J~jt.~,~q - Sandiganbayansb.judiciary.gov.ph/RESOLUTIONS/2018/A_Crim_SB-16... · for Correction of the Transcript of Stenographic Notes taken during the hearing on September 26,2017"dated

REPUBLICOF THE PHILIPPINESSANDIGANBAYAN

QUEZONCITY

PEOPLE OF THEPHILIPPINES,

Criminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0057For: Failure to Render Accountsunder Art. 218 of the RevisedPenal Code

ENERICO M. SAMPANG,Accused.

CABOTAJE-TANG, P.J.,Chairperson,FERNANDEZ, B., J. andTRESPESES,J.1

J~"jt.~,~q J-1[-------------------------------------------------------------------------------~

For resolution is accused Enerico M. Sampang's ((Petitionfor Correction of the Transcript of Stenographic Notes takenduring the hearing on September 26, 2017" dated December 6,2017.2

The accused-movant asserts that upon scrutiny of theTranscript of Stenographic Notes (TSN) taken during thehearing on the present case on September 26, 2017, henoticed that certain portions of the testimony of prosecutionwitness Dindo Jacinto were missing, to Wit.//p ;;.1 Sitting as a special member of the Third Division pursuant to Administrative Or r No. 0~018 datedJanuary 8, 20182 pp. 443-445, Record

ResolutionCriminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0057People vs. Sampang

3) That in Page 19 of the transcript of records, theANSWERof the witness to the question: "Areyou tellingus that the P14,OOO.OOis not the whole amount cashadvance for the accused but an amount addedtogether?" is missing.

4) To the recollection of the undersigned counsel,witness answered "YES" to the above question but thesame is not reflected in the transcript. Instead theanswer: "There are many cask [sic] advances, Sir. Andthen during our fact finding investigation a totalamount of P28,500 was unliquidated but later onaccused Sampang liquidated P14,500 and P10,OOO.Thus leaving the amount of P14,OOO.OO."

5) The above quoted answer (Item no#4) may havebeen said by the witness, but it is clearly not responsiveto the question in Item #3, hence, it can only beconcluded that there is something missing.

6) And the counsel asked a follow-up question: "Sothe amount of P14,OOOis the sum of the remainingunliquidated amounts, that is one amount is P10,OOOand the other is P4,OOO,and that makes up P14,OOO."

The accused-movant claims that the above-mentionedportions of the said TSNs were omitted in the TSN received bythem. Thus, he prays that the Court review the TSN datedSeptember 26, 2017, in this case so that it may reflect whattranspired during the cross-examination of the said witness.3

In its ((Comment with Motion for Correction of Transcript ofStenographic Notes" dated January 8, 2018,4 the prosecutionsubmits that it verified the questions of the defense couns~

3 p. 444, Record4 pp. 449-452, Record

,~I·

ResolutionCriminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0057People vs. Sampang

the answers of the prosecution witness Dindo Jacinto, inrelation to page 19 of the TSN dated September 26, 2017.According to the prosecution, it personally reviewed the saidconversation through the audio recording which was used byCourt Stenographer Maria Theresa V. Baylon, together withSandiganbayan Judicial Staff OfficerVIRuby P. Borja,Sthus:

Q: Are you telling us that the P14,OOO.OOis notthe whole amount cash advance for theaccused but an amount added together?

A: There are many cash advances, Sir. And thenduring our fact finding investigation, a totalamount of P28,SOOwas unliquidated but lateron, accused Sampang liquidated P4,SOO.006and PIO,OOO.OO,thus, leaving an amount ofP14,OOO.OOunliquidated cash advance, Sir.

Q: Are you telling the Honorable Court that therewere liquidations by the accused of certainamounts from his cash advance?

Based on the review of the said audio recording, theprosecution avers that it did not hear the word "Yes" from theprosecution witness in response to the first question of thedefense counsel nor did it hear the alleged follow-up questionand the purported answer of the same witness as claimed bythe accused-movant in his present motion.

However, the prosecution notes that the answer of witnessJacinto, which is found on page 19, line 10 of the TSN datedSeptember 26, 2017, was mistakenly recorded as "P 14,500,"instead of "P4,500," as to the amount liquidated. Hence, it praysthat the necessary correction in the TSN in issue be made in

//!D(.

5 p. 449, Record6 Italics supplied by the prosecution7 p. 450, Record

ResolutionCriminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0057People vs. Sampang

order to reflect the correct answer of the prosecution witnessDindo Jacinto.8

To be sure, the Court reviewed the TSN dated September26, 2017, as well as the audio recording conducted on even dateby Maria Theresa V. Baylon, Judicial Staff Officer III of thisCourt.

Page 19 of the said TSN in issue reflects the followingconversation between defense counsel Angelito Grande andwitness Dindo Jacinto, to wit:

Are you telling us that the P14,000. 00 is notthe whole amount cash advance for theaccused but an amount added together?

There are many cash advances, Sir, andthen during our fact-finding investigation, atotal amount of P28,SOO.00 wasunliquidated but later on, accused Sampangliquidated P14,500.009 and P10,000.00.Thus, leaving an amount of P14,000.00unliquidated cash advance, Sir.

You are telling the Honorable Court· thatthere were liquidation by the accused ofcertain amounts from his cash advance?

And only the P14,OOO.OOrem~

-: ~-~-·:-~a-Os--i~5-s~-'P-~~-i~o-;-d---- ~ 7'

ResolutionCriminal Case No. SB-l6-CRM-0057People vs. Sampang

On the other hand, the audio recording of the said hearing,reveals:

Are you telling us that the P14,OOO.OO is notthe whole amount cash advance for theaccused but an amount added together?11

There are many cash advances, Sir, andthen during our fact-finding investigation, atotal amount of P28,SOO.OO wasunliquidated but later on, accused Sampangliquidated P4,SOO.0012 and PIO,OOO.OO.Thus, leaving an amount. of P14,OOO.OOunliquidated cash advance, Sir.13

You are telling the Honorable Court thatthere was a liquidation by the accused ofcertain amounts from his cash advance?14

Clearly, witness Jacinto did not answer «Yes" to the firstquestion propounded by the defense counsel. In the same vein,the alleged follow-up question cited by the accused-movant inhis present motion was not asked by the defense coun~

10p. 19, TSN, September 26, 2017111:24:54-1:25:09, Audio Recording of the hearing conducted on September 26,201712 Emphasis supplied131:25:10-1:25:39, id141:25:40-1:25:50, id151:25:50-1:25:52, id161:25:53-1:25:55, id171:25:56-1:25:58, id

ResolutionCriminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0057People vs. Sampang

Furthermore, as correctly pointed out by the prosecution,there appears to be a typographical error on line no. 10, page19 of the TSN in issue. A playback of the answer of witnessJacinto from the audio recording of the hearing on September26, 2017, affirms that the amount he mentioned was"P4,SOO.OO" and not ((P14,SOO.OO" as reflected in the TSN datedSeptember 26, 2017, of this case. Hence, there is a need tocorrect the specific portion of the said TSN to reflect the trueanswer of witness Jacinto.

WHEREFORE, accused Enerico M. Sampang's ((PetitionforCorrection of the Transcript of Stenographic Notes taken duringthe hearing on September 26, 2017" dated December 6, 2017, isDENIED for lack of merit.

Moreover, Ms. Maria Theresa V. Baylon is directed tocorrect the TSN dated September 26, 2017, by replacing thefigure ((P14,SOO" for ((P4,SOO" on line no. 10, page 19 of the saidTSN to accurately reflect the answer of prosecution witnessDindo Jacinto.

Quezon City, Metro Manila

~ARO~AJE-Presiding JusticeChairperson

TO R. FERNANDEZsociate Justice