CASE: TABUENA v.

SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. No. 103507 February 17, 1997
Ponente: Francisco, J.
FACTS:

 Then President Marcos instructed Luis Tabuena, in his capacity as the general manager of Manila International
Airport Authority (MIAA) over the phone to pay directly to the president’s office and in cash what the MIAA owes
the Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC), pursuant to the 7 January 1985 memorandum of then
Minister Trade and Industry Roberto Ongpin.

 Tabuena agreed. About a week later, Tabuena received from Mrs. Fe Roa-Gimenez, then private secretary of
Marcos, a Presidential Memorandum dated 8 January 1986 reiterating in black and white such verbal instruction.
In obedience to President Marcos’ verbal instruction and memorandum, Tabuena, with the help of Gerardo G.
Dabao and Adolfo Peralta, caused the release of P55 Million of MIAA funds by means of three (3) withdrawals.

 On 10 January 1986, the first withdrawal was made for P25 Million, following a letter of even date signed by
Tabuena and Dabao requesting the PNB extension office at the MIAA the depository branch of MIAA funds, to
issue a manager’s check for said amount payable to Tabuena. The check was encashed, however, at the PNB
Villamor Branch. Dabao and the cashier of the PNB Villamor branch counted the money after which, Tabuena took
delivery thereof. The P25 Million in cash was delivered on the same day to the office of Mrs. Gimenez. Mrs.
Gimenez did not issue any receipt for the money received.

 Similar circumstances surrounded the second withdrawal/encashment and delivery of another P25 Million, made
on 16 January 1986. The third and last withdrawal was made on 31 January 1986 for P5 Million. Peralta (Acting
Manager) was Tabuena’s co-signatory to the letter- request for a manager’s check for this amount. Peralta
accompanied Tabuena to the PNB Villamor branch as Tabuena requested him to do the counting of the P5 Million.
After the counting, the money was loaded in the trunk of Tabuena’s car. Peralta did not go with Tabuena to deliver
the money to Mrs. Gimenez’ office.

 It was only upon delivery of the P5 Million that Mrs. Gimenez issued a receipt for all the amounts she received
from Tabuena. The receipt was dated January 30,1986.

 Tabuena and Peralta were charged for malversation of funds, while Dabao remained at large. On 12 October 1990,
they were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt because Sandiganbayan rejected their defense of good faith in
relation to obedience to an order of superior. Sandiganbayan questioned the lawfulness of the memorandum and the
conversion of the money since they delivered it directly to the secretary and not to PNCC.

 Tabuena and Peralta filed separate petitions for review, appealing the Sandiganbayan decision dated 12 October
19990 and the Resolution of 20 December 1991.

Issue:
Whether or not petitioners are guilty of the crime of malversation.

Held:
Luis Tabuena and Adolfo Peralta are acquitted of the crime of malversation.

Tabuena had no other choice but to make the withdrawals, for that was 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, and to argue otherwise is
something easier said than done. Marcos was undeniably Tabuena's superior — the former being then the President of the
Republic who unquestionably exercised control over government agencies such as the MIAA and PNCC. In other words,
Marcos had a say in matters involving inter-government agency affairs and transactions, such as for instance, directing
payment of liability of one entity to another and the manner in which it should be carried out. And as a recipient of such
kind of a directive coming from the highest official of the land no less, good faith should be read on Tabuena's compliance,
without hesitation nor any question, with the MARCOS Memorandum. Tabuena therefore is entitled to the justifying
circumstance of "Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose." The
subordinate-superior relationship between Tabuena and Marcos is clear. And so too, is the lawfulness of the order contained
in the MARCOS Memorandum, as it has for its purpose partial payment of the liability of one government agency (MIAA)
to another (PNCC).

Even assuming that the real and sole purpose behind the MARCOS Memorandum was to siphon-out public money for the
personal benefit of those then in power, still, no criminal liability can be imputed to Tabuena. There is no showing that
Tabuena had anything to do whatsoever with the execution of the MARCOS Memorandum. Nor is there proof that he
profited from the felonious scheme. In short, no conspiracy was established between Tabuena and the real embezzler/s of
the P5 Million. This is not a sheer case of blind and misguided obedience, but obedience in good faith of a duly executed
order. Indeed, compliance to a patently lawful order is rectitude far better than contumacious disobedience. In the case at
bench, the order emanated from the Office of the President and bears the signature of the President himself, the highest
official of the land. It carries with it the presumption that it was regularly issued. And on its face, the memorandum is
patently lawful for no law makes the payment of an obligation illegal. This fact, coupled with the urgent tenor for its
execution constrains one to act swiftly without question. Obedientia est legis essentia.(Obedience is the essence of the Law)

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, herein petitioners Luis A. Tabuena and Adolfo M. Peralta are hereby
ACQUITTED of the crime of malversation as defined and penalized under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code. The
Sandiganbayan Decision of October 12, 1990 and the Resolution dated December 20, 1991 are REVERSED and SET
ASIDE.