Tabuena, the general manager of MIAA, withdrew PHP 55 million from MIAA funds and delivered it to Marcos' private secretary based on a presidential memorandum ordering immediate payment. Tabuena did not follow standard withdrawal and payment procedures. While Sandiganbayan convicted Tabuena of malversation, the Supreme Court acquitted him, finding his good faith in following a direct presidential order constituted a justifying circumstance. The Court ruled Tabuena's good faith in following orders relieved him of criminal liability, though he remained civilly liable.
Tabuena, the general manager of MIAA, withdrew PHP 55 million from MIAA funds and delivered it to Marcos' private secretary based on a presidential memorandum ordering immediate payment. Tabuena did not follow standard withdrawal and payment procedures. While Sandiganbayan convicted Tabuena of malversation, the Supreme Court acquitted him, finding his good faith in following a direct presidential order constituted a justifying circumstance. The Court ruled Tabuena's good faith in following orders relieved him of criminal liability, though he remained civilly liable.
Tabuena, the general manager of MIAA, withdrew PHP 55 million from MIAA funds and delivered it to Marcos' private secretary based on a presidential memorandum ordering immediate payment. Tabuena did not follow standard withdrawal and payment procedures. While Sandiganbayan convicted Tabuena of malversation, the Supreme Court acquitted him, finding his good faith in following a direct presidential order constituted a justifying circumstance. The Court ruled Tabuena's good faith in following orders relieved him of criminal liability, though he remained civilly liable.
Tabuena, the general manager of MIAA, withdrew PHP 55 million from MIAA funds and delivered it to Marcos' private secretary based on a presidential memorandum ordering immediate payment. Tabuena did not follow standard withdrawal and payment procedures. While Sandiganbayan convicted Tabuena of malversation, the Supreme Court acquitted him, finding his good faith in following a direct presidential order constituted a justifying circumstance. The Court ruled Tabuena's good faith in following orders relieved him of criminal liability, though he remained civilly liable.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2
TABUENA VS SANDIGAN BAYAN
CRIME CHARGED Malversation by Negligence
FACTS In a Presidential Memorandum (Marcos Memorandum)
Pres. Marcos allegedly commanded petitioner Tabuena, in his capacity as General Manager of the Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA)
- “ Pay immediately the Philippine National Construction
thru the office of the president the sum of PHP 55M in cash as partial payment of MIAA’s account with the said company mentioned in a Memorandum of ( Trade and Industry) Minister Ongpin to his office dated Jan 7, 1985
Tabuena withdrew the sum of P55M on 3 separate occasions (
25M, 25M, 5M with adolfo peralta) and delivered them to Marco’s private secretary Gimenez
TABUENA DID NOT FOLLOW THE NORMAL PROCEDURES
OF WITHDRAWAL AND DELIVERY OF MONEY - No disbursement slips - Paid in cold cash - Was only issued a receipt on 3rd delivery - NO MENTION OF ITS PURPOSE - Merely acknowledge that Gimenez received the P55M - No receipt from PNCC recognizing payment of debt
PNCC said they did not received the P55M
Tabuena was merely following the orders of Marcos and acted
in good faith
Sandiganbayan Malversation by Negligence -; rejected Tabuena’s claim of
good faith
SC Acquitted, defense of good faith
JUSTIFYING JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF OBEDIENCE TO AN
CIRCUMSTANCES ORDER
Tabuena is merely civilly liable. He was only following
Defense of good faith is a valid defense against
malversation, because it would negate criminal intent
1. Marcos is undeniably the superior of Tabuena
- He was the president - In turn the head of gov agencies such as MIAA and PNCC - Tabuena has no other choice but to follow the order stated in the Marcos Memorandum - And he followed it to the letter
2, There was nothing in the Marcos Memorandum to
warrant suspicion - Tabuena had reason to believe that the 55M was indeed part of due and demandable debt to PNCC - Even if the order is illegal, he was not aware of the illegality - There would only be a mistake of fact committed in good faith - It also bears the signature of the president himself so there is a presumption that the order was regularly issued and patently legal. - The memorandum also expressed urgency - Good faith in the payment of public funds relieved a public officer from the crime of malversation.
While even if Tabuena admitted that procedures were
ignored and that the disbursement was unusual - He was still excused since the Marcos Memorandum enjoined his IMMEDIATE COMPLIANCE.
3. No showing that Tabuena had anything to do with the
creation of the Marcos Memorandum - Even if the real purpose was to get 55M from public funds - Tabuena did not and would not profit from such
