View full case

VAN D. LUSPO v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

In the case, C/Insp. Salvador C. Duran, Sr., Supt. Arturo H. Montano, and Margarita B. Tugaoen filed motions for reconsideration to reverse their conviction in Sandiganbayan Criminal Case No. 20192. The case involves the issuance of two Advices of Sub-Allotment (ASA) by the Office of the Directorate for Comptrollership (ODC) of the Philippine National Police (PNP). P/Supt. Montano instructed P/Insp. Duran to prepare 100 checks totaling P10 million, payable to entities owned by Tugaoen, supposedly for the purchase of combat, clothing, and individual equipment (CCIE) items. However, Tugaoen admitted that the checks were payment for previous PNP debts and not for the CCIE items which were never delivered. An investigation was conducted and an Information for violation of Republic Act No. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, was filed against the accused. The accused filed a demurrer to evidence which was denied, and they were eventually convicted and their conviction affirmed on appeal. They then filed motions for reconsideration arguing that their guilt was not established beyond reasonable doubt and that the admissibility of the evidence should be reviewed. The court denied the motions.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether affixing the signature on the checks is a ministerial duty.

  2. Whether the failure to review and require submission of supporting documents constitutes bad faith.

  3. Whether Tugaoen's statement before the investigating committee violates her right under Section 12, Article III of the 1987 Constitution.

  4. Whether the investigation conducted by the PNP GHQ-OIG is a custodial investigation that would trigger the rights of the accused and the exclusionary rule under paragraph 3, Section 12, Article III of the 1987 Constitution.

  5. Whether the failure to inform the individual being investigated of their custodial investigation rights can negate the character of an investigation as legally a custodial investigation.

RULING:

  1. Affixing the signature on the checks is not a ministerial duty. The duty to manage and disburse and account for PNP funds, which includes reviewing and scrutinizing supporting documents, gives the accused discretion to ensure proper disbursement of public funds. Therefore, the accused's claim of ministerial duty is unfounded. The conviction of the accused must stand.

  2. The accused's failure to require the submission of supporting documents for review is evidence of bad faith. While the preparation and submission of these documents are not part of the accused's duties, his failure to exercise due diligence in reviewing them establishes his bad faith in the preparation and issuance of the checks, causing undue injury to the government.

  3. Tugaoen's statement before the investigating committee is admissible in evidence. The rule on custodial investigation applies when the questioning is initiated by law enforcement authorities after a person is taken into custody or deprived of his freedom of action. Tugaoen's statement falls under this rule, thus making it admissible as evidence.

  4. The Sandiganbayan ruled that the investigation conducted by the PNP GHQ-OIG is not a custodial investigation. The reminder of the investigator to the accused of her Miranda rights cannot determine the nature of the investigation. The nature of the proceeding must be judged on a case-to-case basis by considering the circumstances surrounding it as a whole.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Affixing the signature on checks is not a ministerial duty when it comes to the disbursement and accounting of public funds.

  • An accountable officer has the duty to review and scrutinize supporting documents before facilitating the payment of public funds.

  • Failure to require submission of supporting documents for review can be considered evidence of bad faith.

  • The rule on custodial investigation applies when questioning is conducted after a person is taken into custody or deprived of their freedom of action.

  • The nature of an investigation as custodial or non-custodial must be determined by appreciating the circumstances surrounding it as a whole.

  • The failure or disregard of law enforcers to inform an individual being investigated of their custodial investigation rights does not automatically negate the character of an investigation as legally custodial.

  • The prosecution has the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and such burden can be sufficiently discharged based on a confluence of evidence showing guilt.