ERIC A. CABARIOS, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

CASE:
Petitioner Eric A. Cabarios assails the following dispositions of Sandiganbayan in Criminal
Case Nos. SB-10-CRM-0186 thru SB-10-CRM-0195 entitled People of the Philippines v. Eric A.
Cabarios, Board Member, Michelle B. Navalta, James Ismael A. Revantad, Employees (All of)
Sangguniang Panlalawigan, Province of Zamboanga Zibugay

CRIME COMMITTED:
Republic Act (RA) 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and five (5) counts of
malversation of public funds through falsification of public documents under Article 217 of the Revised
Penal Code (RPC), m relation to Articles 171 and 48 of the same Code

ACCUSED:
Eric A. Cabarios – Board Member of Zamboanga Sibugay
Michelle B. Navalta, James Ismael A. Revantad – Employees of the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan

PLAINTIFF/VICTIM:
Tax Payer, People of the Philippines.

SYNOPSIS:
The case involves allegations of corruption in a program designed to help poor people in
Zamboanga Sibugay Province, which was intended to provide assistance to indigent individuals.
Several elected officials, including the petitioner, have been accused of mishandling the program's
funds.
In 2001, the Provincial Council decided to allocate the savings from the budget for Personnel
Services (PS) and Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses (MOOE) to the Aid to the Poor
Program. However, these funds were primarily used by elected officials, who would provide financial
aid to supposed beneficiaries and then seek reimbursement.
Complaints were subsequently filed against these officials, leading to a special audit by the
Commission on Audit (COA). The audit revealed that many of the individuals listed as beneficiaries
were either non-existent, couldn't be located, or denied ever receiving any financial assistance.
Consequently, charges were filed against the petitioner and other individuals, accusing them of
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and five (5) counts of malversation of public funds through
falsification of public documents. The case raises questions about whether the listed beneficiaries
were genuine and the proper procedures for distributing the funds.
Throughout the trial, witnesses from both the prosecution and defense have provided
testimony, presenting conflicting accounts of the situation and the authenticity of the documents and
the beneficiaries.
\
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED:
 Disbursement Vouchers:
The petitioner submitted vouchers to get reimbursed for financial assistance given to
beneficiaries.
 Brief Social Case Study Reports (BSCSRs) and Application Forms:
These documents were used to record beneficiary information.
 Reimbursement Expense Receipts (RERs):
Receipts confirmed the funds received by beneficiaries.
 Confirmation Letters:
Sent to beneficiaries, but many didn't respond, and two denied receiving assistance.
 Testimonies:
Both prosecution and defense witnesses testified in court.
 Letters and Correspondence:
Communication between involved parties.

NAME OF EXPERT:
Atty. Bernardo Rubio Sumicad - (Team Leader of COA-Regional Office IX)
He stated that his audit team collected payment records and related documents for the
petitioner's transactions in the program. They also tried to find the individual beneficiaries mentioned
in these documents, but they couldn't locate them. Even the local barangay officials at the addresses
provided couldn't identify these supposed beneficiaries.
Atty. Samuel P. Naungayan, Alicia Y. Alvarado – (AUDIT TEAM)

DECISION:
The Decision dated August 30, 2016, which convicted him of five (5) counts of violation of
Section 3(c) of Republic Act (RA) 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and five (5) counts
of malversation of public funds through falsification of public documents under Article 217 of the
Revised Penal Code (RPC), in relation to Articles 171 and 48 of the same Code, is HEREBY
REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Petitioner ERIC A. CABARIOS is ACQUITTED of five (5) counts of Violation of Section 3(c) of
Republic Act No. 3019 and five (5) counts of Malversation of Public Funds through Falsification of
Public Documents under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code. He is hereby ordered immediately
RELEASED from custody, unless he is being held for another lawful cause.
The charges against his co-accused MICHELLE B. NAVALTA and JAMES ISMAEL A.
REVANTAD are DISMISSED, and the corresponding warrants of arrest on them are LIFTED.

G.R. nos. 228097-103 & 228139-41. (n.d.). https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2021/sep2021/gr_228097-

BATUIGAS, JAIME A.
BS – CRIM III

SUBMITTED TO
PROF. EDZEL PEÑA
BATUIGAS JAIME A. CL3CLBO2
BS – CRIM III PROF. SAMMY PATNAAN

1. WHAT IS ARTICLE 123 OF THE RPC

Article 123 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) of the Philippines deals with qualified piracy. The
law stipulates that the penalty of reclusion temporal (a range of imprisonment from 12 years and 1
day to 20 years) to death shall be imposed upon individuals who commit any of the crimes
referred to in the preceding articles, particularly under specific circumstances such as when they
have seized a vessel by boarding or firing upon the same, Whenever the pirates have abandoned
their victims without means of saving themselves; or Whenever the crime is accompanied by
murder, homicide, physical injuries, or rape.

2. WHAT ARE THE ELEMETS OF PIRACY UNDER RPC

 If the offenders are members of the ship's or not

3. DIFFERENTIATE THE PIRACY UNDER THE REVISED PENAL CODE AND PRC UNDER PD
532.

Piracy under the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines is specifically concerned with acts of
violence or seizure of vessels on the high seas or in Philippine waters, targeting offenders who are
not members of the vessel's crew or passengers. On the other hand, PD 532, also known as the
Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974, expands the definition of piracy to include any
acts of violence, intimidation, or force against vessels within Philippine waters, irrespective of the
perpetrator's relationship to the vessel, and prescribes more severe penalties for such offenses,
especially when they result in more serious crimes like murder or rape. Additionally, PD 532 also
addresses highway robbery, imposing penalties for similar acts of violence or intimidation
committed on any road or railway within the Philippines