People of the Philippines vs. The Honorable Sandiganbayan (First Division), Teddy C. Tumang, and William B. Colis G.R. No. 274922 February 17, 2025

 

227 Jurisprudence Penned by Associate Justice Samuel Gaerlan | 2026 Bar Examination | Atty. Efraim C. Osingat, CPA, MBA, RFP, DPA Units 

Show your support by following us! Thank you!   Law Requisites Ph Youtube Channel   Podcasts via Spotify/Anchor    Law School Merch Store 

People of the Philippines vs. The Honorable Sandiganbayan (First Division), Teddy C. Tumang, and William B. Colis, G.R. No. 274922, February 17, 2025

𝘜𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘨 𝘨𝘶𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴, 𝘪𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘖𝘮𝘣𝘶𝘥𝘴𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘦𝘹𝘤𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘳 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘥𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘥𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘨𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘶𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘧𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘺 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦. 𝘈 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘢𝘭 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘯 𝘢 𝘷𝘪𝘰𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘺 𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭/𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘥𝘫𝘶𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘨𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘥𝘰𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘫𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘺.

𝘊𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘵𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘢 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘥 17 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘨𝘰, 𝘢𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘴𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘯 𝘢 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘬 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘧𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘦 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴? 

𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭 𝘯𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘦𝘳 𝘔𝘢𝘺𝘰𝘳 𝘛𝘦𝘥𝘥𝘺 𝘊. 𝘛𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳 𝘞𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘮 𝘉. 𝘊𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘴. 𝘈𝘤𝘤𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘣𝘶𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘦𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘴 𝘪𝘯 2006, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘖𝘮𝘣𝘶𝘥𝘴𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘢 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘵 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘪𝘯 2017. 𝘛𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯 2018, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 2019 𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘭 2024! 𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘖𝘮𝘣𝘶𝘥𝘴𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘦𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘣𝘢𝘺𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘥𝘶𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘺. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘶𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘦 𝘊𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘵, 𝘵𝘳𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘖𝘝𝘐𝘋-19 𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘤 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘻𝘦. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘑𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘎𝘢𝘦𝘳𝘭𝘢𝘯 𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 𝘰𝘤𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘤, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘖𝘮𝘣𝘶𝘥𝘴𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘸𝘢𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘩𝘴 𝘢𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘩 𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘺 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘥. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘶𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘦 𝘊𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘵 𝘳𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢 𝘴𝘪𝘹-𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘴𝘺𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘫𝘶𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘪𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘤𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘢𝘭—𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘥𝘰𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘫𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘺 𝘣𝘭𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘧𝘶𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘚𝘶𝘣𝘴𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘓.𝘙.𝘗.𝘏. 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘣𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘭𝘢𝘸 𝘥𝘪𝘨𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘴! 

𝘍𝘈𝘘𝘴: 

1. 𝘊𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘖𝘝𝘐𝘋-19 𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘤 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘧𝘺 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘥𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘺𝘴? 𝘕𝘰, 𝘪𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘺 𝘰𝘤𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘰𝘳 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘺, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘤 𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘣𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘬𝘦𝘵 𝘦𝘹𝘤𝘶𝘴𝘦. 

2. 𝘋𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘥𝘰𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘫𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘺 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘦𝘥? 𝘠𝘦𝘴, 𝘢𝘴 𝘢𝘯 𝘦𝘹𝘤𝘦𝘱𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘪𝘧 𝘢 𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘢 𝘷𝘪𝘰𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘺 𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭/𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘥𝘰𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘫𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘺 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘴 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵. 

3. 𝘞𝘩𝘰 𝘣𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘶𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘯 𝘪𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘺 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘪𝘮𝘴? 𝘐𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘺 𝘦𝘹𝘤𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺/𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘥𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘥𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘶𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘧𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘧𝘺 𝘪𝘵. 

𝘋𝘰𝘤𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴: 

1. 𝘈 𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘺 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘱𝘶𝘳𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘵, 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘥𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘳 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵-𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘨𝘦. 

2. 𝘋𝘪𝘴𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘢𝘭 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘤𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘴, 𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘨𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘥𝘰𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘫𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘣𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘳𝘦-𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘨𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. 

3. 𝘜𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘙𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘵 (𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘥), 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘨𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘦𝘳 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘷𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯 10 𝘥𝘢𝘺𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯 10 𝘥𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘪𝘱𝘵.

 📢 Disclaimer: For educational purposes only. This is created using premium artificial intelligence, and may not be infallible. Read full text. 

Philippine Law Reviewers:

🌐 https://www.raket.ph/lawrequisitesph

📱 Tiktok: https://tinyurl.com/Lawrequisitesphtiktok

📘 Facebook: https://tinyurl.com/Lawrequisitesphfb

▶️ YouTube: https://tinyurl.com/Lawrequisitesph

📖 Blogsite: https://thelawrequisitesph.blogspot.com/

🎥 GET EARLY ACCESS TO MY YOUTUBE:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=UUMOLFOZhpwfxAlQTKOAWyMk-Q

🎥GET ACCESS TO FB REELS: JURISPRUDENCE DAILY

https://www.facebook.com/100089499308282/subscribe/