This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2013-07-31 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Equally compelling is the nature of petitioners' responsibilities and their role in the purchasing of the CCIE items in this case which should have led them to examine with greater detail the documents which they were made to approve. As held in the recent case of Bacasmas v. Sandiganbayan,[32] when there are reasons for the heads of offices to further examine the documents in question, they cannot seek refuge by invoking the Arias doctrine: Petitioners cannot hide behind our declaration in Arias v. Sandiganbayan charge just because they did not personally examine every single detail before they, as the final approving authorities, affixed their signatures to certain documents. The Court explained in that case that conspiracy was not adequately proven, contrary to the case at bar in which petitioners' unity of purpose and unity in the execution of an unlawful objective were sufficiently established. Also, unlike in Arias, where there were no reasons for the heads of offices to further examine each voucher in detail, petitioners herein, by virtue of the duty given to them by law as well as by rules and regulations, had the responsibility to examine each voucher to ascertain whether it was proper to sign it in order to approve and disburse the cash advance.[33] (Emphasis supplied) | |||||