REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES - Sandiganbayansb.judiciary.gov.ph/DECISIONS/2018/B_Crim_SB-15-CRM-0109, 0111-0112... · Na noong taong 2005 nagpmta sa aming barangay sa Pakaskasan si

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SANDIGANBAYAN

Quezon City

Seventh Division

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Plaintiff,

Grim. Case No. SB-15-CRM-0109

-versus-

GODOFREDO R. SADIUA AND

MARCO RICHMOND C.

LEYCO,Accused.

X X


Grim. Case No. SB-15-CRM-0111

-versus-

GODOFREDO R. SADIUA,MARCO RICHMOND C.

LEYCO, AND ALBERTO D.

ROQUE,Accused.


-versus-

GODOFREDO R. SADIUA AND

MARCO RICHMOND C.

LEYCO,Accused.

X

Crim. Case No. SB-15-CRM-0112

Present:

Gomez-Estoesta, J., ChairpersonTrespeses, J. andJacinto, J.

Promulgated:Tomi

I MIS

X

//•r

People V. Godofredo R. Sadiua, et al. 2 | P a g eCase Nos. SB-15-CRM-0109, 0111 & 0112DECISION

DECISION

GOMEZ'ESTOESTA, J.:

Accused Marco Richmond C. Leyco has been impleaded in seven (7)cases filed and jointly tried before this court' concerning various "ghostprojects" in Torrijos, Marinduque, which gave rise to charges of Violation ofSection 3(e) of R.A. 3019 (Crim. Case Nos. SB-15-CRM-0109 and 0110) andFalsification of Public/Official Documents (Crim. Case Nos. SB-15-CRM-0111 to 0115). Meantime, Crim. Case Nos. SB-15-CRM-0110, 0113, 0114and 0115 have since been provisionally dismissed by Order dated November29,2017.^ Accused Leyco intended to file Demurrer to Evidence after havingbeen granted leave in Crim. Case Nos. SB-15-0109,0111 and 0112 but failedto do so. Hence, he was tasked to present defense evidence on his part.Înstead, during the hearing on November 29, 2017, accused Leyco moved tohave these cases submitted for judgment on the lone basis of Prosecutionevidence.

Therefore, this resolves Crim. Case Nos. SB-15-CRM-0109, SB-15-CRM-0111, and SB-15-CRM-0112, concerning the Project in BarangayPakaskasan, Torrijos, Marinduque, wherein accused Leyco stands chargedunder the following Informations:

SB-15-CRM-0109

That in March 2005, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, inBoac, Marinduque, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of thisHonorable Coiut, the above-named accused, GODOFREDO R. SADIUAand MARCO RICHMOND C. LEYCO, both public officers, being thenthe Provincial Engineer and Construction and Maintenance GeneralForeman/Project Engineer, respectively, of the Provincial Government ofMarinduque, conniving, conspiring, and/or confederating with each other,committing the offense while in the performance of their official functionsthough in abuse thereof, taking advantage of the public office, acting withevident bad faith and/or gross inexcusable negligence, did then and therewillfully, unlawfully and criminally fail to carry out/implement the projectrelative to the improvement of Pakaskasan Road in Barangay Pakaskasan,Torrijos, Marinduque, despite receiving from the Provincial Government ofMarinduque, the construction materials worth Fifty-Nine Thousand SevenHundred Forty-Five Pesos and 25/100 (PhP59,745,25), and the amount ofTwenty-Three Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Pesos (PhP23,880.00), aspayment for the salaries/wages of laborers for the period 16 March to 12April 2005, thereby causing undue injury to the Provincial Government ofMarinduque, in the total amount of Eighty-Three Thousand Six HundredTwenty-Five Pesos and 25/100 (PhP83,625.25).

CONTRARY TO LAW.^

^ Initially raffled to the Fifth Division of this Court2 Records, Vol. 2, pp. 447-448' Order dated September 14, 2017, Id., pp. 354-356* Records, Vol. 1, pp. 1-3

People V. Godofredo R. Sadlua, et al. 3 I P a g eCase Nos. SB-15-CRM-0109, 0111 & 0112DECISION

SB-15-CRM-0111

That in March 2005, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, inBoac, Marinduque, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of thisHonorable Court, the above-named accused, GODOFREDO R. SADIUA,MARCO RICHMOND C. LEYCO, and ALBERTO D. ROQUE, allpublic officers, being then the Provincial Engineer, Construction andMaintenance General Foreman / Project Engineer, and DisbursingOfficer/Cashier II, respectively, of the Provincial Government ofMarinduque, committing the offense in relation to office, taking advantageof their respective official positions, conniving, conspiring and/orconfederating with one another, did then and there, willfully, unlawfullyand feloniously falsify the Daily Wage Payroll for the period 16 March to12 April 2005, concerning the Improvement of Pakaskasan Road inBarangay Pakaskasan, Torrijos, Marinduque, by making or causing toappear in the said document, that the persons whose names appear and/orlisted therein had rendered services and received wages for the time stated,when in truth and in fact said persons did not, to the damage and prejudiceof the Provincial Government of Marinduque, and/or public interest.

CONTRARY TO LAW.^

SB-15-CRM-0112

That in April 2005, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, inBoac, Marinduque, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of thisHonorable Court, the above-named accused, GODOFREDO R. SADIUAand MARCO RICHMOND C. LEYCO, both public officers, being thenthe Provincial Engineer, and Construction and Maintenance GeneralForeman/Project Engineer, respectively, of the Provincial Government ofMarinduque, committing the offense in relation to office, taking advantageof their respective official positions, conniving, conspiring, and/orconfederating with each other, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, andfeloniously falsify an Accomplishment Report, concerning theImprovement of Pakaskasan Road Project in Barangay Pakaskasan,Torrijos, Marinduque, by making or causing [it] to appear in the saiddocument, that the project was One Hundred Percent (100%) completed bythe Office of the Provincial Engineer as of 12 April 2005, when in truth andin fact, the said project was not completed on the indicated date, as accuseddid not carry out or implement the same, thereby making unniithfulstatements in a narration of facts, to the damage and prejudice of theProvincial Government of Marinduque, and/or public interest.

CONTRARY TO LAW.«

A warrant of arrest was issued against accused Leyco and his co-accused Godofredo R. Sadiua and Alberto D. Roque on May 20, 2015,^followed by Hold Departure Orders on May 21,2015 Upon motion, accused

i® Folder attached to Records, Vol. 1 ^ ^® Folder attached to Records, Vol. 1' Records, Vol. 1, p. 319

pp. 322, 325,326

People V. Godofreclo R. Sadlua, et al. 4 | P a g eCase Nos. SB-15-CRM-0109, 0111 & 0112DECISION

Leyco was allowed to post a consolidated surety bond for Crim. Case Nos.SB-15-CRM-0109to0115.9

1. That all the accused are the same persons who were arraigned, and thatwhenever mentioned, the accused are those same persons;

2. That all times material and relevant to these cases: GODOFREDO R.

SADIUA was the Provincial Engineer; b. MARCO RICHMOND C.LEYCO was the Construction and Maintenance General

Foreman/Project Engineer of Marinduque; c. ALBERTO D. ROQUEwas a Cashier II/Disbursing Officer (concerning Pakaskasan Road); d.JOEL LAB AY Y FERNANDEZ was the Disbursing Officer (concerningthe Payanas Road); [and] e. VERONICA MARCIANO YDEVEZA wasa Disbursing Officer/Admin Officer III (concerning Kay Duke Road)J^(emphasis supplied)

The following issues were defined for these cases:

Whether or not the accused GODOFREDO R. SADIUA and

MARCO RICHMOND C. LEYCO are liable for Violation of Sec. 3(e) ofRA 3019 for failing to implement the project relative to the improvement ofPakaskasan Road;

Whether or not accused GODOFREDO R. SADIUA, MARCORICHMOND C. LEYCO and ROQUE falsified the Daily Wage Pajroll forthe period 16 March to 12 April 2005 for the project concerning theimprovement of Pakaskasan Road;

Whether or not accused GODOFREDO R. SADIUA and MARCO

RICHMOND C. LEYCO falsified the Accomplishment Report concerningthe improvement of Pakaskasan Road.

Meanwhile, the consolidated cases were re-raffled to this division.

Trial ensued.

EVTOENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION

The prosecution presented its lone witness, Francisco Pergis["Pergis"], Barangay Chairman of Pakaskasan, Torrijos, Marinduque from

® Order dated June 19, 2015, Id., p. 379; Leyco's Surety Bond - Id., pp. 380-429" Records, Vol. 2, pp. 23, 26" Pre-Trial Order dated April 20,2016, Id., p. 129"/cf., pp. 130-131^ Per Notice of Raffle dated March 18, 2016, pursuant to R.A. 10660, Id., p. 100

r

/• 1

People V. Godofredo R. Sadlua, et al. 5 | P a g eCase Nos. SB-15-CRM-0109, 0111 & 0112DECISION

2002 to 2009,^"* who testified on his Sinumpaang Salaysay dated February 2,2006,^^ as follows:

1. Na noong taong 2005 nagpmta sa aming barangay sa Pakaskasan siMr. MARCO RICHMOND LEYCO, Maintenance General Foreman ngTanggapan ng Panlalawigang Inhenyero at nakatalaga sa mgaproyekto sa bayan ng Torrijos, upang alamin ang problema atkalagayan ng aming kalsada alinsunod sa atas ni GobernorCARMENCITA O. REYES;

2. Na sa kanyang pagdalaw sa aming barangay ay iminmgkahi niya saakin na magsumite ako ng resolusyon ng Sangguniang Barangay nahinihiling sa Tanggapan ng Gobernador na mabigyan ng pondo parasa pagpapagawa ng Pakaskasan Lined Canal at installation ng PipeCulvert para maiwasan ang pagkasira ng aming kalsada sa panahon ngtag-ulan;

3. Na sa bisa ng naturang resolusyon ay pinagtibay ni Gobernor Reyesang aming kahilingan at nilagdaan niya ang Program of Works para saLined Canal na may laang gugulin na P95,000.00 samantalang anginstallation ng pipe culvert ay binigyan naman ngPSl,000.00;

4. Na sa aking kasiyahan hinggil sa pabor na ibinigay ng Gobernador aymalimit kong ungkatin sa Provincial Engineering Office ang mabisangpagsasagawa ng proyekto at sa pakikipag-ugnayan ko kay Mr. Leycoay nabatid ko na malapit n[an]g i-deliver ang mga materyales ngproyekto;

5. Na sa pagdalaw kong muli sa kanyang tanggapan upang ungkatin angkanyang pangdko ay tiniyak niya sa akin na maisasagawa na angproyekto at upang mapabilis ito ay pinilit niya akong lagdaan ang isangdokumento upang di-umano ay mabilis na umusad ang mga papeles atkaagad na mai-deliver ng supplier ang mga materyales na gagamitin;

6. Na nagulat ako sa aking natuldasan nang ako ay dumalo sa projectvalidation na isinagawa ng Sangguniang Panlalawigan na angproyekto sa aming barangay ay matagal njanjg naiulat na natapos atang perang nakalaan para dito patungkol sa sahod ng manggagawa,mga kinakailangang materyales at iba pang kaugnay na kagastusan aynaipalabas na at nabayaran na ng pamahalaang panlalawigan sasupplier na Boac Plaza Aurora samantalang ang mga manggagawanaman na pinasahod ay mga resident di-umano ng Barangay Laylay,Boac, Marinduque;

7. Na tuwiran kong inihahayag at pinaninindigan na pawangkasinungalingan, panlilinlang, labag sa batas at walang batayan angulat na isinumite ng Mr. Leyco at wala ring dahilan upang angpamahalaan ay magbayad para sa mga materyales ng proyekto osuweldo ng manggagawa sapagkat hindi pa nasisimulan hanggang sangayon ang naturang proyekto na Pakaskasan Lined Canal atInstallation of Pipe Culvert dahil wala pang delivery ng kahit isangpiraso ng materyales na pinanalunan ng Boac Plaza Aurora GeneralMerchandise sa bidding na isinagawa ng pamahalaang panlalawigan;XXX

f%

"TSN dated March 29, 2017, p. 15 ^" Exhibit "D",/d., pp. 16-17

People V. Godofredo R. Sadlua, et al.Case Nos. SB-15-CRM-0109, 0111 & 0112DECISION

6 I P a g e

Pergis explained that based on accused Leyco's representations, theLupong Barangay passed a Resolution to commence the construction of thelined canal and pipe culverts in' Brgy. Pakaskasan, and expected that fundswould be released for such project in due time. However, even after repeatedfollow-ups, no money was given, no workers were seen, and no deliverieswere made. It thus came as a surprise that the funds for the project havereportedly been exhausted, in part to pay the workers, when the project wasnever accomplished or even commenced. Pergis acknowledged having signeda Certificate of Acceptance dated April 12, 2005 stating diat the articlesindicated therein have been delivered, but clarified that he signed it only basedon Leyco's assurance that his signature was necessary to expedite the deliveryof materials. He took accused Leyco's word for it.'^

On cross-examination, Pergis related that the Blue Ribbon Committeeof Boac asked him to execute the Sinumpaang Salaysay, and also suppliedhim some information therefor. He understood Tagalog but found it difficultto understand English. He has signed Certificates of Acceptance before, butdid not understand them imtil now.^^

Despite several opportunities given the Prosecution, no other witnesscame to Court.

The Prosecution then proceeded to formally offer the followingevidence, which this Court ruled on, as follows

Exhibit Document Ruling

® Pe^s. dated Ajîtte^

"G" Certificate of Acceptance dated April 12, 2005signed by Francisco Pergis

Excluded, for lack ofproper authentication

"0-2" Accomplishment Report dated April 12,2005 Excluded, for lack ofproper authentication

«p> Daily Wage Payroll for the period March 15 to April15,2005

Excluded, for lack ofproper authentication

On motion of accused Leyco and Roque, leave was granted to them tofile their respective Demurrers to Evidence.^^ However, only accused Roquefiled a Demurrer to Evidence; thus, accused Leyco was directed to presentevidence in his defense. During the hearing set for the presentation of accusedLeyco's evidence, he moved, through counsel,^^ to have these cases submitted

pp. 18-24

" TSN dated August 22, 2017, p. 15^®TSN dated March 30, 2017, pp. 12-13"/d.,p. 16Order dated September 14,2017, Records, Vol. 2, pp. 354-356

21Ibid

f

/•r

22

.

Special appearance of Atty. Raul M. Labay as counsel for accused Leyco


for judgment on the basis of the Prosecution's evidence, and to be allowed tofile a Memorandum in support of his defense.^^

During the same hearing, accused Leyco also moved for the provisionaldismissal of Crim. Case Nos. SB-15-CRM-0110,0113,0114, and 0115 on theground that private complainants Sabino F. Rocha and Eleuterio R. Razafailed to appear to pursue the charges, which was Ranted by this Court.Accused Leyco conformed to the provisional dismissal of these cases againsthim.^"^

THE COURTIS RULING

In these cases, accused Leyco is indicted for one (1) count of Violationof Sec. 3(e) of R.A. 3019 and two (2) counts of Falsification of PublicDocuments, i.e., the Accomplishment Report dated April 12, 2005 and theDaily Wage Payroll for March 15 to April 12,2005.

In brief, all three charges are hinged on the non-completion of thePakaskasan Road, which, in turn, the Prosecution sought to establish solelyon the basis of the Sinumpaang Salaysay and testimony of Francisco Pergis,the Barangay Chairman of Pakaskasan, Torrijos, Marinduque.

The unsubstantiated testimony of theProsecution's lone witness, FranciscoPergis, is dismally insufficient to convictaccused Leyco of any of the charges.

Records bear out that while the Prosecution offered four (4) documents,namely, Francisco Pergis' Sinumpaang Salaysay Certificate of Acceptancedated April 12, 2005, Accomplishment Report dated April 12, 2005, andAccomplishment Report dated April 12, 2005, only Francisco Pergis'Sinumpaang Salaysay was admitted.

Admissibility refers to the question of whether certain pieces ofevidence are to be considered at all, while probative value refers to thequestion of whether the admitted evidence proves an issue.^^ The Certificateof Acceptance dated April 12,2005, Accomplishment Report dated April 12,2005, and Daily Wage Payroll for the period March 15 to April 15,2005 wereexcluded by this Court when offered, and are thus not entitled to anyconsideration in the disposition of these cases. Having failed the fundamentaltest of admissibility, these documents' probative value does not even comeinto play,

f y- i^ Order dated November 29,2017, Records, Vol. 2, pp. 447-448; Leyco's Memorandum - Id., pp. 455-466;Prosecution's Memorandum - Id., pp. 467-472" Order dated November 29, 2017, Records, Vol. 2, pp. 447-44825 Exhibit "D"

^^Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co. v. Dumapis, etal., G.R. No. 163210, August 13,2008

People V. Godofredo R. Sadlua, et al. ' 8 | P a g eCase Nos. SB-15-CRM-0109, 0111 & 0112DECISION

This Court is left to assess the probative value of the SinumpaangSalaysay and testimony of Barangay Chairman Francisco Pergis, wherein hestated:

(a) Accused Leyco encouraged him to come up with a SangguniangBarangay Resolution asking the Office of the Governor for fundsto construct a lined canal and pipe culvert in Brgy. Pakaskasan;^^

(b) On the strength of such Resolution, a Program of Works wasissued by the Office of the Governor for the project with a budgetof P95,000.00 for the lined canal and P81,000.00 for the pipeculvert;^®

(c) Accused Leyco made him sign a Certificate of Acceptance toexpedite the project;^^

(d) He was surprised to find out that the project has been reportedcompleted, and the funds therefor disbursed, both for materials andlabor, when the project was not even commenced, as the materialshave not been delivered, and nobody worked on the project.^®

The progress of a construction project is substantiable by documents.This is especially true, if not crucial, for government projects.Uncorroborated, Pergis' Sinumpaang Salaysay and testimony are no betterthan bare allegations. It is basic in the rule of evidence that bare allegations,unsubstantiated by evidence, are not equivalent to proof. In short, mereallegations are not evidence.^ ̂ Allegations, without proof, deserve scantconsideration.^^ An accusation is not, according to the fundamental law,sjmonymous with guilt; the prosecution must overthrow the presumption ofinnocence with proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.^^

Violation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. 3019 notproven

The elements of the crime of Violation of Section 3 (e), RA 3019 areas follows:

1) the offender must be a public officer discharging administrative,judicial, or official functions;

2) he must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith orgross inexcusable negligence; and

//■ f" Sinumpaang Salaysay, pars. 1-22® Id., par. 3

Sinumpaang Salaysay, par. 5; TSN dated March 29,2017 (a.m.), p. 20^ Sinumpaang Salaysay, pars. 6-7; TSN dated March 29,2017 (a.m.), pp. 19-20

Real V. Belo, G.R. NO. 146224, January 26,2007Republic V. Marcos, et al., G.R. Nos. 130371 &130855, August 4,2009

33 People V. DIsmuke, G.R. No. 108453, July 11,1994


3) his action caused any undue injury to any party, including thegovernment, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage orpreference in the discharge of his fimctions.^'*

That accused Leyco was a public officer holding the position ofConstruction and Maintenance General Foreman/Project Engineer ofMarinduque at the time material to this case is subject of stipulation.^^ Thesecond and third elements have not been proven.

Accused Leyco was charged with having acted with evident bad faithand/or gross inexcusable negligence, in failing to carry out/implement theproject relative to the improvement of Pakaskasan Road despite receivingfrom the Provincial Government of Marinduque the construction materialsand the payment for the salaries/wages of laborers for the period March toApril, thereby causing undue injury to the Provincial Government ofMarinduque, in the total amount of ¥83,625,25.

Pergis' lone testimony was plainly inadequate to discharge the heftyburden of proving that accused Leyco indeed failed to carry out the Project inBrgy. Pakaskasan despite having received funds therefor, let alone in themanner proscribed by Sec. 3(e) of R.A. 3019. Pergis' bare allegation that theproject never materialized is not proof of the same. The Prosecution presentedno photographs, certifications or ocular inspection reports, which could haveeasily and persuasively bolstered Pergis' testimony.

Similarly, not one Disbursement Voucher was presented to prove thatfunds were actually disbursed in favor of accused Leyco for the Project inBrgy. Pakaskasan.

There being no proof that the Project in Brgy. Pakaskasan was nevercompleted despite funds having been disbursed therefor, and accused Leyco'sprecise participation therein, this Court has nothing to dig deeper into for theadditional standard of manifest partiality, evident bad faith or grossinexcusable negligence before liability can be had under Sec. 3(e) of R.A.3019.2^

The same is true with regard to the element of undue injury to thegovernment, in view of the Prosecution's failure to prove the disbursement offunds for the Project in Brgy. Pakaskasan.

Falsification of Public Documents notproven

Accused Leyco has been charged with two (2) counts of Falsificationof Public Documents penalized under Art. 171 of the Revised Penal Code.Generally, the elements of this crime are: •

— f /■ r^ Garcia v. Ombudsman, et a!., G.R. No. 197567, November 19, 2014

Pre-Tria! Order, Records, Vol. 2, p. 129Cf. Constantino v. Sandiganbayan, etai, G.R. Nos. 140656 & 154482, September 13, 2007

People V. Godofredo R. Sadiua, et al. 10 | P a g eCase Nos. SB-15-CRM-0109, 0111 & 0112DECISION

1) the offender is a public officer, employee, or notary public;

2) he takes advantage of his official position; and

3) that he falsifies a document by committing any of the ways it is37done.

For SB-15-CRM Oil 1, accused Leyco is accused of violating Art. 171,par. 2, i.e,, making or causing to appear in the Daily Wage Payroll for March15 to April 12, 2005 that persons whose names were listed therein hadrendered services and received wages, when in fact they did not. For SB-15-CRM-0112, he is charged under Art. 171, par. 4, i.e., making untruthfulstatements in the Accomplishment Report dated April 12,2005, that as of saiddate, the Project in Brgy. Pakaskasan was 100% completed, when it wasactually never carried out.

As above stated and as stipulated, accused Leyco was a public officer.As with the indictment for Violation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. 3019, Ae second andthird elements of Falsification of Public Documents were not proven.

Alleged to have been falsified are the Daily Wage Payroll for March 15to April 12, 2005 and Accomplishment Report dated April 12, 2005, both ofwhich were excluded by this Court when formally offered by theProsecution.^^ While the rule is that public documents, such as the DailyWage Payroll and Accomplishment Report are admissible in evidence evenwithout further proof of their due execution and genuineness,^^ thesedocuments were offered not as authentic but falsified public documents.

It has been held that what is punished in falsification of publicdocuments is principally the undermining of the public faith and thedestruction of truth as solenmly proclaimed therein."*® Rationally, the basisfor dispensing with the authentication .of public documents does not hold truefor public documents assailed as falsified.

In his testimony, Pergis merely stated that nobody worked on theProject in Brgy. Pakaskasan, and that it was never completed. However, henever identified the Daily Wage Payroll or the Accomplishment Report.During his testimony, Pergis never perused these documents to categoricallydeclare them as the same falsified document subject of these cases, or relatehow they executed, and why the entries therein were false.

The Daily Wage Payroll and Accomplishment Report having beenexcluded, they were not subject to this Court's consideration. The early caseof U.S. V. Gregorioi*^ is still apt:

In criminal proceedings for the falsification of a document, it isindispensable that the judges and courts have before them thedocument alleged to have been simulated, counterfeited, or falsified, in

/" Guillergan v. People, G.R. No. 185493, February 2, 2011 g *^ Order dated September 14, 2017, Records, Vol. 2, pp. 354-356 ^ ̂ ^

Solas V. Sta. Mesa Market Corp., et al., G.R. No. 157766, July 12, 2007 / QGama, et al. v. CA, et al., G.R. No. 168437, January 8, 2009

G.R. No. L-5791, December 17,1910

People V. Godofredo R. Sadlua, et al. 11 1 P a g eCase Nos. SB-15-CRM-0109, 0111 & 0112DECISION

order that they may find, pursuant to the evidence produced in thecause, whether or not the crime of falsification was committed, andalso, at the same time, to enable them to determine the degree of eachdefendant's liability in the falsification under prosecution. Through thelack of the original document containing the memorandum alleged to befalse, it is improper to hold, with only a copy of the said original in view,that the crime prosecuted was committed; and although, judging from thetestimony of the witnesses who were examined in the two consolidatedcauses, there is reason to entertain much doubt as to the defendants*innocence, yet, withal, this case does not furnish decisive and conclusiveproof of their respective guilt as co-principals of the crime charged.Defendants in a criminal cause are always presumed to be innocent untiltheir guilt be fully proven, and, in case of reasonable doubt and when theirguilt is not satisfactorily shown, they are entitled to a judgment of acquittal.In view of the evidence produced in both of the aforesaid criminal causes,said causes can only be terminated by such a finding, (emphasis supplied)

Moreover, the Daily Wage Payroll and Accomplishment Report are amere photocopies.'*^ Under the best evidence rule, when the subject of inquiryis the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than theoriginal document itself.'*^ The original falsified document is the bestevidence of its contents.'*'* Since the contents of the Daily Wage Payroll andAccomplishment Report are determinative of accused Leyco's criminalliability, these cases clearly fail without the original of these documents, orproperly introduced secondary evidence thereof, having been presented to thisCourt.

The Prosecution dismally failed to discharge the burden of proving thatthe Daily Wage Payroll and Accomplishment Report were falsified. No proofwas presented that the accused caused it to appear that the workers listed inthe Daily Wage Payroll never rendered services nor received wages. Not oneof the persons listed in the Daily Wage Payroll testified for the Prosecution tobelie it. And as discussed above, not a single document was presented toprove that the Project in Brgy. Pakaskasan was not completed 100%, asalleged in the Accomplishment Report.

The second element need not detain this Court for long. Since the actsattributed to accused Leyco and his precise participation in such acts have notbeen conclusively established by the Prosecution, this Court has nothing toconsider vis-a-vis accused Leyco's exercise of his functions, and We certainlyhave no basis to rule whether he took advantage of his official position.

After an assessment of the Prosecution's case, accused Leyco hadreason to no longer present evidence in his defense. In Macayan v. People,the Supreme Court articulated;

).

Order dated September 14,2017, Records, Vol. 2, pp. 354-356Section 3, Rule 130, Rules of Evidence

^ Fullero v. People, G.R. No. 170583, September 12,2007G.R. No. 175842, March 18, 2015


Rule 133, Section 2 of the Revised Rules on Evidence specifies therequisite quantum of evidence in criminal cases:

Section 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. — In a criminal case,the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyondreasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such adegree of proof, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainly.Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which producesconviction in an unprejudiced mind.

This rule places upon the prosecution the task of establishing theguilt of an accused, relying on the strength of its own evidence, and notbanking on the weakness of the defense of an accused. Requiring proofbeyond reasonable doubt finds basis not only in the due process clause ofthe Constitution, but similarly, in the right of an accused to be "presumedinnocent until the contrary is proved." "Undoubtedly, it is the constitutionalpresumption of innocence that lays such burden upon the prosecution."Should the prosecution fail to discharge its burden, it follows, as amatter of course, that an accused must be acquitted. As explained inBasilio v. People of the Philippines'^^

We ruled in People v. Ganguso:

An accused has in his favor the presumption of innocencewhich the Bill of Rights guarantees. Unless his guilt is shownbeyond reasonable doubt, he must be acquitted. This reasonabledoubt standard is demanded by the due process clause of theConstitution which protects the accused from conviction exceptupon proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary toconstitute the crime with which he is charged. The burden of proofis on the prosecution, and unless it dischaiges that burden theaccused need not even offer evidence in his behalf, and he wouldbe entitled to an acquittal. Proof beyond reasonable doubt doesnot, of course, mean such degree of proof as, excluding thepossibility of error, produce absolute certainty. Moral certainty onlyis required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in anunprejudiced mind. The conscience must be satisfied that theaccused is responsible for the offense charged.

Well-entrenched in jurisprudence is the rule that theconviction of the accused must rest, not on the weakness of thedefense, hut on the strength of the prosecution. The burden is on theprosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, not on the accused toprove his innocence, (emphases supplied)

Even if We take Pergis' testimony for what it's worth, and surmise thatsomething might be amiss in the Project in Barangay Pakaskasan, and that itwas attributable to the accused public officials, this will never be enough toconvict. As the Supreme Court instructs:

"Time and again, this Court has emphasized the need to stamp outgraft and corruption in the government. Indeed, the tentacles of greed mustbe cut and the offenders punished. However, this objective can beaccomplished only if the evidence presented by the prosecution passes thetest of moral certainty. Where doubt lingers, as in this case, the Court is

591 Phil. 508

f

/


mandated to uphold the presumption of innocence guaranteed by ourConstitution to the accused."^^

WHEREFORE, for failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt ofaccused MARCO RICHMOND C. LEYCO beyond reasonable doubt, he isACQUITTED in Crim. Case Nos. SB-15-CRM-0109, SB-15-CRM-0111, andSB-15-CRM-0112

The Hold Departure Orders issued by this Court against accused Leycoon May 21, 2015 for these cases are set aside and the Order issued by theBureau of Immigration incorporating accused Leyco's name in the HoldDeparture List is ordered recalled and cancelled.

SO ORDERED.

MA. THERESA DOl^RES C. GOMEZ-ESTOESTAAssociate Justice, Chairperson

WE CONCUR:

- A

V. pfiESPESES BAYANI JACINTO^wsocifne Justice Associate Justice

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 DO^^S C. GOMEZ-ESTOESTAChairperson, Seventh Division

Bahilidad v. People, G.R. No. 185195, March 17, 2010.* Per A.O. No. 284-2017 dated August 18, 2017

People V. Godofredo R. Sadlua, et al.Case Nos. SB-15-CRM-0109, 0111 & 0112DECISION

14 I P a g e

CERTIFICATION

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 M^5:Ô^JE-TiPresiding Jtîce

fy