EVIDENCE 1

Cumulative and Corroborative Evidence

Mangangey v. Sandiganbayan
July 2, 1998 | J. Velasco Jr.

Petitioner(s): Dennis Mangagney, Gabriel Wanason, Anselmo Forayo

Respondent(s): Honorable Sandiganbayan, People of the Philippines

Doctrine: Corroborative evidence is necessary only when there are reasons to suspect that the witness
falsified the truth or that his observations were inaccurate.

CASE SUMMARY
Trigger Word(s: Uncompleted road project
FACTS: The Sandiganbayan found petitioners guilty of Estafa thru Falsification of Public Document for
falsely declaring that a road project in Mountain Province was 100% complete and misappropriating the
funds therefor. Petitioners contended in their appeal that the Sandiganbayan relied only on circumstantial
evidence in convicting petitioners. Notably, they alle ged that the Sandiganbayan merely speculated that
Mangangey did not know the starting point of the road project (and therefore, could not have inspected it
personally as he had declared). They claim that this conclusion of the Sandiganbayan was based alone
on the uncorroborated testimony of COA Technical Audit Specialist Engr. Angluben.

HELD: Angluben’s testimony holds weight as it was clear, credible, consistent and categorical, as
opposed to Mangangey’s incredulous testimony, which strongly evidences that he was lying about his
declarations in the Certificates of inspection and acceptance. The fact that Angluben’s testimony was
uncorroborated is of no moment; corroborative evidence is necessary only when there are reasons to
suspect that the witness falsified the truth or that his observations were inaccurate.

FACTS
● The Municipality of Paracelis, Mountain Province undertook the widening and partial relocation of
the Banilag-Minoli Road, with the project awarded to Leon Acapen. The project was allegedly
completed, as shown in two Certificates of Inspection and Acceptance dated December 8, 1986.
○ The certificate was prepared and signed by Construction and Maintenance Foreman
Dennis Mangangey, who attested that he personally inspected the project and that it was
100% completed in accordance with the agreed specifications.
○ In the second Certificate, the signatories Gabriel Wanason (Municipal Planning and
Development Coordinator) and Anselmo Forayo (Municipal Revenue Clerk), along with
Acapen, attested that they personally inspected the work done by Leon and found the
work in accordance with the approved program of work.
● Anomalies in the work were soon discovered, however, such as incomplete excavation and many
other tasks were uncompleted, if wholly unaccomplished. Despite this, Acapen was fully paid for
the project. The petitioners, plus Mayor Wandag, were thereafter charged in the Sandiganbayan
for violating Sec 3(e) RA 3019, and estafa through falsification of public documents.
● The accused were acquitted of the RA 3019 charged but convicted of estafa, with the
Sandiganbayan finding the existence of conspiracy, based on the following evidence:
○ Mangangey’s erroneous testimony on the starting point of the project;
○ Alfonso Dilog and Franklin Odsey, who Mangangey mentioned in his testimony as his
companions during the actual inspection of the project, were not presented to corroborate
Mangangey's testimony;
○ During the preliminary investigation, Forayo and Wanason testified that no actual
inspection was conducted;
○ Acapen, before his death, admitted he did not personally inspect the project;
○ During the inspection, Mangangey could not attest to the measurements of the actual
volume/quantity accomplished by the contractor in accordance with the pakyaw contract;
○ Wandag fled to evade prosecution.
● Petitioners contest the findings of fact of the Sandiganbayan, arguing that the circumstances
relied upon by the Sandiganbayan are insufficient to convict them, since the facts from which the
inferences were derived were not proven.

Dizon | A2022
September 12, 2020
EVIDENCE 2
Cumulative and Corroborative Evidence

○ They claimed that the report of Technical Audit Engineer Angluben, which expounded on
the specifics regarding the incomplete and unaccomplished parts of the project, was
uncorroborated, and using his uncorroborated testimony would violate his due process.
○ Since Dilog and Odsey were not presented in court to corroborate Mangangey's
statement, their rights to remain silent and be presumed innocent were violated.

ISSUES + HELD
ISSUE #1: W/N the accused may be held liable for estafa for falsification of public documents ->
YES
● The elements for falsification of public document are:
○ The offender makes in a document untruthful statements in a narration of facts;
○ The offender has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated;
○ The facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false; and
○ The perversion of truth in the narration of facts was made with the wrongful intent to
injure a third person.
● The elements of estafa under Art 315(2) RPC are:
○ The accused made false pretenses or fraudulent representations as to his power,
influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business, or imaginary transactions;
○ Such false pretenses or fraudulent representations were made prior to or simultaneous
with the commission of the fraud;
○ Such false pretenses or fraudulent representations constitute the very cause which
induced the offended party to part with his money or property; and
○ As a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.
● Petitioners were public officials and employees performing their official duty when they certified in
a public document that they inspected and found that the road project was 100% complete per
contract specifications. These facts were later shown to be false, as demonstrated by Technical
Audit Engineer Angluben’s testimony regarding the uncompleted parts of the project.
● Mangagney lied in his testimony.
○ His testimony that he personally inspected the project became doubtful when he was
unable to pinpoint the starting point
○ The fact that he could not specify the measurements of the actual volume/quantity
accomplished is doubtful considering his expertise.
○ His report that the actual earthworks excavated were exactly the same as the
approximated volume of earthworks to be excavated is highly improbable.
○ Moreover, Forayo and Wanason clearly admitted in their counter-affidavits that
Mangagney did not personally inspect the project

[MAIN] ISSUE #2: W/N conspiracy was proved -> YES

● The evidence shows that Wandag masterminded the plot to defraud the government, and that
Leon was merely pressured into signing the certificate.
● There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Direct proof of previous agreement to commit a
crime is not necessary. Conspiracy may be shown through circumstantial evidence.
● Circumstantial evidence would be sufficient to convict the offender if
○ There is more than one circumstance;
○ The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
○ The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt.
● In this case, Wandag’s guilt was already proven, and his co-conspirators can already be held
liable alongside him, especially since the conspiracy was already proven beyond a reasonable
doubt, as shown by the above-mentioned facts. When strung together, they show an unbroken
and consistent string of guilt.
● In addition, there is no proof that Forayo and Wanason were under duress when they signed the
falsified documents nor that any of their constitutional rights have been violated when they made
their declarations in their counter-affidavits. They didn’t dispute the finding that Mangangney did
not personally inspect the road project.

Dizon | A2022
September 12, 2020
EVIDENCE 3
Cumulative and Corroborative Evidence

○ The non-presentation of the investigating officer who conducted the preliminary

investigation to testify on the admissions is insignificant as this would only be
corroborative.
● The testimony of Angluben was credible, consistent and categorical in contrast with the testimony
of Mangangey, and there is no need to corroborate Angluben's testimony. Corroborative evidence
is necessary only when there are reasons to suspect that the witness falsified the truth or that his
observations were inaccurate.

RULING: Conviction affirmed.

Dizon | A2022
September 12, 2020