In Simon Fernan, Jr. and Expedito Torrevillas v. People of the Philippines, the Supreme Court upheld the Sandiganbayan’s conviction of two civil engineers for estafa through falsification of public documents. The engineers signed tally sheets and delivery receipts for road construction materials that were never actually delivered, enabling a large-scale scam that defrauded the government. This case underscores the personal responsibility of public officials to ensure the integrity of documents they sign and the projects they oversee, highlighting that even seemingly minor roles can contribute to significant corruption and hold individuals accountable for their part in fraudulent schemes.

When a Signature Costs More Than Ink: Unraveling the Cebu Highway Scam

The case stems from a massive corruption scheme in the Ministry of Public Highways (MPH) in the 1970s, infamously known as the Cebu Highway Scam. This involved the embezzlement of public funds through falsified documents and ghost projects. Simon Fernan, Jr. and Expedito Torrevillas, both civil engineers in the Cebu First Highway Engineering District, were implicated in this scam. The heart of the issue revolves around their signatures on tally sheets and delivery receipts that falsely indicated the delivery of road construction materials. These materials were supposedly used for highway maintenance and repair, but in reality, these deliveries never occurred. As a result, public funds were released based on these falsified documents, leading to significant financial loss for the government. This case asks whether engineers can be held liable for estafa through falsification of public documents based on their signatures on documents attesting to deliveries that never occurred.

The charges against Fernan, Jr. and Torrevillas were for the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public documents, defined under Articles 318 and 171 in relation to Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. Article 318 addresses other deceits, while Article 171 specifically deals with falsification by public officers. Article 48 provides the penalty for complex crimes. The Supreme Court emphasized the essential elements of this complex crime, breaking it down into elements of estafa and falsification.

To prove estafa, the prosecution needed to establish deceit and resulting damage. Deceit involves any false representation or contrivance that misleads another to their detriment, while damage refers to the loss of money or property due to the fraudulent act. For falsification, the elements include that the offender must be a public officer who takes advantage of their official position to falsify a document. This can include making untruthful statements in a narration of facts.

A crucial element in the case was the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) entered into between the State and the accused. This agreement expedited the proceedings by adopting the testimonies of Delia Preagido, a state witness. Preagido’s testimony detailed the modus operandi of the conspirators, revealing how fake Letters of Advice of Allotment (LAAs) were created and used to disburse funds for non-existent projects. The LAAs are the written authority for the MPH to incur obligations within a specified amount in accordance with approved programs and projects.

The documentary evidence presented by the prosecution included the tally sheets and delivery receipts signed by Fernan, Jr. and Torrevillas. These documents were critical because they served as the basis for payment to suppliers. However, testimonies from barangay captains and residents revealed that there were no actual deliveries of road construction materials. This testimony directly contradicted the information contained in the falsified documents. This demonstrated that the materials were not delivered as indicated and that the projects were never undertaken.

Despite admitting that they had signed the tally sheets and delivery receipts, Fernan, Jr. and Torrevillas argued that the prosecution had not proven their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. They claimed that the state failed to demonstrate that government funds were illegally released based on alleged ghost deliveries and false documents. However, the Supreme Court found their arguments unpersuasive. The Court emphasized that the presumption of innocence is not a shield for those who participate in fraudulent activities. It affirmed that the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Supreme Court also addressed the issue of conspiracy, noting that while it is the prosecution’s burden to prove it, direct evidence is not always necessary. Conspiracy can be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime, showing that they acted with a common purpose. The Court characterized the conspiracy in this case as a “wheel” conspiracy. This involved a central hub of individuals controlling separate “spokes.” Fernan, Jr. and Torrevillas were among these spokes, each contributing to the overall fraudulent scheme.

The signing of the tally sheets and delivery receipts by the engineers was considered a vital link in the chain of conspiracy. Without these falsified documents, the general vouchers could not be prepared and the checks for payment could not be issued. In essence, the actions of Fernan, Jr. and Torrevillas were indispensable to the success of the scheme. This conclusion was supported by the fact that the checks issued based on these falsified documents could not be traced to any genuine LAAs.

The Court emphasized the duty of public officers, particularly highway engineers, to verify and confirm the accuracy of the documents they sign. By signing the tally sheets and delivery receipts, Fernan, Jr. and Torrevillas made it appear that supplies had been delivered when they had not. This constituted deceit and caused damage to the government. Their actions, therefore, met the elements of estafa through falsification of public documents.

The engineers’ defense that the documents they signed were genuine and covered by legitimate LAAs was rejected by the Court. They failed to present these LAAs as evidence, despite claiming they were in the custody of the NBI. The Court noted that they could have used a subpoena duces tecum to compel the production of these documents. Failing to do so, their self-serving testimonies were insufficient to counter the overwhelming evidence presented by the prosecution.

Building on this principle, the Court referred to People v. Mangubat, another case arising from the same Cebu highway scam. It states that when each accused performs their assigned tasks with precision, resulting in the illegal release of public funds under the guise of fake documents, they are equally liable as co-principals. The Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s decision, emphasizing the importance of accountability in public service. Public officials cannot simply claim ignorance or deny responsibility when their actions contribute to fraudulent schemes.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether civil engineers could be convicted of estafa through falsification of public documents for signing false tally sheets and delivery receipts that led to the disbursement of public funds for undelivered road construction materials.
What is ‘estafa through falsification of public documents’?	It is a complex crime where a public officer takes advantage of their position to falsify official documents, causing damage or loss to another party, typically involving financial deceit or fraud. The offender makes untruthful statements in official documents.
What role did the engineers play in the scam?	The engineers signed tally sheets and delivery receipts, falsely certifying that road construction materials had been delivered, which was crucial for processing payments to suppliers who did not actually deliver the materials. Their signatures validated the fraudulent transactions.
What evidence did the prosecution present to prove the engineers’ guilt?	The prosecution presented the falsified tally sheets and delivery receipts signed by the engineers, along with testimonies from barangay captains and residents confirming that the materials were never delivered and the projects were never undertaken. This pointed to a pattern of fraudulent activity.
What was the significance of Delia Preagido’s testimony?	Delia Preagido’s testimony detailed the modus operandi of the conspiracy, explaining how fake Letters of Advice of Allotment (LAAs) were created and used to disburse funds for non-existent projects, providing crucial context to the engineers’ involvement.
How did the Court address the issue of conspiracy in this case?	The Court recognized that direct evidence of conspiracy is often difficult to obtain and that it can be inferred from the actions of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime, indicating a common purpose and design.
What defense did the engineers offer, and why was it rejected?	The engineers claimed that the documents they signed were genuine and covered by legitimate LAAs, but they failed to present these LAAs as evidence, and the Court deemed their self-serving testimonies insufficient to counter the prosecution’s evidence.
What is the practical implication of this ruling for public officials?	The ruling underscores the responsibility of public officials to ensure the accuracy of documents they sign and the projects they oversee, highlighting that even seemingly minor roles can contribute to significant corruption and that they can be held accountable for their actions.

The case of Simon Fernan, Jr. and Expedito Torrevillas v. People of the Philippines serves as a stern reminder of the importance of integrity and accountability in public service. It emphasizes that public officials, regardless of their position, must exercise due diligence and ensure the veracity of the documents they handle. Failure to do so can lead to severe consequences, including criminal liability. In a world of complex transactions and widespread corruption, engineers must stand guard, ensuring their signatures represent truth and integrity.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Simon Fernan, Jr. and Expedito Torrevillas v. People, G.R. No. 145927, August 24, 2007