LUIS A.

TABUENA vs
SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. NO. 103501-03, FEBRUARY 17, 1997

PATIAG, BRYAN
ESPELIMBERGO, BENJAMIN
JIMENEZ, ANGELI
AQUINO, ANGELA
DIAZ, NELSON
FACTS OF THE CASE:
Tabuena was the General Manager and Peralta was the Acting Finances
Services Manager of the MIAA. President Marcos instructed Tabuena to pay
directly to the presidents office and in cash what the MIAA owes the Philippine
National Construction Corporation, which the latter agreed to do. A week after
the instruction was given, Tabuena received a Presidential memorandum
reiterating the verbal instruction. In obedience to Pres. Marcos verbal
instruction, Tabuena, with the help of Dabao and Peralta, caused the release of
P55M of MIAA funds by means of 3 check withdrawals. The disbursement of the
P55M was described by Tabuena as out of the ordinary and not based on normal
procedure.
Prosecution alleges that there were no outstanding obligations in favor of PNCC
at the time the P55M was disbursed. Tabuena and Peralta on the other hand
insist that they acted in good faith and was merely complying with the Marcos
memorandum.
SB rejected Tabuena and Peraltas contention, and charged them with
intentional malversation and malversation by negligence under Art 217.
ISSUES OF THE CASE:

Whether or not Tabuena and Peraltas

contention of good faith holds bar.
Whether or not Tabuena and Peralta violated
Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code
Arguments
Tabuena
Act was a mere compliance
with the MARCOS
Memorandum which ordered
him to forward immediately to
the Office of the President P55
Million in cash as partial
payment of MIAAs obligations
to PNCC, and that he
(Tabuena) was of the belief
that MIAA indeed had
liabilities to PNCC under Art
217.
Sandiganbayan
There were no outstanding
obligations in favor of PNCC
at the time of the
disbursement of the P55
Million.
Tabuena had deliberately
consented or permitted
through negligence or
abandonment, some other
person to take such public
funds
RULING OF THE COURT (1 st Issue):
YES. Defense of good faith is a valid defense in a prosecution of malversation. Tabuena had
no other choice but to make the withdrawals for that were what the Marcos memorandum
required him to do. He could not be faulted if he had to obey and strictly comply with the
presidential directive. Marcos had a say in matters involving inter-government agency affairs
and transactions. As a recipient of such kind of directive from the highest official of the land,
good faith should be read on Tabuenas compliance. Tabuena is entitled to the justifying
circumstance, any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some
lawful purpose.
Further, Tabuena, although admitting that the disbursement was out of ordinary, did not
have the luxury of time to observe auditing procedures because the memorandum required
his immediate compliance. Hence, no criminal liability can be imputed to Tabuena. This is
not a sheer case of blind and misguided obedience, but obedience in good faith of a duly
executed order. Since the order emanated from the OP and bears the signature of the
president, it carries with it the presumption that it was regularly issued.
Additionally, it must never be forgotten that the courts render justice on a case to case basis,
always in consideration of the evidence that is presented. Thus, where evidence warrants an
acquittal, the courts are mandated not only by the dictates of law but likewise of
conscience to grant the same.
RULING OF THE COURT (2 nd Issue)

No. Article 217 provides the elements for Malversation of Public

Funds and Property are the following:
Offender is a public officer
He had custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of
his office
Those funds or property were public funds for which he was
accountable
He appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented, or through
abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take them
RULING OF THE COURT (2 nd Issue)

In the application to the present case, it satisfies the elements for

malversation, but emphasizes on the consent, wherein it was stated
that Tabuena was following Marcos instruction as his superior.
Marcos had a say in matters involving inter-government agency
affairs and transactions. As a recipient of such kind of directive from
the highest official of the land, good faith should be read on
Tabuenas compliance. Tabuena is entitled to the justifying
circumstance, any person who acts in obedience to an order issued
by a superior for some lawful purpose.
The court presented the case as an apparent exemption Art. 217.
GROUP CRITIQUE:
The Supreme Court should not have accepted good faith as a defense in malversation
through negligence because it is a culpable felony. Under Article 3 of the Revised Penal
Code,
Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies Felonies are committed not only be means of
deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa). XXX there is fault when the wrongful act results from
imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.

It is clear from the provision that the law also punishes individuals who, through fault, commits
an offense amounting to a crime.
In this case, good faith cannot be invoked because the crime committed by Tabuena was
malversation by negligence. This crime, taking into consideration Article 3 of the RPC as
mentioned above, is a culpable felony which means that what is being punished here is not
only the resulting crime from petitioners negligence, but also his lack of imprudence.
Additionally, Tabuena himself admitted that he noticed that the order of the President was
out of the ordinary, having requested him to personally deliver the Php 55 Million in cold
cash to his office. This realization should have compelled Tabuena to be more cautious of his
compliance to the Presidents memorandum.