C Crim SB-13-CRM-0096-0101 People Vs Belicena, Et Al 03-25-2019

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
^ -v
Quezon City
SEVENTH DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,
Crim. Case No.

- versus - SB-13-CRM-0096
For: Violation of Sec. 3(e),
R.A.NO.3019
ANTONIO P. BELICENA,
ULDARICO P. ANDUTAN, JR.,
RAUL CLAUREN DE VERA,
BRANDY LOPEZ MARZAN,
HONORATO LACSEVA, and
JOSEPH A.CABOTAJE,
Accused.
X — X
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPBVES,

Plaintiff,
Crim. Case No.

For: Violation ofSec. 3(e),
R.A.NO. 3019
ROSANNA P. DIALA,
HONORATO LACSINA, and
JOSEPH A.CABOTAJE,
Accused.
x- -X

Plaintiff,
Crim. Case No.

For; Violation ofSec. 3(e),
R.A. No.3019
.Y
Resolution
People vs. Belicena, et al.
SB-13-CRM-0096 to 0101
Page 2of28
X

ROSANNA P. DIALA,
HONORATO LACSBVA, and
JOSEPH A.CABOTAJE,
Accused.
X X
PEOPLE OF THE PHttiffPDVES,

Plaintiff,
Crim. Case No.

For: Estafa thru Falsification of
Official/Public Documents
ROSANNA P. DIALA,
JOSEPH A.CABOTAJE,
Accused.
X X

Plaintiff,
Crim. Case No.

ROSANNA P. DIALA,
JOSEPH A.CABOTAJE,
Accused.
1-
//■
Resolution
SB-13-CRM-0096 to 0101
Page 3 of28

PlaintifF,
Grim. Case No.

BRANDY LOPEZ MARZAN,
HONORATO LACSEVA, and
JOSEPH A.CABOTAJE, Present:
Accused.
GOMEZ-ESTOESTA,J., Chairperson,
TRESPESES,y.,and
HIDALGO,y.
Promulgated:
X-
RESOLUTION
HIDALGO,/.:
Submitted for resolution are the following:
(1) Demurrer to Evidence filed by accused Raul C. De Vera

(accused De Vera)and Rosanna P. Diala(accused Diala) dated
December 3,2018^; and,
(2) Demurrer to Evidence filed by accused Brandy L. Marzan
(accused Marzan)dated January 7,2019.^
Arguntents offered by accused De Vera, Diala and Marzan

(collectively referred to herein as ''accused") in support of their
Demurrer to Evidence
In sum,all accused raised the following arguments:
1. The prosecution failed to present any iota of proofin support of its
^ Record, Vol.4, pp. 305 to 311

2 Record, Vol. 4, pp. 319 to 325
r
H'
Resolution
SB-13-CRM-0096to0101
Page 4 of28
allegations since it failed to file its Formal Offer ofEvidence. Thus,

there being no Formal Offer of Evidence, the prosecution's
evidence are purely hearsay and should be rejected by the Court.
2. The prosecution failed to rebut the constitutionally enshrined

presumption ofinnocense
3. The testimonies ofthe prosecution witnesses alone cannot be given

full faith and credence.
Specific arguments in support ofthe Demurrer to Evidence
All three accused insisted that the filing of the Formal Offer of
Evidence is hot a trivial matter because of the legal sanction enunciated in
the case of Constantino vs. Court of Appeal!^ where the Supreme Court
ruled that the formal offer of evidence is deemed waived after failing to
submit it within the considerable period oftime.
They added that, since the prosecution failed to file its formal offer of
evidence after having been ordered to do so, the said failure shall now be
considered as a waiver of its right to file the same. Further, they argued that
the pieces of evidence adduced by the prosecution are nothing but hearsay
evidence and therefore, no probative value can be given to them.
They likewise maintained that even if the prosecution's documentary

evidence were previously identified and marked, those pieces of evidence
must still be excluded since they were not formally offered as evidence.
With respect to the testimonial evidence presented by the prosecution,

they also averred that the same cannot also be given credit following the
ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Go vs. Court ofAppeals/^ saying
that, documentary evidence pevails over testimonial evidence.
They further relied on the Resolution of this Court dated November

20, 2018, where this Court ruled that "while it is true that the prosecution
was able to present testimonial evidence, the lack of documentary evidence
to support the prosecution's case is reason enough to grant leave to file
Demurrer to Evidence."
Taken altogether, all accused beheve that consequently, the

allegations hurled against them have no basis and therefore, the Court has no
basis likewise in resolving the issues presented against them. In effect,
accused asserted that, they are entitled to an acquittal.
'G.R.NO. 116018, November 13,1996

G.R.No. 112550, February 5,2001
I
t /*
Resolution
SB-13-CRM-0096 to 0101
Page 5 of28
This being the case, accused now invoke the provision of Section 23,
Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and reason out that,
after the prosecution rests its case, the Court may dismiss the action on the
ground of insufficiency of evidence, either on its own initiative after giving
the prosecution the opprotunity to be heard or upon demurrer filed by the
accused.
THE CASE
In six(6)Informations,^ accused were charged with three(3)counts of

Violation of Sec. 3(e), R.A. No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act, docketed as Crim. Case Nos. SB-13-CRM-0096,
SB-13-CRM-0097, and SB-13-CRM-0098; and three (3) counts of Estafa
through Falsification of Official/Public Documents under Art. 315 in
relation to Art. 171 ofthe Revised Penal Code, docketed as Crim. Case Nos.
SB-13-CRM-0099, SB-13-CRM-0100,and SB-13-CRM-0101.
Record shows that accused Marzan was arraigned on March 7, 2013,

accused de Vera on January 16, 2014, accused Diala on February 4, 2014,
and accused Andutan, Jr. on September 22, 2014.^ They all pleaded "not
guilty" to the crimes charged. Proceedings for accused Belicena was,
however, suspended on September 22, 2018 based on the medical report
submitted by the National Center for Mental Health, finding him to be
suffering from dementia and incompetent to stand court trial.^ Pre-trial
Conference took place on Jime 18, 2013, July 2, 2013, February 27, 2014,
April 23 and 24, 2014, June 13, 2014 and August 4, 2014.® Thereafter, trial
ensued.
EVTOENCE PRESENTED BY THE PROSECUTION
The prosecution presented both testimonial and documentary evidence

to substantiate its claim.
The following witnesses were presented:
COMMISSIONER ALAN VENTURA, 56

years old, married. Commissioner of the
National Labor Relations Commission,
PPSTA Building, Banawe Avenue, Quezon
City, residing at 41 Reed Street, Filinvest
East Homes,Antipolo City, Rizal.
^ Record, Vol. 4, pp. 1-24.

6 Record, Vol. 1, pp. 176-177,340,366-367; Vol. 2,pp. 334-335,respectively.
' Record, Vol. 3, pp. 71-72.
® Record, Vol. 2, p. 265.
\
t-l
Resolution
SB-13-CRM-0096to0101
Page 6 of28
He testified that prior to his appointment to his current position as

Commissioner of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), he
was the Executive Director of the Special Presidential Task Force 156 from
the second quarter of 2001 until November 2004. That among his
responsibilities are to investigate anomalies in the grant of tax credits and
issuance of Tax Credit Certificates at the One Stop Shop Interagency Tax
Credit and Duty Drawback Center at the Department of Finance committed
from 1994 to 1998. His task also includes &e [duty] to file corresponding
cases with the Office of the Ombudsman, if warranted by evidence and to
execute affidavit complaints.^
He continued to testify that based on their investigation, they found

out that [accused] gave unwarranted benefits, advantage and/or preference to
Liberty Transport (Liberty) in the issuance of Tax Credit Certificates and in
the grant of tax credits to Liberty through manifest partiality, evident bad
faith or at very least, gross inexcusable negligence.^®
On the witness stand, he explained that accused Rosanna Diala

(accused Diala), then a Senior Tax Specialist, evaluated the application for
Tax Credit Certificate Nos. 9335 and 9932 ofLiberty Transport, as complete
and in order despite the apparent irregularities on the face of the supporting
documents submitted.
With respect to accused Brandy Marzan(accused Marzan), he testified

that as then Senior Tax Specialist ofthe One Stop Shop Center and who was
also tasked to verify the application for Tax Credit Certificate No. 9334 of
Liberty whether or not the same is complete and in order, accused Marzan
evaluated as complete and in order the application of Liberty Transport
together with its supporting documents despite the apparent irregularities on
its face.^^
' Accused Raul de Vera (accused de Vera), according to him, was the
superior of accused Diala and the Head of the Division called the Net Local
Content/ Net Value Earned and Domestic Capital Equipment. As such, his
principal task was to review the Evaluation Report submitted by the Senior
Tax Specialist, namely accsued Marzan and Diala. That after having
reviewed the said Evaluation Reports, and despite the apparent irregularities
ofthe supporting documents, he still forwarded the same for the fmal review
and recommendation for approval by the Deputy Executive Director.
He likewise described the liability of accused Uldarico P. Andutan,
'TSN dated April 30,2015, p. 8

TSN dated April 30,2015, pp.7 to 8
TSN dated April 30,2015,p. 12
12 TSN dated April 30,2015,pp. 12 to 13
>3 TSN dated April 30,2015, pp.13 to 14
Resolution
SB-13-CRM-0096 to 0101
Page 7 of28
Jr.,(accused Andutan, Jr.) as the Deputy Executive Director ofthe One Stop
Shop. As such, accused de Vera submitted to him the Evaluation Reports.
Thereafter, accused ^dutan, Jr. recommended the approval of the Tax
Credits in favor of Liberty Transport to Assistant Secretary Antonio P.
Belicena, Jr.(accused Belicena).
He explained that accused Belicena who was then the Acting

Executive Director of the One Stop Shop, and in such capacity, approved
and signed the Tax Credit Certificates of Liberty Transport and ordered the
release ofthese Tax Credits Certificates.^^
With respect to the participation of private individuals, namely

Honorato Lacsina and Joseph Catobaje (accused Cabotaje), he stated that
Honorato Lacsina (accused Lacsina) was the President of Liberty Transport
while accused Cabotaje was the agent of Liberty Transport. The latter was
the one who made representations with the One Stop Shop in so far as the
Tax Credit Certificates are concerned. He emphasized that these individuals
altered or caused the alteration of the supporting documents of Liberty
Transport in its application for Tax Credits. He also said that these
individuals connived and confederated with all accused in the eventual
approval ofthe tax credit application.^^
He also explained the process of investigation with respect to the

questioned Tax Credit Certificates. His office requested the pertinent
documents from the One Stop Shop Center that has custody of all the
applications and supporting documents. Then he assigned the said case to his
legal consultants who were tasked to investigate, evaluate, verify whether or
not there existed an anomaly in the issuance of the questioned Tax Credit
Certificates. After one(1)or two(2)months, an Investigation was submitted
to him which was made the basis for the filing ofthis case.^^
That after the Investigation Report was submitted to him, he validated

it and made verifications and came out with a conclusion that indeed.
Liberty Transport was not entitled to tax credits.
During the continuation of his direct examination and with respect to

Tax Credit Certificate No. 9334, he stated that the One Stop Shop did not
follow the prescribed procedure in applying for a tax credit certificate
because when the Tax Credit Scam was discovered, a Special Presidential
Task Force was created which investigated all the applications and it
appeared that Liberty Transport represented that it purchased the buses fi*om
Phil Daewoo. That upon verification with Phil Daewoo, it was known that
'Ud .
id
TSN dated April 30,2015,p. 15
"TSN dated April 30,2015,p. 16
\
r/'
Resolution
SB-13-CRM-0096 to 0101
Page 8 of28
the latter sent a letter to the Task Force, informing it that the Sales Invoices
and Delivery Receipts used by Liberty Transport were fabricated since
although the eight(8)buses were purchased by Liberty Transport, they were
covered by different Sales Invoices and Delivery Receipts.^^ He further
testified that the Land Transportation Office(LTD) wrote to the Task Force
and said that the dates of the Official Receipts as well as the dates on the
Certificate of Registration are different fi*om the dates of the Official
Receipts and Certificates of Registration submitted by Liberty Transport.^^
In particular, the Certificate of Registration in possession of the LTO is
dated August 9, 1996 while the document submitted by Liberty Transport is
dated August 8, 1997.
Relative to Tax Credit Certificate No. 9335 (Exhibit"UUU"), he said

that the One Stop Shop did not also follow the procedure on how Tax Credit
Application is processed because it was approved despite the irregularities of
the documents submitted by Liberty Transport particularly the Sales
Invoices and Delivery Receipts of the eleven (11) buses.^® He also said that
the person involved in the processing of this Tax Credit Certificate (Tax
Creit Certificate No. 9335) was accused Lacsina who filed the Claimant's
Information Sheet and the same was processed and evaluated by accused
Diala. The latter's evaluation was reviewed by accused de Vera which was
subsequently approved and recommended by accused Andutan, Jr. The
approval caused the issuance of Tax Credit Certificate No. 9335 by accused
Belicena.^^ He explained that the Sales Invoices and Delivery Receipts
attached to the application for Tax Credit Certificate No. 9335 contain
irregularities. It was found out that, during the investigation made by the
Task Force, the latter wrote a letter to Pilipinas Hino, the predecessor of
Isuzu Philippines and found out that the eleven (11) buses allegedly
purchased from Pilipinas Hino were no longer available because after a year
or two from the time of purchase, said eleven (11) buses were repossessed
by Pilipinas Hino on the ground friat Liberty Transport was not able to pay
in full the purchase price of said buses. He further explained that, nine(9)of
the eleven (11) buses were sold by Pilipinas Hino to other customers as
second hand and only two(2)buses remained in their possession. In sum, he
testified that at the time Liberty Transport applied for Tax Credit Certificate
No.9335 in 1997,they were no longer the owner ofsaid eleven(11)buses.^^
In testifying that the LTO Registration submitted by Liberty Transport
contains irregularities, he said that the significant data tampered by Liberty
Transport is the Certificate of Initial Registration that was purchased from
Pilipinas Hino. He explained that the Certificate of Registration stated that
TSN dated August 13,2015,p. 13
TSN dated August 13,2015, p. 25
20 TSN dated March 10,2016, pp.8 to 9
21 TSN dated March 10,2016, p. 10
22 TSN dated March 10,2016, p. 24
/ ''
Resolution
SB-13-CRM-0096 to 0101
Page 9 of28
the eleven(11)buses were all purchased on December 2,1997, when in fact,

as per Certification by Pilipinas Hino, said buses were already repossessed
wayback in January 1996.^^
As to the allegation of tampered documensts submitted by Liberty

Transport, he explained that, in a Letter-Reply (Exhibit LP), the LTO said
that, some data on the documents submitted by Liberty Transport were
tampered when compared to the documents that were found in their files and
the same were put in a table^"^ (Exhibit B^^). However, the said table was
objected to by Atty. Marzan, because it was not offered and considering that
it was prepared only after the witness testified about the Tax Credit
Certificate No. 9334.^^
During the hearing on August 18, 2016, this Court through then
Chairperson Associate Justice Alexander Gesmundo informed the
prosecution that witness Alan Ventura died.^^
FE SALVADOR OPINA,Filipino, 62 years
old, widow, QIC of Land Transportation
Office, Domestic Road, Pasay City, residing
at Lot 1 Block 5, Second Street, BF Homes
International, Las Pifias City.
She testified that she has been acting as QIC ofthe LTO in Pasay City
since 1999 to present. In her capacity as such, her duties include the
supervision of the registration of vehicles particularly the firanchise from
LTFRB which are for hire. That she also supervises the deposit of the
registration fees, signs deposit slips, signs registration certificates and
official receipts and lastly, answers queries fi:om other agencies of the
[government].^®
In the course of her testimony, she identified a Certification dated

March 2, 2000 addressed to one Alberto R. Salanga (Exhibit "W"), a
document showing that this is in reply to the inquiry made by Alberto
Salanga, the Executive Committee Member of the Presidential Task Force
156, Office ofthe President.
She testified that she issued the said Certification because there was a
letter [sent to her office] with attached Official Receipts and Certificates of
Registration (Exhibits "W-1" to "W-7"). However, when these documents
23 TSB dated March 10,2016, p. 30

24 TSN dated March 10,2016, pp. 30 to 31
23 TSN dated March 10,2016, pp.43 to 44
23 TSN dated August 18,2016,pp.5 to 6
22 TSN dated August 18,2016, p. 15
28
//• ^
Resolution
SB-13-CRM-0096 to 0101
Page 10 of28
were presented for identification of the said witness, the counsel for the
defense, Atty. Ansado, manifested that these are all photocopies as
confirmed by the prosecution.^^
When she was asked to delve with these documents, she said that she
noticed that all the details are the same compared to the documents in their
office file, except for the date of the [Official] Receipt and the Certificate of
Registration^® reflecting the date "August 8,1997" but the date in their file is
"August 9,1996."3i (Exhibit "WW")
Further, she testified that she isued three (3) letters namely, there are
two letters dated March 22, 2000^^, and the third letter, the date of which she
cannot recall.^^ She likewise identifed Exhibits "E^^" ,"F^^", "G»^",
«jl5» "1^15" «q15» "plSJJ «q15» "Sl5» tt'plSJJ
That these documents are all registered under the name of Liberty
Transport.^"^
ON CROSS EXAMINATION,
She admitted that it was her records officer who secured copies ofthe
documents presented to her and which she later on identified and that she
was present when the same were secured from the files stored in a room. She
also admitted that all the registration of vehicles in Pasay LTO Extension
[Office] are recorded and kept in the said room^^ and the document
requested were just brought to her by her staff. Finally, she testified that on
the basis of the documents given to her by her staff, she then issued a
certification and letter which she eventually submitted to the Task Force.^^
She added that, aside from the records officer and herself, no other
persons are allowed to enter the storage room since the door is always
locked and the key is in the possession ofthe records officer. As to the key
duplicate, she said "I don't know,"^"^
ROWENA MORALES,Records Custodian
from the Land Transportation Office
Her testimony consisted mainly on the fact that she was the records
officer ofthe Land Transportation Office who has custody of the records of
2'TSN dated August 18,2016,p. 18

2® TSN dated August 18,2016,p. 19
TSN dated August 18,2016, p. 20
22 TSN dated August 18,2016, p. 25
22/V/
2'» TSN dated August 18,2016, p. 28
22 TSN dated August 18,2016,p. 30
2® TSN dated August 18,2016,p. 33
22 TSN dated August 18,2016,p. 34
Resolution
SB-13-CRM-0096to0101
Page 11 of28
registration of motor vehicles registered under the name of Liberty Transport

Corporation and that the documents placed under her custody are kept
secured. She candidly admitted that she assumed only the position of the
records officer only in 2016 but the docmnents presented to her for
identification were dated "1995
ON CROSS EXAMINATION, she admitted that she was a clerk

when she joined the LTO in 1994 and became the Acting Records Officer
only in 2005 and that Mr. Ruperto Estipona whom she met personally was
her predecessor. That there was no formal transfer of custody ofrecords and
inventory of records when she assumed as such because of the former's
sudden death in 2005.^®
She described that the records of all motor vehicles are contained in a
rack with corresponding [special] file numbers. That she came across with
the documents when her office received a subpoena firom the Office of the
Ombudsman for a case conference [with respect to this case.] She insisted
that there are no other persons who can enter the room although she has a
duplicate key of the storage room but insisted that it is with her.^^ Upon
deeper probing, she maintained that she can provide [adequate] security to
any document of a motor vehicle that is subject of a case. Lamentably, she
admitted that she has no knowledge of whether or not a person will go in and
out of the storage room before she assumed her current position and all the
exhibits namely. Exhibit to "D^^" all date back to 1995 but she assumed
her position as Records Officer only in March 2016.
JAMES P. CALLEJA, Filipino, 53

years old, married. Agent at the National
Bureau of Investigation, National Capital
Region.
It was stipulated that he was assigned as a member ofthe Special Task

Force 156 that investigated these cases prior to his appointment as agent at
the National Bureau ofInvestigation."^®
That during the years 1999-2000, he was designated as a member of

the Special Task Force 156 tasked to investigate tax credit scam and apply
and serve search warrant.
He admitted that the three Tax Credit Certificates ofLiberty Transport

were assigned to him. In connection with these cases, he received the
following documents namely, the Certificates of Registration, Sales
TSN dated October 6,2016, pp. 10 to 12

35 TSN dated October 6,2016, p. 13
TSN dated January 30,2017, pp. 5 to 6 i
.\
11
Resolution
SB-13-CRM-0096to0101
Page 12 of28
Invoices, Delivery Receipts from the manufacturers, LTO Official receipts

as well as LTFRB Decision.^^
In connection to Tax Credit Certificate No. 9334, he said that he

reviewed sales invoices and delivery receipts from Filipinas Daewoo,
marked as "J", "K", "L" "M", "P",
"R"and "S", respectively."*^ He also identified Exhibits "NN" up to Exhibit
"W-l", pertaining to LTO Certificate of Registration and corresponding
official receipts. He likewise identified LTFRB Documents marked as
Exhibits "FFF" up to Exhibit "GGG-1 Official Receipts of Registration
imder the name Liberty Transport marked as Exhibits "A"to "V"and
and the LTFRB Decision."*^
He added that with respect to Tax Credit Certificate No. 9932, the
documents submitted to him which he examined are LTFRB Decision,
Certificate of Registration, sales invoices, official receipts and delivery
receipts of Commercial Motors, Inc. For purposes of Tax Credit Certificate
No.9932, he identified Exhibits "and
Anent Tax Credit Certificate No. 9332, he identified "X^" up

to "Y^'\ consisting ofLTO Certificate ofRegistration and other attachments.
He continued to testify that, he verified the documents attaching Tax

Credit Certificate No. 9334 with Filipinas Daewoo and the latter responded
to his inquiry through a letter dated March 10,2000 (Exhibit "V"),
Attached to the same letter are eight(8) Sales Invoices and Delivery
Receipts marked as Exhibits "W" up to "XL" but were all objected to by the
defense since these are all phocopies."*"*
He also explained that in order to validate documents from the LTO,

he wrote a letter to the Chief of LTO to which the latter responded by
issuing Certifications marked as Exhibits"W","WW","LT" and "C*^". In
the course of his identification of these exhibits, the defense counsel
manifested that the attachments to Exhibits "V*" to are all
photocopies."*^
When asked about Tax Credit Certificate No. 9935, he said that
Filipinas Hino confirmed having sold the same bus units to the claimant, but
after two (2) years, the units were replevined by Filipinas Hino and two (2)
TSB dated January 30,2017,p.10

TSN dated January 30,2017,p. 11
TSN dated January 30,2017,pp. 12 to 13
^ TSN dated January 31,2017,p. 7
TSN dated January 31,2017, pp. 11 to 12 .
\
fi
Resolution
People vs. Belicena,et al.
SB-13-CRM-0096 to 0101
Page 13 of28
others were repossessed and sold to other persons/^
On CROSS EXAMINATION,
He admitted that with respect to Exhibits "V" and attached documents
namely Exhibits "W" up to "LL he admitted that he has no participation in
the preparation, execution and issuance of those documents and he became
involved only when the investigation ofLiberty Transport application for the
Tax Credit Certificates was referred to him/^
ERNESTO QUA HIANSEN, Filipino,

60 years old, married, currently the
Executive Director of Department of
Finance, One Stop Shop Center, with office
address at 3rd Floor, Department of Finance
Building, Roxas Boulevard, Manila.
His testimonies pertaining to the following were stipulated"^^:
1. That he is currently the Executive Director of Department of

Finance One Stop Shop;
2. That sometime in May 1999 until March 2003, he was the
Deputy Executive Director ofthe Center;
3. That as a Deputy Executive Director of the Center, he was
tasked among others, to conduct post audit of the previously
issued Tax Credit Certificates by the Center;
4. That among the Tax Credit Certificates he audited were the tax
Credit Certificates previously issued to Liberty Transport and
these are Tax Credit Certificates 00935, 009334 and 000332, the
subject matter ofthese cases.
In sum, he testified that based on the post-audit examination he

conducted, said Tax Credit Certificates were irregularly issued."^^ That after
the conduct of a Post Audit examination and an irregularity can be noted, a
Cancellation Memorandum would be issued which contains the findings.^®
In this case, a Cancellation Memorandum dated March 2, 2000 was issued
marked as Exhibits "up to "
He added that he reviewed the preparation of this Cancellation

Memorandum and after he found everything to be in order, he signed two(2)
copies of it as an indication that he is recommending it to Director Salanga.
He admitted that the original copy of the same was turned over to the
^ TSN dated Febraary 27,2017, p.5
TSN dated June 8,2017, pp. 13 to 14
^ TSN dated September 6,2017, pp.7 to 9
TSN dated September 6,2017, p. 12
.i
Resolution
SB-13-CRM-0096 to 0101
Page 14 of28
X X
Special Presidential Task Force 156.
During the Post Audit Investigation, they evaluated Tax Credit

[Certificates], the Evaluation Report, the Claimant Information Sheet which
is the Application Form for tax credit, supporting papers. Sales Invoices,
Delivery receipts, LTO Certificate of Registration and its Official Receipts,
a copy of the franchise issued by the LTFRB, photos of buses and the
schedule prepared by a Tax Specialist.^^
In the course of his testimony, the prosecution offered for stipulation,

which was admitted by the defense tiie fact that this witness can identify the
following documents:
1. For docket file of TCC 009334,£x:/2zM5 "A" to "NN" to "SSS",

up to and
2. For docket file ofTCC 009335,Exhibits "TTT" to "VW'\ "UUU"to
"ZZZ" "AAAA" to "ZZZZ" to to to
up to "A^^" to and
"A^^"to
3. For docket file of TCC 009932, Exhibits to to
He affirmed that the Cancellation Memorandum was based on the

Post Audit Report that his team conducted and defended that the same
contains in detail the findings of his audit team although he admitted that it
was "prepared" solely by Miss Beverly Taneza, one of the members of the
audit team and his participation was merely to validate whether the findings
of the Audit Team were sufficient or not insofar as the standards of the
office are concemed.^^ He, however, negated the insinuation that, his
evaluation was merely limited based on the review of the post audit report
and explained that the review of the same includes the submission and
preparation of all the documents that the audit team had secured^^ including
the tax credit dockets^"^ and he had sufficient time to study the documents
submitted.^^
Upon deeper probing, he admitted that there was no office order

issued and he was merely verbally directed by Director Salanga to make the
audit.^^
TSN dated September 6,2017, p.20

TSN dated September 6,2017, pp. 33 to 34
"TSN dated September 6,2017, p. 36
TSN dated September 6,2017, p.45
. t
■
Resolution
SB-13-CRM-0096 to 0101
Page 15 of28
X- -X
On RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION,
He candidly admitted that the documents, such as LTD Certificates of

Registration and Official Receipts, LTFRB Documents evidencing the
franchise, are photocopies which he reviewed.
On RE-CROSS EXAMINATION,
He explained that there was a shift from the old system in order to
correct any deficiencies from the previous system. The shift includes that of
an application now processed on the basis of industry divisions. More, they
now adopted the "process system" which inlcudes a 4-process phase
system.^^
Lastly, he claimed that the adoption ofthe new system is now covered
by an Executive Committee Resolution.
FELIPE SIMEON BARROGA,

Filipino, 64 years old, married. Vice
President for Comptoller of HINO Motors
Philippines Corporation, Canlubang Estate,
Industrial Park Road, Calamba City, a
resident of No. 17 Astron St., Phase 6, Vista
Verde Executive Village, Cainta, Rizal.
In his Judicial Affidavit,^® he testified that HINO Motors Philippines

Corporation is engaged in the assembly, manufacturing and distribution of
quality HINO trucks, buses and spare parts; and the name of Pilipinas Hino
Incorporated was changed to Hino Motors Philippines Corporation when
Hino Motors, Ltd. and Marubeni Corporation bought the majority shares
from the Filipino owners in June 2015. Before 2005, he was the
AVP/Controller of then Pilipinas Hino Incorporated; from 2005 to 2015, he
held the position of VP/Treasurer; and from 2015, he has held his present
position of VP/Comptroller. As former AVP/Controller, he supervised
Accounting and Control,IT Department, Credit and Collections and Budget.
He stated that Accounting and Control was the custodian of the books of
accounts, including copies of sales invoices and delivery receipts issued by
Pilipinas Hino Incorporated through the Marketing Division. When he was
the supervisor of Accounting and Control, he remembered receiving a letter
from Special Presidential Task Force 156,inquiring about the purchase from
Pilipinas Hino Incorporated of 11 units of Hino RF821 model bus by their
dealer SCL Cartrade intended for Liberty Transport, Inc. His response is
contained in a letter dated April 28, 2000 sent to the Task Force, attaching

Judicial Affidavit ofFelipe S. Barroga dated September 27,2017,record, vol. 3,pp. 305-309.
/■■ r
i
Resolution
SB-13-CRM-0096 to 0101
Page 16 of28
the list of 11 units of Hino RF821 model bus that was purportedly sold to
Liberty Transport, Inc. by Pilipinas Hino Incorporated. Finally, he said that
he no longer has a copy of the letter-inquiry of the Task Force because they
transferred business location to Canlubang, Calamba City sometime in 2003
and it could have been misplaced in the process; and that despite diligent
search ofthe said document, he could not anymore locate it.
He affirmed that the procedure being followed by his office is the

same procedure being observed whenever they received a query from the
Presidential Task Force and that the results of the verification performed
with his staff were the same findings that he reflected in his letter dated
April 2000 in response to the query sent by the Presidential Special Task
Force.^^
He also admitted that due to the transfer of business location in 2003,

from Canlubang,[Laguna] to Calamba,[Laguna], the first letter sent by the
Presidential Special Task Force was lost and that there is also a possibility
that other documents might be lost.^® More,he admitted that he doesn't have
a copy of the letter dated April 28, 2000 (Exhibit such that it was
only provided by the Prosecutor.^^ Lastly, he carmot say that the documents
before the transfer and the documents after the transfer are still the same.^^
On RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION,
He admitted that as an AVP Contoller, he has no knowledge about the

details ofthe bus units that Presidential Special Task Force asked from him
but he based his information on the documents and invoices given to him.^^
On RE-CROSS EXAMINATION,
He clarified that he based the fact of sale of the bus units which took
place sometime in 2004 on the sales book but he has no documentary proof
that the buses were repossessed by Filipinas Hino.^"^
HOMERO ALON-ALON
MERCADO,Filipino, 61 years old, married,
a businessman with office address at HM
Transport, Barangay Tubigan,Binan,Laguna
5® TSN dated October 4,2017,pp. 25 to 26

TSN dated October 4,2017,p. 28

^ TSN dated October 4,2017, p. 41
Resolution
SB-13-CRM-0096 to 0101
Page 17 of28
and residing at No. Ill Bayabong Street,

Ayala Alabang Village, Muntinlupa City.
He said that he is engaged in public transport and he is the operator of

HM Transport, Inc. However, the business is under a new management. He
explained that his father started the business in 1968 with the establishment
of JAM Transportation and then in 1980, his father also formed another
corporation, JAM Liner, Inc. But sometime in the year 2000,they sold their
shares in JAM Transit and JAM Liner to another entity.
He continued that in 1989, when he read in the newspaper involving

the Board of Investment about a tax credit, he went to the said office and
verified if there is such an incentive given to a legitimate bus operator.^^ He
was then informed that there was such an incentive provided that a bus
operator can satisfy the requirements given in the Guidelines ofthe Board of
Investment, such as the bus operator should be a legitimate one and the
company should be registered with the Board of Investmens with a
Certificate of Eligibility and a registered company under the LTFRB.^^ The
application for tax credit certificate was subsequently transferred to the
Departnemt ofFinance.
He added that they started applying for tax credit with respect to JAM
Transit in 1990 and it was followed in 1994 and in 1995. But in 1996, they
applied for Liberty Transport, Inc.^^ That sometime in 1996, Liberty
Transport has about 36 units operating in the Visayas-Manila route then
accused Lacsina, his friend, the owner of Liberty Transport, asked him if he
could fill in the vacancy for these units. Thus, they purchased ten (10)imits
for Liberty Transport and then applied for Tax Credit with the Deprtment of
Finance.^^
He continued that they applied for the ten units of Mercedes Benz
buses purchased from Commercial Motors Corporation. With these xmits,
they applied for one tax credit in 1996 for the Mercedes Benz buses then
accused Lacsina applied one in 1997^^ for the Daewoo Buses to which he
was made as an attomey-in-fact.''® The third application was made in 1997,
where he introduced accused Cabotaje, a former salesman of Diamond
Motors Corporation to accused Lacsina.
He narrated that accused Cabotaje's participation in the second and

the third applications was that he facilitated the tax credit applications for
TSN dated January 8,2018, p.9

^ TSN dated January 8,2018,p. 10
TSN dated January 8,2018,p. 11
TSN dated January 8,2018, p. 14
I
t /■
Resolution
SB-13-CRM-0096to0101
Page 18 of28
Liberty Transport for a facilitation fee of 20% of the face value of the tax
credit^^ As for the first, his participation was that he asked accused Cabotaje
to make follow up with the Department of FinanceJ^ He was then informed
by accused Cabotaje that in 1998,the applications were already approved by
the Department of Finance but did not show any document evidencing such
but merely relied to him verbally that Tax Credit Certificate No. 9334 was
issued for the Daewoo buses ^d Tax Credit Certificate No. 9335 for the 11
units ofHino buses.
He was subsequently informed by accused Cabotaje that these tax

credit applications were transferred or assigned to Isuzu Corporation and
mentioned to him that he asked accused Lacsina to sign a Deed of
Assignment in favor ofIsuzu Corporation.^"^
For the facilitation fee, he testified that he issued a check worth

Php3M to accused Cabotaje which the latter encashed with the Far East
Bank and Trust Company in Binan Branch, of which the amount of
Php2.3M was deposited to the account of accused de Vera. However, he
could no longer find the check.^^ However, a certified true copy of the
deposit slip was given to the investigating body. Task Force 156.^^
He continued to testify that during the investigation, he noticed that

the original sales invoices and the original delivery receipts were not the
ones that he had submitted to the Department ofFinance because the ones he
submitted was only for the amount of P2.89 M per invoice, while the ones
shown to his was P4.65M.^^ However, his testimony was temporarily held in
abeyance pending the presentation of the documents he mentioned in his
testimony.
When recalled to the witness stand on May 2, 2018, the following

stipulations were nonetheless made, thus dispensing with the actual
authentication process in so far as the Claimant Infirmation Sheet is
concerned:
1. That ifthe witness is asked, he will be able to testify that he was

able to accomplish the CIS in relation to the application for
TCC of Liberty Transport for Tax Credit Certificates Number
9932 and 9334, and
2. That he was able to do this when the witness instructed his staff
to get a CIS form fi*om the DOF which accused Lacsina filled
TSB dated January 8,2018,p. 19
^ TSN dated January 8,2018, p. 17
''Ud
TSN dated January 8,2018, p.20
1
r
Resolution
SB-13-CRM-0096 to 0101
Page 19 of28
X
out.
The following counter-stipulations were also made, to which the

prosecution was also amenable:
1. That the witness was not a signatory to said CIS;

2. That the name of the witness in ^e CIS merely appears as a
Contact Person under the Position,"attomey-in-fact";
3. That there was no SPA attached to said CIS appointing him as
such;
4. That no other documents are attached to said CIS.
TIMOTHY CAESAR TAN LEE,

Filipino, 58 years old, businessman, with
office address at 642 Mercedes Avebue, San
Miguel,Pasig City
His testimony was reduced in a form of a Judicial Affidavit dated

February 28,2018.^®
He testified that in the year 2000, he was with the Commercial Motors
Corporation, the exclusive Philipine assembler and distributor of Mercedes
Benzz cars in the Philippines and was the manager of electronic data
processing department. As such, he was assisting in the ordering and
procurement of spare parts, parts inquiries and supply of parts. However, in
2005, the company lost the agency contract with Mercedes Benz and then
filed for corporate rehabilitation but was not successful until 2008. Upon
filing for a corporate rehabilitation, they determined it to be prudent to store
all corporate documents in filing cabinets inside one of their warehouses for
safekeeping; unfortunately, it was destroyed by typhoon Ondoy in 2009.
Nevertheless, he identified Exhibits to and and

all appended to letter dated February 22, 2000 (Exhibit He
was able to identify these documents because they all bore the letterhead of
Commercial Motors Corporation and all of these documents bore the
signature of one Celia J. Pagulayan, Assistant Vice President ofCommercial
Motors Corporation, who is now dead.
He said that he did not issue the sales invoices and the delivery
receipts attached to his Judicial Affidavit nor the signatory thereof^ He
neither claims participation in the [preparation ofthese invoices].
Record, Vol 4,pp. 104 to 130

^ TSN dated March 21,2018, p. 32
/ /'
Resolution
SB-13-CRM-0096to0101
Page 20 of28
He added that he is not sure if he has seen all the documents attached
to his Judicial Affidavit but he has seen documents similar to those that are
attached thereto.^®
After all the witnesses for the prosecution testified, this Court gave the
prosecution on its own motion, twenty (20) days to file its formal offer of
documentary exhibits and the same period oftime was given for the defense
to file their respective Comment/ Opposition.
Thereafter on May 22, 2018, the prosecution moved for an extension

of another ten (10) days to file its formal offer which was granted in a
Resolution of even date. Then on June 1, 2018, it again asked for another
five(5)days to file its formal offer.
However, as observed by this Court, after the considerable time has

lapsed, the prosecution still failed to file its formal offer prompting this
Court to issue an Order dated July 27, 2017, that it has waived it right to dp
so.
Then on September 5, 2018, the prosecution filed an Omnibus

Motion®^ praying among others that its Formal Offer of Evidence be
admitted which was met by the vehement objection of the defense as
contained in accused de Vera's Comment/ Oposition dated September 19,
2018.^2
The Court in a resolution dated October 15,2018,resolved to deny the

Omnibus Motion filed by the prosecution finding no merit in the allegations
contained therein prompting the accused to file their respective Demurrer to
Evidence.
For reasons only the prosecution knows, no Comment/ Opposition

was filed to the two Demurrers to Evidence despite the lapse of the ten-day
period given by this Court.
Thus,this resolution.
THE COURT'S RULING
Time and again, the Supreme Court is explicit when it ruled in the
case of Heirs of Pedro Pasag, represented by Eufremio Pasag, et at vs.
Spouses Lorenzo and Florentina Parachoa, et al.^^, that the rule on formal
offer of evidence is not a trivial matter. Failure to make a formal offer
8® TSN dated March 21,2018, p. 37

Record, Vol 4. pp. 206 to 246
Record, Vol 4,pp.256 to 260
GR No. 155483, April 27,2007
f
/i
Resolution
SB-13-CRM-0096to0101
Page 21 of28
within a considerable period of time shall be deemed a waiver to submit

it. Consequently, as in this case, any evidence that has not been offered shall
be excluded and rejected,(emphasis ours)
In our Resolution dated October 15, 2018®"^, we already DENIED the

Omnibus Motion filed by the Office ofthe Special Prosecutor(OS?)over its
plea that "it offered its sincerest apologies in not filing on time its Formal
Offer of Evidence and explained that during its actual preparation, some
originally marked exhibits were misplaced. Fortunately, after diligent search,
said documents were found to have been mixed up with the record of
terminated cases. The OS? maintained that it neither had an intention to defy
the orders of this Court nor violated the rights of the accused for a speedy
disposition ofthe case."
In that Resolution, this Court already ruled that admission of a formal

offer of evidence after the lapse of a period to file the same is to '^condone
an inexcusable laxity if not, non-compliance with a court order which, in
effect, would encourage needless delays and derail the speedy
administration ofjustice.
More,in denying the Omnibus Motion, this Court made the following
observations:
"Records cannot deny that truly, the OS? had failed

thrice to file the formal offer within the period given by
this Court. In fact, record shows that on May 2, 2018,
after the OS? presented its last witness, the handling
prosecutor requested twenty(20)days fi'om said date to
file its formal offer. Thereafter, on May 22, 2018,the
OS? moved for extension of ten (10) days to file its
formal offer which was granted in a Resolution ofeven
date. Then on June 1, 2018, it again asked for another
five (5) days or until June 6, 2018 to file the formal
offer.^^
However, after June 6,2018,the Court observed that

a considerable period of time has lapsed, the OSP still
failed to file its formal offer of evidence without asking
this Court for another extension of time to file its
formal offer of evidence, thus prompting this Court to
issue an Order that the OSP has waived its right to do
^ Record, Vol. 4, pp. 263 to 267
^ Record, Vol.4, pp. 153-154.

Id. at 202, Order dated July 27,2018.
1
/
Resolution
SB-13-CRM-0096 to 0101
Page 22 of28
so.^^ Specifically, records will reveal that, after the

last extension of time given to the OSP Le. June 6,
2018, it took the OSP three (3) months and five (5)
days to move and seek the indulgence of this Court
to admit its formal offer."
In essence, what this Court tried to impress in its Resolution dated

October 15, 2018 is that, ''thefailure ofthe OSP to askfor an extension of
time before the lapse ofJune 6,2018 and the belatedfiling ofthe Omnibus
Motion only on September 11,2018, is anathema to the efficient, effective,
and ejqpeditious dispensation of justice which this Court seeks to
uphold. (emphasis ours).
While we understand the predicament of the OSP, the hands of this

Court are tied on the seemingly inexcusable negligence of the the OSP in
following the orders of this Court which to our mind, a corresponding legal
repercussion is warranted.
To reiterate, the reasons invoked by the OSP to justify its failure to

timely file the formal offer of evidence did not convince this Court as
explained in our Resolution dated October 15,2018.
More interestingly, if the OSP is keen on having its evidence admitted

by this Court for whatever it may be worth despite the denial ofits Omnibus
Motion, still the OSP has its legal recourse. The OSP should have asked this
Court's permission to have the exhibits attached to the Court record, which
the OSP never did.
We now discuss the crux of the issue raised.
In essence, what the accused are trying to imply is that, since the OSP
did not file its Formal Offer ofEvidence, and its last ditch effort to admit the
same was already denied by this Court in a Resolution dated October 15,
2018, the prosecution failed to present any iota of proof in support of its
allegations. Thus, all the evidence adduced are pure hearsay and should be
excluded and rejected by this Court prompting the accused to avail of the
remedy offiling the present demurrer to evidence.
Rule 132, Section 34 of the Rules of Court provides that the court
shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered.
A formal offer is necessary because judges are mandated to rest their

findings of facts and their judgment only and strictly upon the evidence
88/d
8'W
r
fi
Resolution
SB-13-CRM-0096to0101
Page 23 of28
X X
offered by the parties at the ti*ial. Its function is to enable the trial judge to
know the purpose or purposes for which the proponent is presenting the
evidence. On the other hand, this allows opposing parties to examine the
evidence and object to its admissibility. Moreover,it facilitates review as the
appellate court will not be required to review documents not previously
scrutinized by the trial court.^®It is well to remember that good intentions do
not win cases, evidence does.^^
The rule on formal offer of evidence is intertwined with the

constitutional guarantee of due process. Parties must be given the
opportunity to review the evidence submitted against them and take the
necessary actions to secure their case.^^
Hence, any document or object that was marked for identification is

not evidence unless it was formally offered and the opposing counsel [was]
given an opportunity to object to it or cross-examine the witness called upon
to prove or identify it.^^
To consider a party's evidence which was not formally offered during
trial would deprive the other party of due process. Evidence not formally
offered has no probative value and must be excluded by the court.^"^
We now determine the propriety of accused's Demurrer to Evidence.
To do this, this Court sees the need to review the nature ofa demurrer.
In the case of Gregorio Singian, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan (Third

Division)^^ the Supreme Court explained the concept of a demurrer to
evidence. In this wise,the Court ruled that "a demurrer to the evidence is an
objection by one ofthe parties in an action, to the effect that the evidence
which his adversary produced is in sufficient in point oflaw, whether true or
not, to make out a case or sustain the issue. The party demurring
challenges the sufficiency ofthe whole evidence to sustain a verdict the
court, in passing upon the sufficiency ofthe evidence raised in a demurrer,
is merely required to ascertain whether there is competent or sufficient
evidence to sustain the indictment or to support a verdict of guilt."
(emphasis ours)
However, the grant or denial of a demurrer to evidence is left to the

sound discretion of^e trial court, and its ruling on the matter shall not be
disturbed in the absence of a grave abuse of such discretion.Thus, when the
accused files a demurrer, the court must evaluate whether the prosecution
supra at Note 4
Star Two[SPV-AMC],Inc., vs. Howard Ko,GRNo. 1855454, March 23,2011
^ Republic ofthe Philippines vs. Fe Roa Gimenez and Ignacio Gimenez, GRNo. 174673, January 11,2016
94ld
GR.Nos. 195011-19, September 30,2013
/1'
11
^
Resolution
SB-13-CRM-0096to0101
Page 24 of28
evidence is suiSicient enough to warrant the conviction of the accused

beyond reasonable doubt.^^
In the case of Nilo Oropesa vs. Cirilo Oropesa^'^ where the Supreme
Court affirmed the dismissal of the case on demurrer to evidence due to
[petitioner's] non-submission of the Formal Offer of Evidence, demurrer to
evidence was defined as "an objection by one ofthe parties in an action, to
the effect that the evidence which his adversary produced is insufficient in
point oflaw, whether true or not, to make out a case or sustain the issue,"
(emphasis ours)
In the said case, the Supreme Court laid down the guidelines in
resolving a demurrer to evidence. Thus:
"A demurrer to evidence may be issued when,

upon the facts and the law, the plaintiff has shown no
right to relief. Where the plaintiffs evidence together
with such inferences and conclusions as may reasonably
be drawn therefi-om does not warrant recovery against
the defendant, a demurrer to evidence should be
sustained. A demurrer to evidence is likewise
sustainable when, admitting every proven fact favorable
to the plaintiff and indulging in Ms favor all conclusions
fairly and reasonably inferable therefi*om, the plaintiff
has failed to make out one or more of the material
elements of Ms case, or when there is no evidence to
support an allegation necessary to Ms claim. It should be
sustained where the plaintiffs evidence is prima facie
insufficient for a recovery."
Corollarily, what should be resolved in a motion to dismiss based on a

demurrer to evidence is whether the plaintiffis entitled to the relief based on
the facts and the law. The evidence contemplated by the rule on demurrer
is that which pertains to the merits ofthe case, excluding technical aspects
such as capacity to sue?^(emphasis ours)
With the failure of the OSP to formally offer its documentary

evidence, its proofthat accused being public officials took advantage oftheir
official functions and commiting the offense in relation to their office, gave
unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference to Liberty Transport
Incorporated through evident bad faith or manifest impartiality or gross
inexcusable negligence although said corporation is not legally entitled to
^ People ofthe Philippines vs. Jose C. Go,et al, OR No. 191015, August 6,2014
^ OR No.184528, April 25,2012
^supra at Note 13 .
r
Resolution
SB-13-CRM-0096 to 0101
Page 25 of28
considering that its supporting documents attached to the tax credit

application were spurious, has no legal leg to stand on. The weight of the
charges depended heavily on the spurious or tampered nature of the
documents attached to the tax credit applications. Without these
documentary exhibits offered as evidence, there is none for the Court to
eventually scrutinize, much less, weigh the nature of the applications
submitted to the One Stop Shop Tax Credit and Duty Drawback Center that
apparently ended up in the grant of Tax Credit Certificates in favor of
Liberty Transport. The allegations on their spurious or tampered nature,
therefore, remained as mere allusions that was never substantiated.
Even if we are to overlook OSP's procedural lapse in failing to make a

formal offer of evidence, still the evidence adduced by the prosecution are
not strong enough to warrant their conviction.
Records of these case reveal that when witness Atty. Alan Allaga
Ventura was presented to the witness stand on April 30,2015,to prove that a
task force which he headed was created to investigate the alleged Twenty
Million Pesos (P-20,000,000.00)tax credit scam perpetrated by officials and
employees of the One Stop Shop Interagency Tax Credit Duty Drawback
Center, among others, the OS? agreed to stipulate that said witness did
not conduct the investigtion proper but only reviewed the report
submitted to him.^^ Lamentably, his testimony was not finished because he
died of limg cancer^®® thereby giving no chance for the accused to cross-
examine him. This, in effect, caused the striking of his testimony fi:om the
record ofthese cases.
More, some of the documentary exhibits identified by other witnesses

only bear "provisional markings" as prompty objected by the counsel for the
accused.
Additionally, when witness Rowena Morales was presented to the

witness stand, her testimony consisted mainly on the fact that she was the
records officer of the Land Transportation Office that has custody of the
records of registration of motor vehicles registered under the name of
Liberty Transport Corporation and that the documents placed imder her
custody are kept secured. She candidly admitted that she assumed only the
position of the records officer only in 2016 but the documents presented to
her for identification were dated "1995."
The OSP in its attempt to establish its case against all accused.
TSN dated April 30,2015, p.6

TSN dated October 6,2016, p. 24
Exhibit"T","HHH","V","NN","NN-1" up to"Wl","FF to GGG-1", "GO","00-1","PP",
"PP-1","QQ","QQ-1","RR","RR-1", "S","SS","SS-1","IT',"TT-2","UU","UU-1""DD",
,"V to Q»,"CCCC"to"XXXX", "T-6-A","H","U","V" to"Q","VV-1 to "VV-7",
r
Resolution
SB-13-CRM-0096 to 0101
Page 26 of28
presented to the witness stand James P. Calleja, an Investigator at the

National Bureau of Investigation. Unfortunately, when the OS? made him
identify Exhibits "NN" to "W-1", "FF"F to "GGG-1", "A^" and "V^" (all
Tax Credit Certificate), the defense manifested that they are all
photocopies^®^ as well as Exhibits "V-l" to "V-7"- attachments to Exhibit
On cross, he admitted that he has no proof if the documents
presented to him are originals^®^ and that he has no knowledge whether there
were added or removed from the set of documents relative to Liberty
transport.^®^ And that, while some of the witnesses identified what exhibits
were proven, they are photocopies. Following the rule on appreciation of
evidence, undeniably, these documentary evidence have no significant
substantial probative value.
To further establish its case, the OS? presented Ernesto Q. Hiansen,

Executive Director of Department of Finance, One Stop Shop Inter-Agency
Tax Credit and Duty Drawback Center. He admitted that his only
participation in the the preparation of documents was that he only reviewed
the prepration ofthe document submitted to him and after he found out that
everything is in order, he merely signed it.^®^
Not only that, when witless Homero A. Mercado was called to testify
supposedly to corroborate with the testimony of witness Calleja, the
prosecution admitted that the docket folders submitted to the Office of the
Ombudsman by the Task Force are apparently no longer the same document
that witness Mercado submitted during the alleged application for Tax
Credit Certificate.^®^ This cast doubt as to the veracity and authenticity ofthe
said documents.
This fact was also noticed by this Court speaking thru Associate
Justice Trespeses, and we quote the pertinent portion of TSN dated January
8,2018:
TSN dated January 8,2018, page 24:
"x X X
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE TRESPESES:
None ofthe documents that were mentioned by the

witness formed part of the documents that were
102 jgisj dated January 30,2017,p. 13

103 dated January 31,2017, p. 11
TSN dated June 8,2017,p. 23
id, p.26
106 -j-gj^ dated September 6,2017, p. 16
107 ysn dated January 8,2018,p. 23
Resolution
SB-13-CRM-0096to0101
Page 27 of28
identified by Mr. Calleja?
PROSECUTOR QUINTELA:
None,your Honors.
xxx"
To the mind of the Court, and we reiterate, the testimonies of

prosecution witnesses, even when taken together, are still not sufficient to
establish the guilt ofthe accused beyond reasonable doubt.
While it is true that litigation is not a game of technicalities and that

the higher ends of substantial justice militate against dismissal of cases
purely on technical grounds, the circumstances surrounding these cases
show that the ends of justice will not be served if this Court allows the
wanton disregard of the Rules of Court and of the Court's orders. Rules of
procedure are designed for the proper and prompt disposition ofcases.^®®
The Court emphasized that the great goal of our criminal law and
procedure is not to send people to the gaol but to do justice. Public order and
our system ofjustice are well served by a conscientious observance of the
rules ofprocedure, particularly by government officials and agencies.^®^
WHEREFORE, on the basis of our disquisitions above, the
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE dated December 3, 2018 filed by accused
Raul C. De Vera and Rosanna P. Diala and the DEMURRER TO
EVIDENCE dated January 7, 2019 filed by accused Brandy L. Marzan, are
hereby GRANTED.
Consequently, Criminal Case Nos. SB'-13-CRM'0096 to 0101 —

People of the Philippines vs. Antonio P. Belicena, et al. are all ordered
DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
L
GEORGINA D.HIDALGO
Associ ;e Justice
Republic ofthe Philippines vs. Fe Roa Gimenez and Ignacio Gimenez,GRNo. 174673,January 11,
2016
Wainwright Rivera vs. Honorable Associate Justices ofthe 4''' Division, Sandiganbayan,et al, GRNo.
157824, January 17,2005 citing People vs. Mamalias,328 SCRA 760(2000).
/7 ^
Resolution
SB-13-CRM-0096 to 0101
Page 28 of28
WE CONCXJR:
3^C.GOMEZ-ESTOESTA
MA.THERESA DOL€^S
Associate Justice, Chairperson
:SPESES
issocialf Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation with the Justices ofthe Court's Division.
MA.THERESA DOLOKES C.GOMEZ-ESTOESTA

Associate Justice
Chairperson, Seventh Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the

Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer ofthe opinion ofthe Court's Division.
■AMPARCD^Cj
Presiding Justice

C Crim SB-13-CRM-0096-0101 People Vs Belicena, Et Al 03-25-2019

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

C Crim SB-13-CRM-0096-0101 People Vs Belicena, Et Al 03-25-2019

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Crim. Case No.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPBVES,

Crim. Case No.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Crim. Case No.

RAUL CLAUREN DE VERA,

PEOPLE OF THE PHttiffPDVES,

Crim. Case No.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Crim. Case No.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Grim. Case No.

Submitted for resolution are the following:

(1) Demurrer to Evidence filed by accused Raul C. De Vera

Arguntents offered by accused De Vera, Diala and Marzan

In sum,all accused raised the following arguments:

1. The prosecution failed to present any iota of proofin support of its

^ Record, Vol.4, pp. 305 to 311

allegations since it failed to file its Formal Offer ofEvidence. Thus,

2. The prosecution failed to rebut the constitutionally enshrined

3. The testimonies ofthe prosecution witnesses alone cannot be given

Specific arguments in support ofthe Demurrer to Evidence

They likewise maintained that even if the prosecution's documentary

With respect to the testimonial evidence presented by the prosecution,

They further relied on the Resolution of this Court dated November

Taken altogether, all accused beheve that consequently, the

'G.R.NO. 116018, November 13,1996

In six(6)Informations,^ accused were charged with three(3)counts of

Record shows that accused Marzan was arraigned on March 7, 2013,

EVTOENCE PRESENTED BY THE PROSECUTION

The prosecution presented both testimonial and documentary evidence

The following witnesses were presented:

COMMISSIONER ALAN VENTURA, 56

^ Record, Vol. 4, pp. 1-24.

He testified that prior to his appointment to his current position as

He continued to testify that based on their investigation, they found

On the witness stand, he explained that accused Rosanna Diala

With respect to accused Brandy Marzan(accused Marzan), he testified

He likewise described the liability of accused Uldarico P. Andutan,

'TSN dated April 30,2015, p. 8

He explained that accused Belicena who was then the Acting

With respect to the participation of private individuals, namely

He also explained the process of investigation with respect to the

That after the Investigation Report was submitted to him, he validated

During the continuation of his direct examination and with respect to

Relative to Tax Credit Certificate No. 9335 (Exhibit"UUU"), he said

the eleven(11)buses were all purchased on December 2,1997, when in fact,

As to the allegation of tampered documensts submitted by Liberty

In the course of her testimony, she identified a Certification dated

23 TSB dated March 10,2016, p. 30

2'TSN dated August 18,2016,p. 18

registration of motor vehicles registered under the name of Liberty Transport

ON CROSS EXAMINATION, she admitted that she was a clerk

JAMES P. CALLEJA, Filipino, 53

It was stipulated that he was assigned as a member ofthe Special Task

That during the years 1999-2000, he was designated as a member of

He admitted that the three Tax Credit Certificates ofLiberty Transport

TSN dated October 6,2016, pp. 10 to 12

Invoices, Delivery Receipts from the manufacturers, LTO Official receipts

In connection to Tax Credit Certificate No. 9334, he said that he

Anent Tax Credit Certificate No. 9332, he identified "X^" up