A former chief of the Land Transportation Office (LTO) – Region 10 Law Enforcement Section is facing imprisonment of up to four years after the Sandiganbayan denied his motion for reconsideration seeking to overturn his conviction for malversation of public property.
Defendant Andrew Tupag failed to persuade the anti-graft court to reverse its March 18, 2025 resolution that affirmed the decision of the Misamis Oriental Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 41, which found him guilty of failing to account for a Sony Cybershot camera that was entrusted to him for documenting vehicular accidents.
Based on the assailed ruling, the accused was sentenced to imprisonment for four months to four years, a fine of P15,043, perpetual disqualification from holding another government post, and repayment of P15,043 representing the value of the property he failed to return.
In his MR dated April 21, 2025, Tupag invoked a ruling of the Court of Appeals in a separate administrative case declaring with finality that he had already returned the same camera subject of the criminal case against him.
He argued that the doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment should apply in his criminal case and that he should be acquitted.
In its comment, the prosecution noted that the doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment was already addressed by the Sandiganbayan when it affirmed the decision of the Misamis Oriental RTC.
Likewise, it challenged the applicability of the CA ruling in the administrative case on the ground that it involved different parties, subject matter, and cause of action, which makes it non-binding to the criminal proceedings in Tupag’s case.
“After a review of the records of the case and the arguments raised by both parties, the court denies the Motion for Reconsideration dated April 21, 2025 of Tupag. The issues and arguments raised by Tupag in his motion for reconsideration are without merit. These are repetitions of the same issues and arguments that have already been considered and passed upon,” the court declared.
At the same time, it sustained the position of the prosecution that there was no identity of parties and issues between the administrative case and the appealed criminal case.
“The ruling in the administrative case is separate, distinct and independent, as correctly pointed out by the prosecution,” the Sandiganbayan added.
