Tabuena vs. Sandigan Bayan

Tabuena v
Sandiganbayan G.R. Nos.

103501-03 February 17,
1997
I. TICKLER: MARCOS Memorandum, MIAA funds II.

DOCTRINE
Good faith in the payment of public funds relieves a public officer from the crime
of malversation.
Not every unauthorized payment of public funds is malversation. There is

malversation only if the public officer who has custody of public funds should
appropriate the same, or shall take or misappropriate or shall consent, or through
abandonment or negligence shall permit any other person to take such public
funds. Where the payment of public funds has been made in good faith, and
there is reasonable ground to believe that the public officer to whom the fund had
been paid was entitled thereto, he is deemed to have acted in good faith, there is
no criminal intent, and the payment, if it turns out that it is unauthorized, renders
him only civilly but not criminally liable.
III. FACTS
Then President Marcos instructed Tabuena over the phone to pay directly to the
president's office and in cash what the MIAA owes the Philippine National Construction
Corporation (PNCC), to which Tabuena agreed.
 About a week later, Tabuena received from Mrs. Fe Roa-Gimenez, then
private secretary of Marcos, a Presidential Memorandum dated January 8,
1986 (hereinafter referred to as MARCOS Memorandum) reiterating in
black and white such verbal instruction.
 In obedience to President Marcos' verbal instruction and memorandum,
Tabuena, with the help of Dabao and Peralta, caused the release of P55 Million
of MIAA funds by means of three (3) withdrawals. The check was encashed and
delivered on the same day to the office of Mrs. Gimenez located at Aguado
Street fronting Malacanang. Mrs. Gimenez did not issue any receipt for the
money received.
 Similar circumstances surrounded the second withdrawal and third and last
withdrawal was made on January 31, 1986 for P5 Million.
 It was only upon delivery of the P5 Million that Mrs. Gimenez issued a receipt for
all the amounts she received from Tabuena. The receipt, dated January 30,
1986.
 Tabuena claimed that he acted in accordance with the President’s instruction,
thus, acting in good faith.
 Sandiganbayan rejected Tabuena’s claim of good faith and found him guilty of
malversation by negligence.
IV. ISSUE
1. Whether or not the doctrine of mistake of fact can be use as
ground to acquit petitioners - NO
2. Whether or not petitioners are guilty of the crime of
malversation. - YES
V. RULING
1. NO.
For the same reason, the majority cannot rely on the doctrine of mistake of fact as
ground to acquit petitioners.
It found as a fact that ". . . Tabuena acted under the honest belief that the P55 million
was a due and demandable debt. . . ." This Court has never applied the doctrine of
mistake of fact when negligence can be imputed to the accused.
In the old, familiar case of People vs. Ah Chong, explained that ignorance or mistake of
fact, if such ignorance or mistake of fact is sufficient to negative a particular intent
which under the law is a necessary ingredient of the offense charge, cancels the
presumption of intent and works an acquittal, except in those cases where the
circumstances demand conviction under the penal provisions touching criminal
negligence.
Hence, Ah Chong was acquitted when he mistook his houseboy as a robber and the
evidence showed that his mistake of fact was not due to negligence.
In the case at bar, the negligence of the petitioners screams from page to page of the
records of the case. Petitioners themselves admitted that the payments they made were
"out of the ordinary" and "not based on normal procedure."
2. Petitioners were found guilty of malversation by negligence, which is possible even if the
charge was for intentional malversation. This does not negate, however, their criminal
liability; it merely declares that negligence takes the place of malice.
According to Article 3 of the Revised Penal Code, there is fault when the wrongful act results
from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill. Justice J.B.L. Reyes explains the
difference between a felony committed by deceit and that committed by fault in this wise: ". . .
In intentional crimes, the act itself is punished; in negligence or imprudence, what is principally
penalized is the mental attitude or condition behind the act, the dangerous recklessness, lack of
care or foresight, the imprudencia punible."1
It is immaterial if petitioners actually converted or misappropriated MIAA's funds for their own
benefit, for by their very negligence, they allowed another person to appropriate the same.

Tabuena vs. Sandigan Bayan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tabuena vs. Sandigan Bayan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tabuena vs. Sandigan Bayan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tabuena v

Sandiganbayan G.R. Nos.

I. TICKLER: MARCOS Memorandum, MIAA funds II.

Not every unauthorized payment of public funds is malversation. There is

You might also like