ESTACIO, Petitioner,
vs.
SANDIGANBAYAN, Respondent.
G.R. No. 75362
March 6, 1990
PARAS, J.:
FACTS:
On August 26, 1981, accused Romero Villasanta opened a Current Account with the
Lucena City Branch of the Solid Bank. Villasanta deposited an initial amount of P1,500.00. His
current account number is 37-574. His check books carried the numbers 107301 to 107325.
Villasanta opened another current account with the Cubao Branch of the Solid Bank under
date of August 27, 1981. Villasanta represented himself anew as a businessman and owner of the
Romero Villasanta Construction located at 14 P. Tuazon Blvd., Cubao, Quezon City. Villasanta
deposited initially a check for P10,000.00 and cash in the amount of P10,020.00. His Current
Account Number is 115-02543-3.
On August 25, 1981, Villasanta opened a current account with the Traders Royal Bank,
Pasig Branch. He presented himself as engaged in the construction business. He made an initial
deposit in the amount of P2,000.00. His current account number is 72-700934-6. His checkbooks
carried the numbers 176931 to 177000.
After having opened three current accounts with three different banks, Villasanta and the
syndicate began their insidious operations. On August 28, 1981, Villasanta deposited three
checks with his Current Account No. 72-700934-6 at the Traders Royal Bank, Pasig Branch
totalling P653,485.70. Two of these checks were drawn against his Current Account No. 37-574
with the Solid Bank, Lucena City Branch, namely: AA-37-107302 for P269,200.00 and AA-37-
107304 for P379,285.70 or a total of P648,485.70. It bears emphasizing that at the time these
checks were issued, Villasanta had a mere P1,500.00 deposited with his Current Account No. 37-
574 with the Solid Bank, Lucena City.
On the same day of August 28, 1981, the deposited checks AA-37-107302 and AA-37-
107304 were forwarded to the Clearing House of the Central Bank for the standard clearing
thereof. At the Central Bank Clearing House were accused Manuel Valentino and accused Jesus
Estacio who were then waiting for the demand envelope containing the checks deposited by
accused Villasanta. As soon as the demand envelope arrived, Estacio got the same, placed it
inside his push cart and brought the envelope inside the comfort room at the fourth floor of the
Central Bank Building. Estacio then waited for Valentino and Villasanta. When state witness
Valentino and Villasanta arrived, the former took the demand envelope and pulled out the checks
in question and thereafter gave the same to Villasanta. Valentino got hold of the attached bank
clearing statement of Solid Bank, Lucena Branch. The amount of "P628,564.00" under the column
"Amount Received" opposite the words "Traders Royal Bank", was thereafter crossed out to
make it appear that the same was not received while the total amount of "P992,723.99"
appearing in the clearing statement was likewise crossed out and replaced by the figures
"P344,238.29".
After the accused had altered the bank clearing statement, Valentino, the CB bookkeeper,
prepared a Central Bank Manifest and in the column "Amount" he placed the correct figures
P992,723.99 in the line opposite the Consolidated Bank and Trust Company. As soon as this
Manifest was signed by prosecution witness Alfonso Magsalin, Valentino superimposed thereon
the amount of "P344,238.29" thereby making it appear that such was the only amount received
for Solid Bank, Lucena Branch.
The demand envelope for Solid Bank, Lucena Branch, together with the altered Central
Bank Manifest and the altered bank clearing statement, were thereafter sent to the Regional
Central Bank Clearing House at Lucena City. The Regional Central Bank Clearing House official,
Adriano Valenzena, testified that he noticed nothing irregular when he received the demand
envelope for Solid Bank, Lucena. He explained that he saw the alteration but did not consider the
same unusual because the balances in the bank clearing statement and in the Central Bank
Manifest are the same.
CB rules and regulations provide that out of town checks are cleared within three working
days from date of presentation. Accordingly, the Traders Royal Bank, Pasig Branch, considered as
regular the deposits made by Villasanta in his Account No. 37-574 drawn against his current
account with Solid Bank, Lucena Branch, because no objection or notice of refusal was received
by Traders Royal Bank from Solid Bank, Lucena Branch, within the prescribed time, as there were
no checks received by the Solid Bank, Lucena Branch. Account No. 37-574 in the name of Romero
Villasanta was accordingly credited with the amount of P653,485.70. This represents the amount
of the two (2) checks in the total sum of P648,564.70, while the P500,000.00 represented the
third check deposited by Villasanta with Traders Royal Bank on August 28, 1981.
Under date of September 4, 1981, Villasanta issued TRB Check No. 176954 in the amount
of P500,000.00 and made payable to cash. This check was deposited with his Current Account
No. 11502543-3 with Solid Bank, Cubao Branch. This amount of P500,000.00 was drawn against
the current account of Villasanta with the Traders Royal Bank, Pasig. As of September 4, 1981,
the balance of Account No. 72-700934-6 of Romero Villasanta with Traders Royal Bank, after
deducting the said P500,000.00 was P184,485.70.
On September 7, 1981, Villasanta encashed with the Traders Royal Bank, Pasig Branch,
TRB Check No. 176956 in the amount of P69,000.00. He then encashed with the Traders Royal
Bank, Pasig Branch, TRB Check No. 176958 in the Amount of P84,500.00.
After Villasanta deposited the earlier mentioned TRB Check No. 176954 for P500,000.00
with his Current Account No. 115-2543-2 with Solid Bank, Cubao, his balance as stated in his
ledger was P500,512.02 (Exh. M-1). Subsequently, Villasanta encashed the following Solid Bank
Checks, to wit:
1. Solid Bank Check No. 81230 dated 9/8/81 for P4,500.00 (Exh. M-3)
2. Solid Bank Check No. 81231 dated 9/8/81 for P420,000.00 (Exh. N-4)
3. Solid Bank Check No. 81232 dated 9/8/81 for P79,500.00 (Exh. N-5)
After the foregoing withdrawals and/or encashments, the balance of Account No. 115-
02543-3 of accused Villasanta with the Solid Bank, Cubao Branch as of September 8, 1981 was P
l,012.04.
All told, the syndicate was able to defraud the Solid Bank, Lucena City Branch and/or the
Central in the total amount of P648,564.70. This syndicate was able to achieve by falsifying the
Central Bank Manifest of August 28, 1981 and the clearing statement for Solid Bank, Lucena,
dated August 28, 1981.
In seeking a reconsideration of Our aforesaid Resolution, petitioner claims that:
a) his extra-judicial statements dated May 4 and 5, 1982 (Exhs. E and E-1) are
inadmissible in evidence as he was not properly informed of his constitutional rights, and there
was no valid waiver on his part of such rights prior to the taking of those statements; that the
statements were extracted through force and intimidation;
b) the evidence adduced by the prosecution did not link him to the conspiracy.
In the alternative, petitioner asserts that if he was indeed guilty, his criminal liability
should only be as an accessory or an accomplice; and he should be credited with the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender.
ISSUE(S):
1) Whether or not petitioner’s extrajudicial statements, dated May 4 and 5, 1982, were
extracted through force and intimidation; and
2) Whether or not petitioner is guilty of Estafa thru Falsification of Public/Commercial
Documents.
HELD:
1) NO. The repudiation by petitioner of his confession on the ground that it was extracted
through force and intimidation is negated by the fact that the confession contained details which
only petitioner could have known.
In People v. Tintero, 111 SCRA 714, We ruled:
“. . . According to our jurisprudence, details disclosed in the confession which could have
been known only by the declarant indicate the voluntariness in executing the same (People
v. Bautista, 92 SCRA 465). Voluntariness in the execution of and details narrated in the
extra-judicial confession render the claim by the appellant of duress in its execution
incredible. (People v. Limoso, 91 SCRA 364). And in People v. Villa, 93 SCRA 716, We held
that the confessions of the accused cannot be totally ignored even if they repudiated all
of them on the ground of alleged extraction by force and intimidation, because the
narrations contained in them coincide with the narration given by the eye witnesses. And
where the narration of the defendant tends to explain his conduct or shift the blame to
others, this is a circumstance that may be demonstrative of voluntariness and freedom
than of compulsion (People v. Santalani, 93 SCRA 313; See also People v. Nillos, 127 SCRA
207 [1984]; Emphasis supplied.)”
Be this as it may, the point sought to be made by petitioner is of no moment. Even without
the extra-judicial confession, the evidence on record is sufficient to sustain petitioner's culpability
as a co-conspirator in the defraudation of the bank.
2) YES. As stated above as a response to the first issue, “even without the extra-judicial
confession, the evidence on record is sufficient to sustain petitioner's culpability as a co-
conspirator in the defraudation of the bank.”
Further Manuel Valentino, petitioner's co-accused turned state witness, positively and
categorically testified on the knowledge and participation of petitioner in the felonious act.
Anent petitioner's claim that respondent Sandiganbayan erred when it held that he
(Estacio) was part of the conspiracy, suffice it to say that petitioner's culpability as a co-
conspirator in the defraudation of the bank was amply demonstrated and established by the
evidence on record. His presence at the Ramada Hotel where he and his co-conspirators
discussed the mechanics of their sinister plot and each conspirator's role defined, and his
execution of his role thereafter, unquestionably demonstrates his conspiratorial designs.
We held in People v. Dalusag, 133 SCRA 15, that:
“There is conspiracy where several accused by their acts aimed at the same object,
one performing one part and another performing another part so as to complete it with
view to the attainment of the same object, and their acts, though apparently independent
are in fact concerted action and concurrence of petitioners. (Cited in People v. Petenia,
143 SCRA 361)”
