CERTIFIED TRUE COPY:

GAN
XA

ESTELA TERESITA C. ROSETE Executive Clerk of Court III

First Division (43.21-12
MANUALAN
ING

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SANDIGANBAYAN
Quezon City
First Division

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff,

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 25414 - versus -
For: VIOLATION OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3019
SECTION 3 (e) ERLINDA P.
ARCHINAS, HERMAN LIMBO, MA. THERESA RUBIC,
BLAN SABANAL, ROSITA MEJIA, ROSITA MANGANA,
Present: REBUAN SARIPADA Accused.
DE LA CRUZ, J., Chairperson PONFERRADA, and LAGOS, JJ.
Promulgated:
-Mouch 24_2013
------627socoa -- SUPPLEMENTAL
DECISION
LAGOS, J.:
This supplements Our Decision dated November 22, 2012 in
Criminal Case Nos. 25400 to 25415. In that aforesaid Decision, the
Court found accused Limbo guilty of the crime charged in this case
while accused Sabanal was acquitted. With regard to accused
Archinas, Rubic, Mejia and Mangana, the Court ordered the archiving
of this case, considering that they are still at-large. Considering that no
pronouncement as to accused Rebuan Saripada's culpability was
made in Our Decision dated November 22, 2012, this supplemental
decision becomes necessary. Accused Saripada is named as an
accused in the Information in Criminal Case No. 25414. Said
Information reads as follows:
Page 2 of 5
Decision People vs. Archinas, et al. Criminal Case No. 25414 X--------
That sometime in April 20, 1995, in Cagayan de Oro City, and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, Erlinda Archinas and Herman
Limbo, then both high ranking public officers, being the Assistant Vice-President and
Assistant, Dept. Manager, respectively, Philippine National Bank (PNB), Cagayan de
Oro City Branch, Ma. Theresa Rubic and Blan Sabanal, then both low ranking public
officers, being Tellers, also of the PNB, all while in the performance of their official
functions, committing the offense in relation to office, taking advantage of their official
positions, giving unwarranted benefits though evident bad faith and manifest partiality to
accused Rosita Mejia, and by conspiring and confederating with the said accused, did
there and then, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, without the prior clearance of the
concerned drawee banks, allow the encashment of CBC check no. 037719 for
P2,750,000.00 (drawn by accused Mangana and payable to cash), PVB check no
038334 for P2,500,000.00 (payable to cash), PVB check no 040252 for P1,000,000.00
(drawn by accused Rebuan Saripada in favor of accused Rosita Mejia), and PBCom
check no. 173740 for P2,000,000.00 (payable to cash), which checks returned by the
concerned drawee banks for reason of "Account Closed" or drawn against insufficient
funds, thereby causing undue injury to the government up to the total amount of the
uncleared checks.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
The findings of fact and the summary of evidence presented before
this Court embodied in Our Decision of November 22, 2012 are reproduced
in this supplemental decision. As can be gleaned from the aforequoted
Information, accused Saripada's involvement in this one case was his
issuing PVB check no. 040252 for the amount of P1,000,000.00 in favor of
accused Rosita Mejia. The Information does not allege that he conspired
and confederated with Rosita Mejia, Erlinda Archinas, Herman Limbo, Ma.
Theresa Rubic and Blan Sabanal in order to encash PVB check no 038334,
PVB check no 040252 and PBCom check no. 173740. Nor does it impute
any act that could be construed as conspiratorial. The particularity by which
conspiracy must be alleged in the Information is crucial and emphasized in
the case of People of the Philippines vs. Ronnie Quitlong, et al.'. The
Supreme Court pronounced:
G.R. No. 121562. July 10, 1998
Page 3 of 5
Decision People vs. Archinas, et al. Criminal Case No. 25414 X-------
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-=-=-=-=-X
--
/

Xxx Verily, the information must state that the accused have confederated to
commit the crime or that there has been a community of design, a unity of
purpose or an agreement to commit the felony among the accused. Such an
allegation, in the absence of the usual usage of the words "conspired" or
"confederated" or the phrase "acting in conspiracy," must aptly appear in the
information in the form of definitive acts constituting conspiracy. In fine, the
agreement to commit the crime, the unity of purpose or the community of design
among the accused must be conveyed such as either by the use of the term
"conspire" or its derivatives and Synonyms or by allegations of basic facts
constituting the conspiracy. Conspiracy must be alleged, not just inferred, in the
information on which basis an accused can aptly enter his plea, a matter that is
not to be confused with or likened to the adequacy of evidence that may be
required to prove it. In establishing conspiracy when properly alleged, the
evidence to support it need not necessarily be shown by direct proof but may be
inferred from shown acts and conduct of the accused. (Emphasis supplied)

Without an allegation of conspiracy against Saripada, there is no

basis to convict him for violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019.
Moreover, the Information does not allege that Saripada issued the
check (Check No. 040252) in favor of accused Mejia with full
knowledge that the same was not funded. It is for this same reason
that We quashed the Informations against Carlo Mejia, Saripada's
former co-accused in these consolidated cases. As held in Our March
20, 2002 Resolution' which quashed the Informations:
The Informations are not for having drawn the checks but for having encashed the
three (3) checks upon presentment thereof to the PNB, all without the checks having
been previously cleared. Thus is the charge for encashing three checks for very large
amounts totalling P6.2 million in this set, against closed accounts.
There is no statement in the Information that Carlo Mejia conspired with his wife or
any of the other accused for the encashment of the checks without proper clearing.
IV

Let it be noted that there is no indication in the Informations of any act by

accused Carlo Mejia with respect to the encashment of the check, nor of
receiving the encashed amounts. There is not
? Records, Vol. II, pp. 3-10.

93 m
CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
ESTELA TERESITA C. ROSege4 of 5

Executive Clerke of Court III

First Division Ju 3-2-13
Decision People vs. Archinas, et al. Criminal Case No. 25414 X----
-----------X

even a statement in the Informations that the spouses Carlo and Rosita Mejia were
conspiring in the encashment of the checks to defraud the PNB at Cagayan de Oro.
At best, the Informations describe the origins of the checks that were drawn against
closed accounts; this, however, is not the charge. The mere statement in the
Information that two of these checks were drawn by accused Carlo Mejia is not enough
to constitute conspiracy with his wife without any statement whatever to show that he
joined his wife in her alleged conspiracy with the bank officials and employees for the
encashment of the checks prior to clearing.
It is the view of this Court that the Informations as worded do not describe any
act by Carlo Mejia for which the Government and/or the PNB at Cagayan de Oro
were prejudiced. The operative acts of the offenses described in the Informations
– the encashment of the checks without clearing - appear to have been
performed by Rosita Mejia in cooperation with the bank employees and officials.
Apart from the lack of any allegation of conspiracy in the Information,
We also note that there was no proof that accused Saripada committed any
act that would lead to the conclusion that he conspired with his co-accused
in this case to encash the checks. Conspiracy must be alleged and proven.
A conspiracy is proved by evidence of actual cooperation; of acts indicative
of an agreement, a common purpose or design, a concerted action or
concurrence of
mmit the felony and actually pursue it. Accused Saripada's sole act in this case
was issuing a check to Rosita Mejia. This sole act, by itself, does not prove,
beyond reasonable doubt, that he conspired with Rosita Mejia to encash the
check he issued.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds accused
Rebuan Saripada, NOT GUILTY of the crime charged in Criminal Case No.
25414, for insufficiency of evidence. No civil liability is adjudged against
him as the act or omission on which it can be based does not exist. His bail
bond for Criminal Case No. 25414 is deemed CANCELLED and the
hold-departure order issued against him, insofar as Criminal Case No.
25414 is concerned, is ordered LIFTED and SET ASIDE.

SO ORDERED.
21

3 Felicisimo Lazarte, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 180122, March 13, 2009)
Page 5 of 5
Decision People vs. Archinas, et al. Criminal Case No. 25414 X------

RAFAEL R. LAGOS Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:
EFREN N. DE LA CRUZ Associate Justice
Chairperson
RODOLFO A. PONFERRADA
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 the Court's Division.
EFREN N DELA CRUZ Chairperson, First Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, and the
Division Chairman's Attestation, it is certified that the conclusions in the
above decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned
to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

Surrey
FRANCISCO H. VILLÁRUZ, JR.
Présiding Justice