of the One Stop Shop Inter-Agency Tax Credit and DutyDraw-back Center of the Department of Finance, with the first two accusedclassified as high ranking officials, conspiring and confederating withaccused private individuals FAUSTINO T. CHINGKOE, GLORIA ENGENG C. CHINGKOE, GRACE T. CHINGKOE, GEMMA G.GALICHA, MA. CARMENCITA C. CAMARA, VIANITA O. ACILO,LUNINGNING C. LAMSON, SONIA G. CARMONA, AND SONIA L.DACASIN, all of the Express Colour Industries, Inc., with the said accusedpublic officials taking advantage of their official functions and committing

r

Resolution

People V. Antonio Belicena, et al.SB-09-CRM-0040-0042,0045-0046,0048-

0050, 0054-0055, 0058-0061, 0068-0069

Page 7 of36X X

the offense in relation to office, through deceit and false pretense did thenand there, willfiilly, unlawfully and feloniously cause and allow theprocessing of tax credit application for, recommend the approval afterreview and eventually approve and issue Tax Credit Certificate No.009665 in the amount of SIX MILLION SEVENTY SEVEN THOUSAND

(sic) SIXTY SIX PESOS (P6,077,066.00), in favor of Express ColourIndustries, Inc., notwithstanding the falsity of the claimant's application fortax credit as evidenced by the falsified supporting documents attachedthereto, when in truth and in fact, and as the accused knew fully well thatthe aforesaid supporting documents contain spurious data/information, tothe damage and prejudice of the government, in the afore-said amount.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

The Information docketed as Grim. Case No. SB-09-CRM-0055 is

similarly worded except for the following details:

CASE

NUMBER

ACCUSED DATE TCC

NO.

AMOUNT

0055 Emelita T. Tizon 27 March 1998 009666 P9,090,487.00

On 25 April 2012, accused Grace Chingkoe was arraigned and with theassistance of her counsel, pleaded not guilty to the charges against her.^Thereafter, pre-trial proceedings were conducted. On 13 December 2018, Pre-Trial Order^ was issued based on the Joint Stipulations of Facts and Issues^submitted by the parties which contains the following stipulations:

1. During the period relevant to the subject cases, accused Antonio P.Belicena, Uldarico P. Andutan, Jr., Asuncion M. Magdaet, Emelita T.Tizon and Rowena Malonzo were all public officials/employees of theOne Stop Shop Inter-Agency Tax Credit and Duty Drawback Center ofthe Department of Finance, as follows:

Antonio P. Belicena

Uldarico P. Andutan, Jr.Asuncion M. MagdaetEmelita T. Tizon

Rowena P. Malonzo

-Undersecretary andExecutive Director

-Deputy Executive Director-Reviewer

-Evaluator

-Tax Specialist

2. During the period relevant to the subject cases:

^ Record, Vol. 2, p. 197.'Record, Vol. 7, pp. 182-257.® Record, Vol. 6, pp. 255-335.

/?

Resolution

People V. Antonio Belicena, et al.SB-09-CRM-0040-0042,0045-0046,0048-

0050, 0054-0055, 0058-0061, 0068-0069

Page 8 of 36X X

a. Accused Ma. Carmencita C. Camara, Sonia G. Carmona and SoniaL. Dacasin were employees, representatives and/or connected withExpress Colour Industries, Inc. (EXPRESS).

b. Accused Vianita O. Acilo was the Corporate Secretary ofEXPRESS.

3. Accused are the same persons charged in the Informations.

4. EXPRESS is a corporation duly organized and existing under and byvirtue of the laws of the Republic of the Philippines. It was incorporatedon January 12, 1990 under SEC Registration No. 172292

5. The incorporators of EXPRESS are accused Grace T. Chingkoe, GemmaB. Galicia, Ma. Carmencita C. Camara, Vianita O. Acilo and LuningningC. Lamson.

6. EXPRESS was duly registered with the Board of Investments withCertificate of Registration No. EP-94-478 dated November 16, 1994.

Between the plaintiff and accused Grace Chingkoe:

7. Based on the January 27, 2004 Investigation Report of Justice VirgilioC. Abejo and Atty. Luis C. Uranza, accused Grace Chingkoe was not arespondent in the investigation they conducted and she was not amongthose recommended for prosecution.

8. The January 27, 2004 Investigation Report of Justice Virgilio C. Abejowas one of the bases of the Special Presidential Task Force 156 in filingthe complaint against accused Grace Chingkoe before the Office of theOmbudsman.

9. Based on the General Information Sheet (GIS) of EXPRESS for the fiscalyear ending December 31, 1995, accused Grace Chingkoe is no longer aStockholder, Director or Officer of EXPRESS as of December 31,1995.

10. Accused Grace Chingkoe gave birth by caesarian section at St. Luke'sHospital on December 28, 1995.

11. Based on the September 5, 2001 Fact-Finding Report of Atty. Elena D.Barcenal, Graft Investigation Officer II, 0MB in CPL 98-2057-P60BDOF Tax Credit Scam Re: Chingkoe Group of Companies, accusedGrace Chingkoe was not included as one of the persons criminally liable.

Thereafter, the prosecution presented its evidence.

t 1

Resolution

People V. Antonio Belicena, et al.SB-09-CRM-0040-0042,0045-0046,0048-

0050, 0054-0055, 0058-0061, 0068-0069

Page 9 of 36X X

Prosecution's evidence

To prove the allegations in the Informations, the prosecution presentedthe following witnesses:

1. Angelina Jacinto Reyes

Reyes, Licensing Officer III at the Valenzuela Business Permit andLicensing Office (BFLO), identified the Judicial Affidavit she executed andaffirmed and confirmed all the statements contained therein.^ The defense

stipulated that Exhs. H-1 and H-2 attached to the Judicial Affidavit areoriginal copies.

In her Judicial Affidavit, Reyes alleged that their Office received asubpoena" from the Office of the Ombudsman inquiring whetherCommonwealth Trading, with address at 36 Interior, San Francisco,Valenzuela City, was issued Business Permit for the years 1995 to 1998. Afterverifying with the BPLO's computer data base, it was found out that therewere no business permits issued to Commonwealth Trading for the yearsmentioned. She prepared a Certification dated 11 May 2018^^ and signed onthe portion "Verified as to records by:" She also identified the signature ofAtty. Renchi May M. Padayao on the certification and claimed that she isfamiliar with her signature being her direct superior for almost eight years.Reyes likewise identified the Certification dated 20 August 2003" signed byEduardo Y. Carreon, Licensing Officer IV of the BPLO Valenzuela City, forTeodora D. Angeles, her previous superior in the BPLO. She said that she isfamiliar with Carreon's signature because they have been officemates fortwenty-one years and she normally sees him sign documents in her presence.

On cross-examination, Reyes confirmed that the computer database isgenerated by encoding the data of all businesses that were issued permits."When questioned by the Court, she said that the computer database is the onlybasis in ascertaining the business permits issued to companies within theirjurisdiction. However, it is possible for a company to have been issued abusiness permit at the time that their office records were not yet computerizedand the manual files were not yet migrated to the computer database." Oncontinuation of the cross, she said that they retain hard copies of businessapplications. When asked if she tried to retrieve hard copies of the business

' TSN, 22 November 2018, pp. 9-10.Record, Vol. 7, pp. 147-155.

"Exh. H-2.'2 Exh. H-1.

Exh. H.

TSN, 22 November 20 i 8, p. 17."Id. at 20.

^ 1 ^

Resolution

People V. Antonio Belicena, et al.SB-09-CRM-0040-0042,0045-0046,0048-0050,0054-0055, 0058-0061, 0068-0069

Page ID of 36X X

applications for the year 1995, she said that they only store two years currentfiles in their office.'^

2. Glenn Cruz Suanes

His testimony was dispensed with after the parties stipulated:'^

1. That if called to the witness stand, witness can identify his Affidavit and all theallegations stated therein including his signature appearing thereto. This wascounter-stipulated by the defense that the witness has no personal knowledgeof the material allegations in the information because the essence of histestimony is the purported theft of dockets;

2. That the witness has no personal knowledge or cannot specifically tell that thedockets allegedly given to Dynah Simonette Dimalibot Dolor are dockets ofthese cases pertaining Express Colour which have cases now pending beforethis Court. This was counter-stipulated by Prosecutor Joshua A. Tan that thedockets pulled out are general dockets as appearing in paragraph 6 of theAffidavit. Since the affidavit presented is just a mere photocopy, to give valueto the same, Mr. Glen Suanez was directed to freshly affix his signature oppositehis printed name therein as appearing on pages 167 and 168 of the records, Vol.7.'^ The affidavit is now considered as part of the documentary evidence for theprosecution.

3. Joana Mae Egana Alberto

Alberto is the Acting Administrative Officer of the Office of theOmbudsman designated as Records Custodian of the Office of the SpecialProsecutor (OSP). In her Judicial Affidavit,'^ she alleged that per Office OrderNo. 132 series of 2017, she was designated as Custodian Officer of certaindocuments/files/records in connection with tax credit cases of the Office ofthe Ombudsman kept in the vault of the Department of Finance building. TheOffice of the Ombudsman was given access to the files with a key and lockcombination. At present, she is the designated person to hold the key and lockcombination.

Alberto also said that she is familiar with the documents^'' in the presentdockets because the records of the tax credit cases specifically Crim. Cases

TSN, 22 November 2018, p. 24.Record, Vol. 7 pp. 175-176 (Order dated 29 November 2018)TSN, 29 November 2018.

"Record, Vol. 7,pp. 269-311.2° Exhs. B-W,

For SB-09-CRM-0040 & 0048

X to X-1, Y, Z, A\ G\ H2, P-P-l, PTO Pi, K', N\ O', R^, S^, T^, IF, VP, X\ Y^,Z\ TO Z\ A" TO Z^ TO Z^- A^ TO G^-2

1 ] '

Resolution

People V. Antonio Belicena, et al.SB-09-CRM-0040-0042, 0045-0046,0048-

0050, 0054-0055, 0058-0061, 0068-0069

Page II of 36X X

Nos. SB-09-CRM-0040, 0042-0043, 0045-0046, 0048-0050, 0054-0055,0058-0061, 0068-0069 were surrendered to them when they were unloadedfrom the First Division by Prosecutor Mendoza and before they weretransferred to the prosecutors assigned to the Seventh Division headed byDirector Froilan Dayco. She admitted that she cannot remember each andevery document but, to the best of her recollection, those were the documentsturned-over to her by Prosecutor Mendoza for transmittal. Some of the markeddocuments have signatures above the printed name Jesus Salvador which sheidentified as the signature of Jesus Salvador, records custodian of the Officeof the Ombudsman-Central Records Office. She is familiar with Salvador's

signature because they are officemates for more than 20 years and shenormally sees him sign in her presence.

In her Supplemental Judicial Affidavit,-' she alleged that a documentor pleading filed with the OSP or even documents/records from within OSPmust first pass through their office even if it is directed to a particularprosecutor. Their office, in turn, will transmit the records/documents to theprosecutor or prosecution bureau concerned. She claimed that the records inthese cases were surrendered to her as shown in the transmittal made byProsecutor Mendoza for Director Froilan Dayco. She signed at the dorsalportion^^ thereof upon transmittal of the records to their office.

On cross examination, Alberto said that they conducted an inventoryupon turn-over of the documents. The checklist tumed-over by Atty. Cagat-Cagat, have markings if a document is original, certified true copy or

For SB-09.CRM-0041, 0049 & 0069X, Y, Z, A- TO Z^- A' TO Z^ A^ TO Z\ A^ TO Z^ A^ TO G^-2

For SB-09-CRM-0042,0050 & 0068X, Y, Z, A^ TO Z^- A^ TO Z\ TO Z\ A^ TO Z\ A^ TO 0*^-2

For SB-09-CRM-0045 & 0054

X, X-1, X-2, Y, Z-i, A- TO N- p2 TO V-For SB-09-CRM-0046 & 0055

X, X-1, X-2, Y, Z, A^TOX-

For SB-09-CRM-0058

X-I, X-2, Y TO Y-1, Z, A^ TO F

For SB-09-CRM-0059

X-1, X-2, X-3, X-4, Y, Z TO Z-1, A^ TO

For SB-09-CRM-0060

X-1, X-2, X-3, X-4, Y, Z TO Z-1, A^ TO

For SB-09-CRM-006i

X-1, X-2, Y, Z TO Z-1, A- TO

JA Vol. l,pp. 1-9.Memorandum dated 6 August 2018 as Exh. A-1.Exh. A-2. ^

. 1i

Resolution

People V. Antonio Belicena, et al.SB-09-CRM-0040-0042,0045-0046,0048-

0050, 0054-0055, 0058-0061, 0068-0069

Page 12 of 36X X

photocopy. However, she cannot state which of the documents are original ormere photocopies. She also cannot tell if the documents inside the vault arethe records of the cases pending before the Court.^"^

She said that she personally received the records of the cases containingten envelopes and two case folders turned over by Prosecutor Mendoza. Therewere three of them who examined the contents of the ten envelopes andcompared them with the table of contents before turning them over to the teamof Director Froilan Dayco.^^ She added that part of their examination was todetermine whether the marked documents were inside the envelope.-^

When asked by the Court, she claimed that they also confirmed whetherthe documents are original or photocopy. She was the one who took thedocuments from the vault which explains why she knows that they areoriginals and those marked.-^ On 7 August 2018, she turned over thedocuments to Kris Tambago, staff of Director Froilan Dayco.^^ Although shecannot remember all the documents, she said that to the best of her recollectionthey were complete when they were turned over.^^ Alberto said that at thedorsal portion of the Memorandum,^' there was no annotation or indicationthat says "Received by."^-

On re-direct, she explained that when she said that she examined thedocumentary exhibits it means that she has seen the actual markings thereon.However, she cannot remember all the contents of the voluminous

documents.^^

4. Atty, RJ Andrada Bernal(with Judicial Affidavit dated 18 March 2019)

Atty. Bemal's testimony was dispensed with after the prosecution andthe defense stipulated on the following:^''

1. That he is the Chief Counsel of the Company Registration MonitoringDepartment (CRMD) of the Securities and Exchange Commission;

2" TSN, 7 February 2019, p. 14." Id. at 15-16.

Id. at 17.

" Id. at 20.28 Id. at 21, 24.2' Id. at 2.

2® Id. at 32.2' Exh. A-1 andA-2.22 TSN, 7 February 2019, pp. 35-36.22 Id. at 36.

2"* Record, Vol. 8, pp. 93-94 (Order dated 25 March 2019).

7

Resolution

People V. Antonio Beiicena, et al.SB-09-CRM-0040-0042,0045-0046,0048-0050,0054-0055, 0058-0061, 0068-0069

Page 13 of 36X X

2. That his functions as Chief Counsel of CRMD are as stated in Answer to

Question No. 3 of the Judicial Affidavit, one of which is to issue certifiedcopies of documents under his custody; and

3. That he issued certified copies of the documents appended to his JudicialAffidavit.^^

5. Ma, Corazon Martinez Caspar(with Judicial Affidavit dated February 4, 2019)

Caspar is the Records Officer III of the Registry of Deeds of MarikinaCity. In lieu of her testimony, the following stipulations were made betweenthe prosecution and the defense:^^

1. That Ma. Corazon Martinez is currently the Records Officer III, Head ofRecords Section of the Registry of Deeds of Marikina;

2. As Records Officer, she has custody of all land titles on file with theRegistry of Deeds of Marikina, for which reason, she brought with her attoday's setting, the original of TCT No. 247114;^^

3. That, in answer to the subpoena issued by the Office of the SpecialProsecutor, she was able to locate the original copy of TCT No. 247114 onthe basis of which, she issued a certified electronic copy of the same.

Atty. Lazaro S. Galindez, Jr. (for accused Magdaet and Tizon) and Atty,Roderick Rabino (for Chingkoe and special appearance for accused Camaraand Dacasin), noted the following discrepancies:^^

1. The original of said TCT has a stamp "Cancelled" with no entries whilethe electronic copy has the watermark "cancelled;"

2. Before the transfer of the marking of Exh. A to the electronic copy thereof,it was noted by Atty. Galindez that the originally marked Exh. A onlyconsisted of two pages where no annotation appeared that it wascancelled, whereas the original copy of TCT No. 247114 produced by thewitness consisted of four pages bearing the annotation that it was acancelled title.

Thereafter, the testimony of Caspar was dispensed with,^^

Exhs. A (pages 66-75), Exh. C (pages 1 -30) compared with the certified true copies brought by the witnessand a transfer of markings will be made to the certified true copies thereof. (TSN, 25 March 2019, p. 16);certified true copies of Exh. A (pages 76-80) were brought to court and after perusal of the defense and therebeing no objection, the same were marked in open court (Record, Vol. 8, p. 115 [Order dated 23 May 2019).Record, Vol. 8, pp. 84-85 (Order dated 11 March 2019)Exh. A page 224, Exh. A page 225, Exh. A page 225-a, and Exh. A page 225-b.Supra Note 36. ♦Record, Vol. 8, pp. 84-85 (Order dated 11 March 2019).

i \1

Resolution

People V. Antonio Belicena, et al.SB-09-CRM-0040-0042, 0045-0046,0048-0050,0054-0055, 0058-0061, 0068-0069Page 14 of 36X X

6. Atty. Janice Cruz Regoso"*^(with Judicial Affidavit dated September 13, 2019)

In lieu of her testimony, the prosecution and the defense made thefollowing stipulations:"*'

1. That she is currently the Board Secretary and Legal Counsel of thePollution Adjudication Board of the DENR;

2. That part of her duties and responsibilities as such Board Secretary is tosafe keep and take custody of documents such as Resolutions, Orders,Minutes and Joumals of the Pollution Adjudication Board as well as togive recommendation and advice as to matters conceming the Board;

3. That she has in her custody the Ex-Parte Order dated January 8, 1996"*^issued by the Pollution Adjudication Board in the case entitled, In theMatter of the Water Pollution Case v. Express Colour Industries,docketed as DENR-PAB Case No. 13-00593 to 96;

This was met with the following counter-stipulations by Atty. RoderickRabino (for accused Chingkoe):"*^

3.1 That the witness was only employed in 2016, hence, she has no personalknowledge on the findings of said Ex-Parte Order;

3.2 That the witness has no personal knowledge that the Ex-Parte Order wasactually served and released to Express Colour Industries;

3.3 That the witness has no personal knowledge if Express Colour Industriesfiled a Motion for Reconsideration;

3.4 That the witness has no personal knowledge that the Cease and DesistOrder provided in the Ex-Parte Order was actually implemented.

Atty. Lazaro S, Galindez, Jr. (for accused Magdaet) counter-stipulatedthat the witness has no participation in the preparation of the Ex-Parte Order.

All counter-stipulations were agreed upon by Prosecutor Michael PaulB. Israel; and

4. That the witness will identify the copy of said document which sheprovided in compliance with the subpoena issued by the Office of theSpecial Prosecutor;

TSN, 23 September 2019.Record, Vol. 8, pp. 198-199.Exh. K (certified copy).Supra Note 41.

?

Resolution

People V. Antonio Belicena, et al.SB-09-CRM-0040-0042,0045-0046, 0048-0050,0054-0055, 0058-0061, 0068-0069

Page IS of36X X

5. That she can identify her Judicial Affidavit/'*

In view of the stipulations, the testimony of Regoso was dispensed with.

7. Jesse Veloso Jalalain'^^

(with Judicial Affidavit dated 11 November 2019)

Jalalain is the Supervising Administrative Officer (SAO) from theNational Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). His testimony was dispensedwith, along with his Judicial Affidavit, in consideration of the followingstipulations made:'^^

1. That he is currently the Supervising Administrative Officer (SAO) ofthe NLRC, DOLE;

2. That part of his duties and responsibilities as SAO is to safeguarddocuments of the NLRC, DOLE and to provide certified true/xeroxcopies of the documents under his custody. As pointed out by Atty.Lazaro S. Galindez, Jr., counsel for accused Asuncion Magdaet, hisfunction and duty to safeguard documents is included in his capacityas Records Custodian of documents;

3. That in compliance with the subpoena issued to him by the Office ofthe Special Prosecutor, he provided certified xerox copies of thedocuments denominated as the "Motion for Leave to Intervene withthe Opposition to Motionfor Break Open Order " dated November 26,200D^ in the case entitled Leopoldo Bulan, et ol. v. All Star Spinning,Inc./Grand Asia Spinning, Inc. While the original copy of the motionhas been brought by the witness, it is noted, per manifestation of Atty.Galindez, that the attachments thereto, i.e., copies of TCT No. 247114and the Deed of Conditional Sale between Planters DevelopmentBank and Marikina Textile Mills, Inc., remain to be photocopies only;

4. That the witness can identify the copies of said documents which heprovided in compliance with the subpoena issued by the Office of theSpecial prosecutor.

Atty. Galidez, Jr. (for accused Magdaet) and Atty. Sarah D. Soriano-Herminda (for accused Carmona, Camara and Dacasin, and specialappearance for Atty. Rabino representing accused Chingkoe), stipulated thatthe Motion is a faithful reproduction of the originaL*^ The prosecution and the

Supra Note 41.''^TSN, 18 November 2019.

Record, Vol. 8, pp. 208-209 (Order dated 18 November 2019)Exh. A page 220 to Exh. A page 229 (Exh. A pages 220 to 223 with notation "faithful reproduction" after

it was compared with the original; Exh. A pages 224 to 229 with notation "stipulated). *TSN, 18 November 2019, p. 14.

t1

Resolution

People V. Antonio Belicena, et al.SB-09-CRM-0040-0042, 0045-0046,0048-0050,0054-0055,0058-0061, 0068-0069

Page 16 of36X X

defense also stipulated on copies of the TCT and Deed of Sale attached to theMotion."^^

8. Elizabeth Benavidez Cruz

Cruz is the Chief Tax Specialist of the One Stop Shop Inter-AgencyTax Credit and Drawback Center of the Department of Finance (Center). Inher Judicial Affidavit, she alleged that from 1999 to 2000, she was thePlanning Officer IV designated as Officer in Charge of the Tax Issuance andApplication Division - formerly Tax Debit Memo Unit. She was alsodesignated as member of the Team that conducted the audit of Express ColourIndustries Inc.'s Tax Credit Certificates (TCCs).

She said that they conducted an audit on Express Colour between theyears 1999 to 2000. They performed comparative analysis using the summaryof TCC Issuances and Utilization of Express Colour and the informationfound in the Audited Financial Statement for the corresponding yearparticularly the amount of export sales, cost of machineries and equipmentincluding fuel consumptions since there were TCCs transferred to oil firms.They found that the issuance of TCCs in favor of Express Colour was taintedwith irregularities.

In the report entitled "Information on the Chingkoe Group ofCompanies,"^* they concluded that the 25 TCCs issued to Express Colour inthe aggregate amount of P175.357 million were fraudulently obtained by thefirm. Thus, the Center recommended the following: 1) Cancellation and recallof all TCCs issued to Express Colour Inc. and all related transactions thereof,and; 2) Formal endorsement of the case to Special Presidential Task Force 156(SPTF 156). The recommendations were reduced in writing in the form ofCancellation Memorandums^ which was incorporated into the report theysubmitted to the Senate. She identified the signatures of Beverly M. Taneza,Ernesto Q. Hiansen and Alberto R. Salanga in the Cancellation Memorandumand claimed that she is familiar with their signatures.

In connection with the audit, she issued a Certification dated 21February 2000^^ with annexes attached to the report submitted to the Senate,as well as an earlier Cancellation Memorandum. Also attached to the reportare the articles of incorporation of Express Colour Industries, Inc., its auditedfinancial statements, general information sheets, list of TCCs (as certified bythe Management Information Systems Division), the history of the TCC

18 November 2019, pp. 17- 18dated 10 January 2020Exh. and series.

Id at, Exh. U" Id. at 21-26

t

Resolution

People V. Antonio Belicena, et al.SB-09-CRM-0040-0042, 0045-0046, 0048-

0050, 0054-0055, 0058-0061, 0068-0069Page 17 of 36X X

Utilization, TCC dockets physically accounted for (as certified by the recordssection of Center). They were used as working documents in arriving at theconclusion as written in the executive summary and cancellationmemorandum.

In the comparative analysis of the TCCs, they utilized the TCCsindicated in the List of TCC issuances attached to the Certification issued byMr. Napoleon Cajucom.^"^ The TCCs were also specified in the Summary ofTCC Issuances & Utilization and Summary of TCC Transferred and Usedattached to the Certification she issued during the conduct of audit. The TCCsillegally issued to Express Colour are: TCC Nos. 005405; 005596; 005597;005638; 006004; 006458; 006474; 006540; 006728; 006780; 007035;

007036; 007203; 007485; 007557; 007612; 007625; 007624; 007914;

007915; 008109; 008127; 009500; 009666; 009665. She also identified the

documents handed to them for consideration and which she utilized in the

conduct of audit on the Chingkoe Group of Companies and eventually becametheir working documents in coming up with the Memorandum forCancellation.^^

After signing the cancellation memorandum, the TCCs were cancelledand recalled even if they were already utilized. Thereafter, the case wasformally indorsed to the Special Presidential Task Force 156.

Exh. pages 19-20.For SB-09-CRM-0040 to 0048:

X to X-1, Y, Z, A= to Z\ to Z\ to L^ to Z\ A= to Q\ S^ U' to Z^ A6 to P^.

For SB-09-CRM- 0041,0049 & 0069X, Y, Z, A^ B^ to B2-2, C' to Z\ A^ to Z^ A" to N"*. X^ to Z^ A^ to Z^ A^ to G®-

For SB-09-CRM-0042, 0050 & 0068X, Y, Z, A^ to B--2, C\ D2 to D2-1, to Z\ A^ to Z\ A"* to Z\ A= to Z^ A^ B^-1, B^-2

For SB-09-CRM-0045 & 0054

X, Y, Z, Z-1, A^ B^ to B^-5, to T^.

For SV-09-CRM-0046 & 0055

X, Y, Z, Z-1,A2 to X^

For SB-09-CRM-0058

X, YtoY-l,Z,A2to F

For SB-09-CRM-0059

X, X-I, Y,ZtoZ-\,A-toH2

For SB-09-CRM-0060

X, X-l,Y,Zto Z-1,A- to

ForSB-09-CRM-0061

X, Y,Zto Z-UA^tolP-

/

Resolution

People V. Antonio Belicena, et al.SB-09-CRM-0040-0042, 0045-0046,0048-0050, 0054-0055,0058-0061, 0068-0069Page 18 of 36X X

During the cross examination by Atty. Galindez, Jr. (for accusedMagdaet, Gomez and Tordesiilas), Cruz identified the Post Audit Reportmarked as Exh. Q6 which was presented to the Senate. She claimed that shewas part of the Audit Team and that copies of the Audited Financial Statementfor 1996 to 1997 were attached to the report submitted to the Senate.^^ Shealso said that she prepared the Cancellation Memorandum marked as Exh. U,the original copy of which was submitted to their superiors, Director Salangaand Director Hiansen for their approval.

She admitted that she indicated in the Executive Summary that ExpressColour Industries is a BOI registered company with BOI Registration No. EP94-478 registered on 16 November 1996.^^ She is also aware that ExpressColour Industries, being a BOI registered company, enjoys tax incentivesunder Article 39 of EG 226.

Although there were documents showing deliveries made by ExpressColour to bonded warehouses, their conclusion was based on the result of thecomparative analysis of the documents available such as the schedule sheprepared, the history of TCC utilization which they compared to the data orinformation found in the Audited Financial Statements.^^ The only evidencethat supports deliveries to warehouses were the sales invoices and deliveryreceipts attached to the dockets.^*^ She confirmed that those documents werenot actually the issue when they came up with the report because the AuditedFinancial Statement already stated that they only earned service income andthere were no export sales reflected in the Audited Financial Statements.However, she admitted that as per definition under Sec. 23 of EG 226, thedeliveries to bonded warehouses are considered export sales.

She said that she and Beverly Basman were directed to conduct auditand they were assigned to perform separate functions. Beverly did thecomparative analysis. Gn the other hand, she was directed to prepare theschedules of TCC utilization and issuances not just for Express Colours butfor all Chingkoe Companies since she was assigned at the TCCI- where allthe records of transactions relating to TCC issuances and utilization are beingkept.^^ It was Basman who prepared the report. Since she concurred with thefindings, they both signed the Cancellation Memorandum.^^ She clarified thatwhile they discussed the findings, Basman presented to her all her workingpapers including the computation of TCC to sales ratio and the comparative

TSN, 22 January 2020, p. 18." Id. at 19.

" Id. at 33.Id. at 39-40.

Id. at 40.

Id. at41.

" Id. at 41-42.

Id. at 42.

/\

7

Resolution

People V. Antonio Belicena, et al.SB-09-CRM-0040-0042, 0045-0046, 0048-0050,0054-0055, 0058-0061,0068-0069Page 19 of 36X X

analysis of the machineries and equipment for all textile companies. Sheclaimed that she also went through the evaluation report and sales invoiceattached because they were the materials available during the audit butadmitted that she never examined them thoroughly

On cross-examination by Atty. Rabino (for accused Chingkoe), Cruzconfirmed that the Executive Summary is undated and without any showingwho prepared, reviewed or approved the same. She clarified that it was just asummary of all the information on the attached documents. Further, theCertification she prepared dated 21 February 2000 as to the list of the TCCissuances was the basis for the comparative analysis made by the audit. It wasprepared per instruction of their director but the schedule attached thereto wasprepared earlier as part of the audit. She explained that the total TCCsreflected in the Executive Summary, which include those issued in 1996 to1998 was taken from the Certification prepared by Napoleon Cajucom who isthe Head of the MIS Group that also keeps records of issuances of thetransactions of the OSS Center. Whereas the number appearing in theCancellation Memorandum covers only the period from 1996 to 1997.^^

In the Post Audit Findings, Finding No. 2 shows that P99.5MiIlion weretransferred to Oil Firms when financial statement does not show this volume

of oil consumption by Express Colour Industries.^^ When asked if theyverified from the oil companies if they indeed delivered this volume of oil toExpress Colour, she answered that it was their Directors who sent letters tothe oil companies for verification.^^

In Finding No. 3, she stated that machinery and equipment as reflectedin the Audited Financial Statement of Express Colour is only PI 89,765.00 andwith this amount, it could not possibly produce 4.1 Million yards of woodenfabric per year. She said that it was Beverly Basman who prepared thecomparative analysis on machineries and equipment involving manufacturingfirms and it was also Basman who compared the cost of the machineries andequipment of Express Colour to other companies with the same registeredcapacity She is not certain whether Basman made an actual verification.^'As far as she knows, there were no TCCs issued after 24 October 1999 and noother Cancellation Memorandum was issued after October 1999.^^

TSN, 22 January 2020, pp. 42-43." Id. at 68.

Id. at 82.

Id. at 82-83.

Id. at 84-85

Id. at 86

Id. at 86-87.

" Id. at 88.'2 Id. at 90-91.

/7

Resolution

People V. Antonio Belicena, et al.SB-09-CRM-0040-0042,0045-0046,0048-0050,0054-0055,0058-0061, 0068-0069Page 20 of 36X X

Atty. Hermida (for accused Carmona, Camara and Dacasin) adoptedthe cross by Atty. Galindez, Jr. and Atty. Rabino. Cruz testified that amongthose working documents are the Affidavit of Sonia Carmona marked as Exh.U and Q-6, several Deeds of Assignment^^ allegedly signed by SoniaCarmona, Claimant Information Sheet, and Sale Contract.^^ She confirmedthat she does not have any personal knowledge as to the execution andauthenticity of the said documents.^^

On re-direct examination, Cruz said that in Finding No. 1, which statesthat Express Colour was merely into service income was based on the AuditedFinancial Statement."^"^ She identified a document with cover page FinancialReport December 31, 1997 (photocopy) which is part of the subsequent pagesof Exh. cover page.^^ The Statement of Income and the detailed earningsfor the year December 31, 1997 with comparative figures for the year 1996reflects that Express Colour is a service provider and that there was no exportmade during those years. This concludes that Express Colour only providedservice for their clients and there were no export sales or there was no exportmade during those years.^*^

On re-cross, she said Express Colour did not engage in manufacturingor exporting of yam because there are no portion in their income statement forthe cost of manufacturing and no cost reflected involving manufacturing.^'She also said that the finding that Express Colour did not make any exportsales was based on the service income reflected in the Audited Financial

Statement. The only income reflected was the service income for 1997amounting to P7,492,000.00. She added that they also considered the findingson machineries and equipment, and the transfer to oil companies. Sheadmitted that what she actually conducted in the report was a post audit.

Prosecution's Formal Offer of Evidence

On 31 January 2022, the prosecution filed its Formal Offer of Evidence.Accused Grace Chingkoe and the group of accused Ma. Carmencita Camara,Sonia Carmona and Sonia Dacasin filed comment/opposition thereto. In the

Exh.

Exh. G-

Exh. S*'

TSN, 22 January 2020, p. 96.Id. at 97; Exh. Q'^-page 37 to Exh. Q®-page 41.Id. at 101.

Id. at 102

8° Id. at 102

Id. at 104-105.

Id. at 110.

/ i'

Resolution

People V. Antonio Bellcena, et at.SB-09-CRM-0040-0042,0045-0046,0048-0050,0054-0055,0058-0061, 0068-0069Page 21 of 36X X

Minute Resolution dated 22 March 2022,^^ the Court admitted the followingexhibits for the prosecution:

For all Cases Exh. A pages 1-8,9-52, 53-56,66-75, 76-80,220-229,220-223, 224-225, 226-229; Exh. B, Exh. C pages 1-27 and 28-30, Exh. G, Exh. N, Exh. 0, Exh. 0, Exh.T, Exh. U, Exh. Q^.

For Sb-09-CRM-0040 and 0048 Exhs. X to X-1, Exh. Y, Exh. B^, Exhs. G^ to Exhs.I2& 12-1, Exhs. J2& J2-2, Exhs. K2& K2.i^ Exhs. L2toZ2, Exh. A^, Exhs. B^ to B^-1, Exhs. C^to Exhs.to Z^; Exhs. A"* to Exhs. to Exhs. A^ to 0^,Exhs. V^to Z^, Exhs. A^to 0^, Exh. P^; Exhs. P^-1 toP^-3.

For SB-09-CRM-0041,0049 and0069

Exhs. X to Z, Exh. A2, Exhs. B2 to B2-2, Exhs. toX2, Exh. Z2, Exhs. A^ to Y^, Exhs. to Z\ Exhs. A^to C^, Exhs. £5 to Z\ Exhs. A^ to G^, Exh. G^-1 & G^-2.

For SB-09-CRM-0042,0050 and

0068

Exh. X to Z, Exh. A2' Exhs. B2 to £2-2; Exhs. C2 to D2,Exh. F2; Exhs. H2 to Z2, Exhs. A^ to G\ Exhs. E to Z^,Exhs. A"* to F'^, Exhs. J"* to Z"*, Exhs. A^to Exhs. Eto Z\ Exh. A^ Exh. B^ Exhs. B^-l & Exh. B^-2.

For SB-09-CRM-0045 and 0054 Exh. X, Exh. X-1, Exh. X-2, Exh. Y, Exh. Z, Exh. X-1, Exh. A2, Exhs. B2 to B2-5, Exhs. C2 to J2, Exhs. J2 -1 to J2-2, Exhs. K2 to 02, Exh. Q2, Exh. S2, Exh. T2.

For SB-09-CRM-0046 and 0055 Exhs. X and X-1 to X-2, Exhs. Y to Z, Exhs. A2 to B2;Exhs. C2 to C2-2, Exhs. D2 to S2; Exs. 1)2 to X2.

For SB-09-CRM-0058 Exh. X, Exh. X-1, Exh. X-2, Exhs. Y to Y-1, Exh. Z,Exhs. A2 to J2.

For SB-09-CRM-0059 Exh. X, Exhs. X-1 to X-4, Exh. Y, Exhs. Z to Z-1, Exh.A2 to H2.

For SB-09-CRM-0060 Exh. X, Exhs. X-1 to X-4, Exh. Y, Exhs. Z to Z-1,Exhs. A2 to B2, Exhs. C2 to H2.

For SB-09-CRM-0061 Exh. X, Exhs. X-1 to X-2, Exh. Y, Exhs. Z to Z-1, Exh.A2 to H2.

83 Record, Vol. 11, pp. 165-218?

Resolution

People V. Antonio Belicena, et al.SB-09-CRM-0040-0042, 0045-0046, 0048-0050, 0054-0055, 0058-0061,0068-0069

Page 22 of36X X

Accused Grace Chingkoe's

Demurrer to Evidence

Accused Grace Chingkoe alleges that the prosecution failed todischarge its burden in proving her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Shecontends that in the Joint Stipulation of Facts (JSF), the prosecution stipulatedthat "based on the General Information Sheet (GIS) of Express for the fiscalyear ending December 31, 1995, accused Grace Chingkoe is no longer aStockholder, Director or Officer of Express Colour as of December 31, 1995. "The Prosecution thus confirmed that she is no longer connected with ExpressColour during the alleged fraudulent application, issuance and transfer of taxcredit certificates (TCCs) on August 5, 1996 to March 31, 1998.

Accused Grace Chingkoe further alleges that there is no evidence onrecord of her supposed participation or involvement in the fraudulenttransactions. In the Fact-Finding Investigation Report of Justice Virgilio C.Abejo dated 27 January 2004, she was not among the respondentsrecommended for prosecution. Considering that the Complaint-Affidavit ofthe Special Presidential Task Force 156 was anchored on the fact-findingreport, it clearly shows that accused was wrongfully charged in these cases forbeing one of the incorporators of Express Colour.

As for the charge of violation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, accusedcontends that the prosecution failed to prove that accused public officers actedwith evident bad faith, manifest partiality or gross inexcusable negligence andthat they gave unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference. Thus, sinceaccused public officers cannot be convicted for violation of Sec. 3(e), withmore reason that she, who is a private individual, cannot be convicted for thesame offense more so when conspiracy was not established by theprosecution.

Finally, accused alleges that the prosecution also failed to prove theessential elements of Estafa thru Falsification of Public Documents because

no evidence, testimonial or documentary, was adduced that would prove thatthe documents submitted by Express Colour were falsified or spurious.

The Prosecution's Opposition

The Prosecution argues that the stipulation during the pre-trial waslimited to what was reflected in the GIS, that accused Grace Chingkoe doesnot appear as a stockholder or director of Express Colour since 1995. It cannotbe interpreted to mean that it was made for purposes of establishing anundisputed timeline in these cases. Further, it was not the tenor of the

Resolution

People V. Antonio Belicena, et al.SB-09-CRM-0040-0042, 0045-0046,0048-0050,0054-0055,0058-0061, 0068-0069

Page 23 of 36

Stipulation that Grace Chingkoe is not actually a director or stockholder ofExpress Colour in 1995.

The prosecution adds that in a document offered by the prosecutionmarked as Exh. C- page 3, accused Grace Chingkoe signed therein as Directorof Express Colour. Thus, it is misleading to state that just because the GIS didnot state that Grace Chingkoe is a stockholder or director, said accused hadno part in any of the fraudulent applications of tax credit certificates.

It further argues that the Ombudsman also conducted its owninvestigation and merely considered the Report submitted by Justice Abejo asone of the bases in filing the complaint against accused Grace Chingkoe. Italso points out that the Complaint-Affidavit dated 30 January 2004, whichmentioned Grace Chingkoe and her alleged participation, was unqualifiedlyadmitted by said accused. Thus, unless controverting evidence are presented,the statement in the complaint affidavit holds, and is a prima facie case againstaccused Chingkoe.

Accused Grace Chingkoe's Reply

Accused Grace Chingkoe counters that the stipulation in the JSF wasunqualified and was not limited to the year 1995 only. The stipulation was "asof December 31, 1995, " accused Grace Chingkoe is no longer a Stockholder,Director or Officer of Express Colour. Moreover, during the trial, theprosecution never made an attempt to establish that during the period materialto these cases, accused Grace Chingkoe was a stockholder, director or officerof Express Colour.

Accused also contends that the board resolution which she allegedlysigned as one of the Directors has no probative value because it was notformally offered in evidence. She adds that it was signed after the periodmaterial to the alleged fraudulent application, issuances and transfers of TCCson August 5, 1996 to March 31, 1998 and the document pertains to thecessation of business operations of Express Colour.

The Prosecution's Motion to Expunge

The prosecution argues that Reply is a prohibited pleading and its filingconstitutes violation of the Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of

Criminal Cases. Moreover, Sec. 23 of Rule 119 of the Rules of Criminal

Exh. A.

. 7/

Resolution

People V. Antonio Belicena, et al.SB-09-CRM-0040-0042, 0045-0046,0048-0050,0054-0055, 0058-0061, 0068-0069Page 24 of 36X X

Procedure has not mentioned any timeline to file a reply in a demurrer toevidence.

Our Ruling

L On the procedural aspect

The Court grants the prosecution's Motion to Expunge accused GraceChingkoe's Reply dated 11 May 2022.

In the dispositive portion of the Resolution dated 20 April 2022,accused Grace Chingkoe was given a non-extendible period of ten (10) daysfrom receipt thereof within which to file her Demurrer to Evidence. Theprosecution was also given the same period of ten (10) days to file itscomment/opposition thereto. Nowhere in the said Resolution did the courtmention that accused was given time to file a Reply.

The Court's directive was in accordance with Sec. 23, Rule 119 of theRules of Criminal Procedure which provides that:

Sec, 23. Demurrer to evidence. - After the prosecution rests itscase, the court may dismiss the action on the ground of insufficiency ofevidence (1) on its own initiative after giving the prosecution theopportunity to be heard or (2) upon demurrer to evidence filed by theaccused with or without leave of court.

XXX

If leave of court is granted, the accused shall file the demurrer toevidence within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days from notice.The prosecution may oppose the demurrer to evidence within a similarperiod from its receipt.

XXX

Clearly, the above provision is silent as to the filing of a reply to theprosecution's opposition to the demurrer. It bears to stress that a reply is aprohibited pleading under the 2018 Revised Internal Rules of theSandiganbayan, particularly Sec. 4 of Rule VII, which states that ''reply andmemorandum shall not be allowed." Similarly, the Revised Guidelines forContinuous Trial of Criminal Cases under paragraph 2(c) on MeritoriousMotions provides that "(r)eply and memorandum need not be submitted. " Thetwo provisions are consistent with Sec. 23 of Rule 119 of the Rules ofCriminal Procedure which only prescribes the filing of a comment oropposition to the demurrer.

/ 1

Resolution

People V. Antonio Belicena, et al.SB-09-CRM-0040-0042,0045-0046, 0048-0050, 0054-0055,0058-0061,0068-0069

Page 25 of36X X

Accordingly, accused Grace Chingkoe's Reply is ordered expungedfrom the records.

11. On the Demurrer to Evidence

A demurrer to evidence is a motion to dismiss on the ground ofinsufficiency of evidence. It is a remedy available to the defendant, to theeffect that the evidence produced by the plaintiff is insufficient in point of law,whether true or not, to make out a case or sustain an issue. The question in ademurrer to evidence is whether the plaintiffs, by their evidence in chief, hadbeen able to establish a prima facie case.^^ Thus, the Court, in passing uponthe sufficiency of the evidence raised in a demurrer, is merely required toascertain whether there is competent or sufficient evidence to sustain theindictment or to support a verdict of guilt.^^

After a judicious review of the evidence presented, the Court isconvinced that the guilt of accused has not been proven with the requiredquantum of proof at this stage of the proceedings.

A. Violation of Sec, 3(e) of R,A, No, 3019

Accused Grace Chingkoe was charged with 11 counts of violation ofSec. 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 which states:

Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. — In addition to actsor omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, thefollowing shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and arehereby declared to be unlawful:

XXX XXX XXX

(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government,or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preferencein the discharge of his official, administrative or judicial functions throughmanifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. Thisprovision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government

corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or otherconcessions.

Republic v. Francisco, G.R. No. 206308 (Notice), 12 February 2020.People V. Go, G.R. No. 191015,6 August 2014.

/y

Resolution

People V. Antonio Belicena, et al.SB-09-CRM-0040-0042,0045-0046,0048-0050,0054-0055,0058-0061,0068-0069

Page 26 of 36X X

For an accused to be convicted for violation of the afore-quotedprovision, each of the following essential elements must be proven beyondreasonable doubt:

(1) the accused must be a public officer dischargingadministrative, judicial, or official functions;

(2) he must have acted with manifest partiality, or evident badfaith, or gross inexcusable negligence; and

(3) his action caused undue injury to any party, including theGovernment, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits,

advantage, or preference in the discharge of his functions.

As to the first element, the parties stipulated that accused GraceChingkoe is one of the incorporators of Express Colour. Settled is the rule thatprivate persons, when acting in conspiracy with public officers, may beindicted and, if found guilty, held liable for the pertinent offenses underSection 3 of R.A. No. 3019.^^ Since accused Chingkoe, a private individual,may only be held liable if she acted in conspiracy with accused publicofficials, it is therefore necessary that the Court first determine if conspiracywas duly established in these cases.

Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreementconcerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.^^ In GaliciaV. Galicia, the Supreme Court elucidated:

There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreementconcerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracyis not presumed. Like the physical acts constituting the crime itself, theelements of conspiracy must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Whileconspiracy need not be established by direct evidence, for it may be inferredfrom the conduct of the accused before, during and after the commission ofthe crime, all taken together, however, the evidence must be strong enough toshow the community of criminal design. For conspiracy to exist, it is essentialthat there must be a conscious design to commit an offense. Conspiracy is theproduct of intentionality on the part of the cohorts.

In these cases, the prosecution hinges its theory of conspiracy on theallegation that accused was connected with Express Colour being a directoror officer thereof at the time material to these cases and thus, responsible inthe alleged fraudulent application of tax credit certificates.

Braza v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 195032,20 February 2013 (704 Phil. 476-499). ,Revised Penal Code, Art. 8, Par. 2.People V. Galiciay Galicia, G.R. No. 238911,28 June 2021. ^ ^

/

Resolution

People V. Antonio Belicena, et al.SB-09-CRM-0040-0042, 0045-0046, 0048-

0050, 0054-0055, 0058-0061, 0068-0069

Page 27 of 36X X

Records show that during the pre-trial conference, both parties enteredinto stipulations of facts to simplify the course of the trial. The admissions andstipulations 'were reduced into writing and reflected in the Pre-trial Orderdated 13 December 2018.^^ As pointed out by accused, the prosecutionstipulated that:

12. Based on the January 27, 2004 Investigation Report of Justice VirgilioC. Abejo and Atty. Luis C. Uranza, accused Grace Chingkoe was not arespondent in the investigation they conducted and she was not amongthose recommended for prosecution.

13. The January 27, 2004 Investigation Report of Justice Virgilio C. Abejowas one of the bases of the Special Presidential Task Force 156 in filingthe complaint against accused Grace Chingkoe before the Office of theOmbudsman.

14. Based on the General Information Sheet (GIS) of EXPRESS for thefiscal year ending December 31,1995, accused Grace Chingkoe is nolonger a Stockholder, Director or Officer of EXPRESS as ofDecember31.1995.

15. Accused Grace Chingkoe gave birth by caesarian section at St. Luke'sHospital on December 28, 1995.

16. Based on the September 5, 2001 Fact-Finding Report of Atty. Elena D.Barcenai, Graft Investigation Officer II, 0MB in CPL 98-2057-P60BDOF Tax Credit Scam Re: Chingkoe Group of Companies, accusedGrace Chingkoe was not included as one of the persons criminally liable.

(Emphasis supplied)

The foregoing stipulations are deemed admissions and become part ofthe facts of the case which do not require proof to be sufficiently consideredin the resolution of the demurrer to evidence. In Sy v. People,^^ the SupremeCourt held that in resolving a demurrer, the Court is not limited to theevaluation of the prosecution's evidence. Its determination should include allthe means sanctioned by the Rules of Court in ascertaining matters in judicialproceedings such as judicial admissions, matters of judicial notice,stipulations made during the pre-trial and trial, as well as other admissionsand presumptions.

Going back to the stipulations, by definition, the phi*ase "as of is usedto indicate the time or date from which something starts.^" As such, it is safeto state that in Stipulation No. 14, the prosecution admitted that accused GraceChingkoe ceased to be a stockholder, director or officer of Express Colour

^Record, Vol. 7, pp. 182-257.G.R. No. 243617 (Notice), 5 May 2021.As of Definition Sl Meaning - Merriarn-Webster last visited 15 June 2022.

/ ?'

Resolution

People V. Antonio Belicena, et al.SB-09-CRM-0040-0042, 0045-0046,0048-0050,0054-0055,0058-0061,0068-0069

Page 28 of36

Starting from 31 December 1995 onwards. It bears to stress that the subjectfraudulent transactions took place from 5 August 1996 to 31 March 1998.Thus, the foregoing stipulations confirmed that accused Grace Chingkoe wasno longer connected with Express Colour during the period material to thealleged fraudulent application, issuance and transfer of TCCs.

However, the prosecution challenges the stipulated facts and argues thatthey did not amount to an admission that accused Grace Chingkoe was not astockholder or director of Express Colour in 1995 to 1998. It insists that thestipulations were based on and limited to what the GIS states, a documentwhich Express Colour itself issued.

To be sure, the Rules of Criminal Procedure mandate parties to agreeon matters of facts, issues and evidence. Such stipulations are greatly favoredbecause they simplify, shorten or settle litigations in a faster and moreconvenient manner. It is important to note that stipulations of facts duringpre-trial are nothing less than judicial admissions which cannot becontradicted. Thus, the parties are bound by such stipulations which aredeemed settled and need not be proven during the trial. In Bayas, et al. v.Sandiganbayan, et al.^^ the Supreme Court emphasized that:

Once the stipulations are reduced into writing and signed by theparties and their counsels, they become binding on the parties who madethem. They become judicial admissions of thefact orfacts stipulated. Evenif placed at a disadvantageous position, a party may not be allowed to rescindthem unilaterally, it must assume the consequences of the disadvantage.(Emphasis supplied)

Also, inAlfelor v. Halasan^^ the Supreme Court declared that:

A party who judicially admits a fact cannot later challenge the fact asjudicial admissions are a waiver of proof; production of evidence is dispensedwith. A Judicial admission also removes an admittedfact from the field ofcontroversy. Consequently, an admission made in the pleadings cannot becontroverted by the party making such admission and are conclusive as tosuch party, and all proofs to the contrary or inconsistent therewith shouldbe ignored, whether objection is interposed by the party or not. Theallegations, statements or admissions contained in a pleading areconclusive as against the pleader. A party cannot subsequently take aposition contrary of or inconsistent with what was pleaded. (Emphasissupplied)

Bayas v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 143689-91, 12 November 2002 (440 Phil. 54-72)'^G.R.Nos. 143689-91, 12 November 2002 (440 Phil. 54-72).95 G.R. No. 165987,31 March 2006.

f1

Resolution

People V. Antonio Belicena, et al.SB-09-CRM-0040-0042,0045-0046,0048-

0050, 0054-0055, 0058-0061,0068-0069

Page 29 of 36

Therefore, it would be inappropriate for the prosecution to stipulate onthe particulars of the GIS as part of the facts of the case and thereafter disputethe GIS by claiming that it was just a document which Express Colour itselfissued. If the Court allows the prosecution to be relieved from its stipulationor to give it a different interpretation, there would be no end to litigation. Also,it would render useless the proceedings had at the pre-trial and would defeatthe very purpose of a pre-trial — which is, among others, to allow the partiesto admit and stipulate on a given set of facts and to simplify the issuesinvolved.^^

Moreover, the GIS is not just a mere document but one required to besubmitted annually to the Securities and Exchange Commission.^^ It isnoteworthy to point out that the submission of a GIS of a corporation beforethe SEC is pursuant to the objective sought by Section 26 of the CorporationCode^^ which is to give the public information of the nature of business,financial condition, and operational status of the company, as well as its keyofficers or managers, so that those dealing and who intend to do business withit may know or have the means of knowing facts concerning the corporation'sfmancial resources and business responsibility.^^ It is signed and attested toby the corporate secretary. Once filed with the SEC pursuant to a provision oflaw, the GIS becomes public document'^'^ and is deemed prima facie evidenceof its due execution and issuance. Thus, the evidence to be presented to disputethe GIS must be more than merely preponderant.

Notwithstanding, even the testimonial and documentary evidenceadduced by the prosecution are not enough to prove accused GraceChingkoe's participation in the commission of the offense charged. It is settledthat to be considered a part of the conspiracy, each of the accused must beshown to have performed at least an overt act in pursuance or in furtheranceof the conspiracy, for without being shown to do so none of them will be liableas a co-conspirator, and each may only be held responsible for the results ofhis own acts.^^'

Claudio V. Quebral, G.R. No. 165962, [July 6,2007], 553 Phil. 603-618)" Gamboa v. Teves, G.R. No. 176579, 28 June 2011 (668 Phil.1-118).

The law applicable at the time of the subject transactions, now Section 25 of the Revised Corporation Code.F & S yelasco Co., Inc. v. Madrid, G.R. No. 208844, 10 November 2015 (772 Phil. 628-646).

Sec. 26. Report of election of directors, trustees and officers. - Within thirty (30) days afterthe election of the directors, trustees and officers of the corporation, the secretary, or any otherofficer of the corporation, shall submit to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the names,nationalities and residences of the directors, trustees, and officers elected. Should a director,trustee or officer die, resign or in any manner cease to hold office, his heirs in case of his death,the secretary, or any other officer of the corporation, or the director, trustee or officer himself,shall immediately report such fact to the Securities and Exchange Commission. (CorporationCode)

Republic v. Spouses Gimenez, G.R. No. 174673, 11 January 2016 (776 Phil. 233-291)People V. Credo y De Vergara, G.R. No. 230778,22 July 2019.

/ ?

Resolution

People V. Antonio Belicena, et al.SB-09-CRM-0040-0042,0045-0046, 0048-0050, 0054-0055,0058-0061,0068-0069

Page 30 of 36X X

It bears to point out that none of the prosecution witnesses has testifiedon accused Grace Chingkoe's participation in the fraudulent transactions.Moreover, as can be gleaned from the records, in its pursuit to establishaccused Grace Chingkoe's link to the fraudulent application, issuance andtransfer of TCCs, the prosecution presented the following documentaryexhibits where accused's name appears:

1.) SEC Registration No. 172292;'^^2.) Board Resolution dated 7 July 1998,'^^^ and;3.) Complaint Affidavit dated 20 January 2004'°'* of the Special

Presidential Task Force 156 (SPTF 156).

However, these are not enough to hold accused liable as charged as willbe discussed hereunder.

A perusal of SEC Registration No. 172292, which was filed with theSEC on 11 January 1990 shows that accused Grace Chingkoe was named asone of the incorporators and stockholders of Express Colour and was amember of its board of directors. However, this document does not in any wayprove accused's participation in the alleged commission of the offense from1996 to 1998.

The second document adduced by the prosecution to connect accusedGrace Chingkoe in the fraudulent transactions was the Board Resolution dated7 July 1998 which accused signed as Director of Express Colour. However,this document is irrelevant and cannot be given probative value as it pertainsto the immediate closure and cessation of business of Express Colour. Itcannot be taken as sufficient evidence that accused was a member of the board

during the period material to these cases. Besides, the prosecution's insistencethat accused Chingkoe was a director or officer of Express at the time of thesubject transactions was already negated by their stipulation during pre-trialthat accused was no longer connected with Express Colour as of 31 December1995. What is apparent is that no other evidence was adduced that wouldprove that accused assumed the position as director or officer at any pointbetween 5 August 1996 to 31 March 1998; the period when the subjecttransactions in these cases took place.

Moreover, it must be emphasized that accused Grace Chingkoe wasindicted mainly because in the Secretary's Certificate dated 10 May 1996, ofCorporate Secretary Vianita Acilo, she certified that Sonia Carmona wasauthorized by the Board of Directors of Express per Board Resolution dated4 January 1996 to act for and in behalf of the company in connection with the

Exh. A pages 66-75 (JA Vol. I, pp. 8-17, attached to the Judicial Affidavit of Atty. RJ Andrada Bemal)Exh. C pages 28-30.Exh. A.

^ )i

Resolution

People V. Antonio Belicena, et at.SB-09-CRM-0040-0042, 0045-0046,0048-

0050,0054-0055,0058-0061,0068-0069Page 31 of36X X

signing of contracts involving tax credit transactions. It was the same boardresolution mentioned in the secretary's certificates'^'^ that support all thetransactions subject of these cases. It is a crucial document as it will prove thecomposition of the board of directors who unanimously approved Carmona'sdesignation as authorized officer and which would show whether accusedGrace Chingkoe participated in the board's meeting. Unfortunately, the BoardResolution dated 4 January 1996 was not presented and offered in evidenceby the prosecution.

In the third document, which is the Complaint Affidavit dated 30January 2004 of the SPTF 156, the name of Ms. Chingkoe and her allegedparticipation in the subject transactions were mentioned. The pertinent portionof the complaint affidavit is shown below:

A.) That SPTF 156 hereby attaches as Annex "A" the Investigation Reportdated January 27, 2004 and adopts the same to form integral part of hereof infiling criminal charges for Violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act 3019, asamended, Estafa thru Falsification of Public Documents and Violation ofPresidential Decree No. 1829 against the following respondents who helped,cooperated, and conspired with each other in commiding the offenses beingcharged by performing the following acts:

XXX

7. GRACE T. CHINGKOE with last known address at 1803Goldloop Towers, One Goldloop Plaza, Ortigas Center, Pasig City, GEMMA G.GALICHA, with last known address at 131-B Paz Street, Morning BreezeSubdivision, Caloocan City, MA. CARMENCITA C. CAMARA, with last knownaddress at 2-C Kalyos Street, Project 7. Quezon City. VIANITA O. ACILO, withlast known address at 32 Rajah Soliman Street, Parang. Marikina City, andLUNINGNING C. LAMSON, with last known address at 382 GalamanCompound. EDSA, Caloocan City, in their capacity as members of the Board ofDirectors of EXPRESS, as well as VIANITA O. ACILO, in her capacity ascorporate secretary of EXPRESS, for having authorized and caused the transferof the fraudulently-secured TCCs from EXPRESS to the afore-mentronedcorporations thereby paving the way for the utilization of the said TCCs to thedamage and prejudice of the government The members of the Board ofDirectors are included as respondents by virtue of the Secretary's Certificatedated May 10. 1996 issued by corporate secretary Vlanita O. Acllo that statesthat the Board of Directors of EXPRESS unanimously approved a resolutionauthorizing Sonia G. Carmona to act for and in behalf of the company inconnection with the signing of contracts involving tax credit transactions ofEXPRESS despite the fact that they all very well knew that EXPRESS were notentitled to the tax credits granted to it by the OSS-Center as it never exportedany finished products and that the company was closed on February 27. 1996.The corresponding board resolution, as a matter of ordinary procedure, was notrequired to be submitted to the OSS-Center (please see Annexes "C", "F",and "1-1" of the Investigation Report which Is hereto attached as Annex "A');

Exh. A page 4.Exh. A-page 94, Exh. B-page 96, Exh. (SB-09-CRM-0040 & 0048), Exh. F (SB-09-CRM-0040 &

0048), Exh. V- (SB-09-CRM-0041, 0049 & 0069), Exh. C' (Sonia Dacasin was named as the authorizedofficer in the Secretary's Certificate) (SB-09-CRM-0042, 0050 & 0068), Exh. (SB-09-CRM-0044, 0050& 0068), Exh. E- (SB-09-CRM-0059), Exh. Q- (SB-09-CRM-0046 & 0055), Exh. T^ (SB-09-CRM-0046 &0055), Exh. M- (SB-09-CRM-0045 & 0054), Exh. (SB-09-CRM-0058), Exh. C~ (SB-09-CRM-0060),Exh. D- (SB-09-CRM-0061)

f

Resolution

People V. Antonio Belicena, et at.SB-09-CRM-0040-0042, 0045-0046,0048-0050,0054-0055, 0058-006i, 0068-0069

Page 32 of36X X

The prosecution argues that it is of no moment that the InvestigationReport of Justice Virgilio C. Abejo dated 27 January 2004,'®' which wasadopted to form part of the afore-said complaint affidavit, did not mention thename of accused Grace Chingkoe as among the respondents recommended forprosecution. It argues that the SPTF 156 conducted its own investigation priorto the execution of the complaint affidavit.

We are not convinced.

It bears to note that the alleged findings in the complaint affidavit aremere allegations which are not evidence or equivalent to proof. Also, whilethe complaint affidavit was stipulated as to due execution and authenticity, thesame refers only to the conduct of investigation or the fact that an investigationwas conducted and does not amount to admission of the truth of the allegationsstated therein. As such, it is still indispensable for the prosecution to establishthe veracity of its contents. However, the prosecution failed in this respect.

From the foregoing, there being no sufficient proof to establish theaccused Grace Chingkoe's participation in the fraudulent application,approval and issuance of fraudulent TCCs, the Court finds no reason to furtherdiscuss the other elements of violation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019.

B, Estafa through falsificationof public documents

Accused Grace Chingkoe was also charged with five (5) counts ofEstafa through Falsification of Public Document. In Gonzalo v. People^^^ theSupreme Court held that for an accused to be convicted of the complex crimeof estafa through falsification of public document, all the respective elementsof the crimes of estafa and falsification of public document must exist.

Art. 315, par. 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code reads, as follows:

ART. 315. Swindling (estafa). — Any person who shall defraudanother by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by:

XXX XXX XXX

2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulentacts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of thefraud:

107 Exh. B pages 1 to 44.^^^Gomaludov. People,G.KMo. 150910,06 February 2006 (517Phil. 110-122).

f?

Resolution

People V. Antonio Bellcena, et al.SB-09-CRM-0040-0042, 0045-0046, 0048-

0050, 0054-0055, 0058-0061, 0068-0069Page 33 of 36X X

(a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending topossess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency,business or imaginary transactions, or by means of other similardeceits.

XXX

The elements of the said crime are the following:

1. That there must be a false pretense, fraudulent act orfraudulent means;

2. That such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulentmeans must be made or executed prior to orsimultaneously with the commission of the fraud;

3. That the offended party must have relied on the falsepretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means, that is, hewas induced to part with his money or property becauseof the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means;and

4. That as a result thereof, the offended party suffereddamage.

On the other hand, Art. 171 of the Revised Penal Codes provides:

Article 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notaryor ecclesiastic minister. - The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not toexceed P5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer, employee,or notary who, taking advantage of his official position, shall falsify adocument by committing any of the following acts:

1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric;

2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act orproceeding when they did not in fact so participate;

3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act orproceeding statements other than those in fact made by them;

4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts;

5. Altering true dates;

6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine documentwhich changes its meaning;

109 Dela Cruz v. People, G.R. Nos. 236807 & 236810, 12 January 2021.

/

Resolution

People V. Antonio Belicena, etal.SB-09-CRM-0040-0042,0045-0046, 0048-0050, 0054-0055, 0058-0061,0068-0069

Page 34 of 36X X

7. Issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to be acopy of an original document when no such original exists, or including insuch a copy a statement contrary to, or different from, that of the genuineoriginal; or

8. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereofin a protocol, registry, or official book.

XXX

The falsification of public document has the following elements:

1) the offender is a public officer, employee, or notary public;2) the offender takes advantage of his or her official position; and3) the offender falsifies a document by committing any of the acts

enumerated in Article 171 ofthe Revised Penal Code."®

In these cases, estafa through falsification of public document wasallegedly committed by accused public officers in conspiracy with accusedprivate individuals by approving the application for tax credit supported byfalsified documents. Further, accused private individuals, despite knowledgethat the supporting documents contain spurious data or information,transferred the tax credit certificates for valuable consideration to another

corporation.

As discussed earlier, the prosecution failed to adduce sufficientevidence that accused Grace Chingkoe was connected with Express Colourand has committed acts in furtherance of the objective of the conspiracy at thetime material to these cases. There was also no evidence that could establish

accused's participation in the alleged fraudulent application and transfer ofTCCs. From the foregoing, the Court finds no reason to hold accused for trialfor the presentation of defense evidence.

It is settled that in all criminal prosecution, it is the prosecution whobears the burden of proving the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. Indischarging this burden, the prosecution's duty is to prove each and everyelement of the crime charged in the information to warrant a finding of guiltfor that crime or for any other crime necessarily included therein. Theprosecution must further prove the participation of the accused in thecommission of the offense.''' The burden of proof placed on the prosecutionarises from the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused that no lessthan the Constitution has guaranteed.

' People V. Palma Gil-Rojlo, G.R. Nos. 249564 & 249568-76,21 March 2022.Patulav. People, G.R. No. 164457,11 April 2012 (685 Phil. 376-411).

9

I

Resolution

People V. Antonio Belicena, et at.SB-09-CRM-0040-0042, 0045-0046, 0048-

0050,0054-0055,0058-0061, 0068-0069Page 35 of 36

X ——X

In sum, for failure of the prosecution to prove that accused GraceChingkoe conspired with accused public officials in the commission of theoffenses charged, her acquittal for violation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 andEstafa through Falsification of Official/Public Document must follow as amatter of course. Such is not only the right of the accused but is also theconstitutional duty of the Court.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court resolves to:

1. GRANT prosecution's Motion to Expunge accused GraceChingkoe's Reply dated 11 May 2022.

2. GRANT accused Grace Chingkoe's Demurrer to Evidence.Accordingly, Crim. Case Nos. SB-09-CRM-0040-0042, 0045-0046, 0048-0050, 0054-0055, 0058-0061, 0068-0069 filed againstsaid accused are accordingly ordered DISMISSED forinsufficiency of evidence.

The cash bond posted by accused for her provisional liberty duringthe pendency of these cases is ordered CANCELLED and releasedto said accused subject to the usual accounting and auditingprocedures of the Sandiganbayan. The Hold Departure Order issuedagainst said accused in connection with these cases is also herebyRECALLED.

SO ORDERED.

Quezon City, Philippines.

V.^ESFESES

Assocjfate Justice

WE CONCUR:

MA. THERESA DOLOMS C. GOMEZ-ESTOESTA

Ass(Xiate Justice

GEORGINA

Associat

3. HIDALGO

Justice

Resolution

People Antonio Belicena, et al.SB-09-CRM-0040-0042,0045-0046, 0048-

0050, 0054-0055, 0058-0061,0068-0069

Page 36 of 36X X

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in

consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of theCourt's Division.

MA. THERESA DOLORES C. GOMEZ-ESTOESTAChairperson, Seventh Division

CER TIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, and theDivision Chairman's Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions inthe above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assignedto the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

AMPARO AJE-

Presiding Justice