Case Digest in ConstiLaw 2

Luis A. Tabuena, et al. vs. Sandiganbayan (268 SCRA 332, February 17, 1997) FACTS: Then Pres. Ferdinand Marcos instructed Luis Tabuena, General Manager of the Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA), over the phone to pay directly to the presidents office and in cash what the MIAA owes the Phil. National Construction Corp. The verbal instruction was reiterated in a Presidential memorandum. In obedience to Pres. Marcos instruction, Tabuena, with the help of Gerardo Dabao and Adolfo Peralta, the Asst. Gen. Mgr. and the Acting Finance Services Mgr. of MIAA, respectively, caused the release of P55M of MIAA funds of three (3) withdrawals and delivered the money to Mrs. Fe Roa-Gimenez, private secretary of Marcos. Gimenez issued a receipt for all the amounts she received from Tabuena. Later, it turned out that PNCC never received the money. The case involves two (2) separate petitions for review by Luis Tabuena and Adolfo Peralta. They appeal the Sandiganbayan decision convicting them of malversation of MIAA funds in the amount of P55M. Further, petitioners claimed that they were charged with intentional malversation, as alleged in the amended information, but it would appear that they were convicted for malversation with negligence. Hence, their conviction of a crime different from that charged violated their constitutional right to be informed of the accusation. ISSUE: (1) (2) HELD: (1) No. Malversation is committed either intentionally or by negligence. The dolo or the culpa present in the offense is only a modality in the perpetration of the felony. Even if the mode charged differs from the mode proved, the same offense of malversation is involved. Yes. Tabuena acted in strict compliance with the MARCOS Memorandum. The order emanated from the Office of the President and bears the signature of the President himself, the highest official of the land. It carries with it the presumption that it was regularly issued. And on its face, the memorandum is patently lawful for no law makes the payment of an obligation illegal. This fact, coupled with the urgent tenor for its execution constrains one to act swiftly without question. Whether or not the Sandiganbayan convicted them of a crime not charged in the amended information; and Whether or not Tabuena and Peralta acted in good faith.

(2)

However, a more compelling reason for the ACQUITTAL is the violation of the accused's basic constitutional right to due process. Records show that the Sandiganbayan actively took part in the questioning of a defense witness and of the accused themselves. The questions of the court were in the nature of cross examinations characteristic of confrontation, probing and insinuation. Tabuena and Peralta may not have raised the issue as an error, there is nevertheless no impediment for the court to consider such matter as additional basis for a reversal since the settled doctrine is that an appeal throws the whole case open to review, and it becomes the duty of the appellate court to correct such errors as may be found in the judgment appealed from whether they are made the subject of assignments of error or not. The "cold neutrality of an impartial judge " requirement of due process was certainly denied Tabuena and Peralta when the court, with its overzealousness, assumed the dual role of magistrate and advocate. Time and again the Court has declared that due process requires no less than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge. That the judge must not only be impartial but must also appear to be impartial, to give added assurance to the parties that his decision will be just. The parties are entitled to no less than this, as a minimum guaranty of due process. HENCE, Luis Tabuena and Adolfo Peralta are acquitted of the crime of malversation.

/digested by ETLopez