Our Ruling
The petition has no merit.
Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, provides:
Art. 217. Malversation of public funds or property –Presumption of malversation. - Any public officer who, by reason of the duties of his office, is accountable for public funds or property, shall appropriate the same, or shall take or misappropriate or shall consent, or through abandonment or negligence, shall permit any other person to take such public funds or property, wholly or partially, or shall otherwise be guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property, shall suffer:
1. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the amount involved in the misappropriation or malversation does not exceed two hundred pesos.
2. The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if the amount involved is more than two hundred pesos but does not exceed six thousand pesos.
3. The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period toreclusion temporal in its minimum period, if the amount involved is more than six thousand pesos but is less than twelve thousand pesos.
4. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium and maximum periods, if the amount involved is more than twelve thousand pesos but is less than twenty-two thousand pesos. If the amount exceeds the latter, the penalty shall be reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua.
In all cases, persons guilty of malversation shall also suffer the penalty of perpetual special disqualification and a fine equal to the amount of the funds malversed or equal to the total value of the property embezzled.
The failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public fund or property with which he is chargeable, upon demandby any duly authorized officer, shall be prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or property to personal uses. (Emphasis supplied.)
The following elements are essential for conviction in malversation cases:
1. That the offender is a public officer;
2. That he had custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his office;
3. That those funds or property were public funds or property for which he was accountable; and
4. That he appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented or, through abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take them.[23]
All the foregoing elements were satisfactorily established by the prosecution in this case. Petitioners have not rebutted the legal presumption that with the Disbursing Officer’s (Haron) failure to account for the illegally withdrawn amounts covered by the subject checks when demanded by the COA, they misappropriated and used the said funds for their personal benefit.
Petitioners however assert that their convictions were based solely on the Sandiganbayan’s conclusion that the vouchers submitted by the defense were illegal or irregular, whereas the informations simply alleged their absence or non-existence. They contend that said court could not have validly assessed the disbursement vouchers as to their legality because that duty pertains to the COA which refused and failed to examine the same. Had the court allowed the COA to evaluate and make a ruling on the validity of the vouchers, the result would have been different and most probably they would have been acquitted of the crime charged.
We are not persuaded by petitioners’ asseveration.
The Sandiganbayan categorically ruled that the disbursement vouchers were inexistent at the time of the issuance of the subject checks and expanded special audit based on its findings that: (1) petitioner Haron could not produce the vouchers upon demand by the COA in August 1993; (2) Resident Auditor Gagwis certified at about the same time that to date she has not received the vouchers mentioned in the supposed transmittal letters of March 4 and March 30, 1993; (3) the entries in the duly certified Report of Checks Issued by Deputized Disbursing Officer (RCIDDO) of the late Pandical M. Santiago, Cashier of ORG-ARMM, showed that for the months of January, February and March 1993, there were indeed entries of checks issued with Haron as payee but no disbursement voucher numbers as these were either lacking, detached or missing, and which were verified by the audit team as corresponding to the subject 52 checks issued and signed by petitioners and encashed by petitioner Haron who received the money withdrawn from the government depositary accounts; (4) FBMS Chief Corpus testified that he discovered the supposed vouchers still there at his office filing cabinet in May 1993 when these supposedly have already been submitted to the COA Resident Auditor as reflected in the March 4 and March 30, 1993 transmittal letters; and (5) the supposed original disbursement vouchers belatedly submitted to the COA central office last week of October 1993, were undated and unnumbered with no supporting documents as required by COA Circular No. 78-79 (April 5, 1978).
Contrary to petitioners’ claim, the special audit team could not have examined the vouchers presented by the defense (Exhibits “1” to “1-A-43”) because the only indication of its actual receipt by the COA as admitted by the prosecution, was on October 23, 1993 long after the expanded audit was completed and beyond the 72-hour deadline specified in the September 10, 1993 demand letter addressed to Haron for the restitution of the total amount of illegal withdrawals. In addition, such disbursement vouchers have no supporting documents as required by COA Circular No. 92-389 dated November 3, 1992. On the other hand, the Certification dated August 18, 1998 issued by ARMM Chief Accountant Fontanilla stating that the vouchers were regular because these were properly recorded in the JAO, was not given credence by the Sandiganbayan. Upon scrutiny of the JAO covering the period January to March 1993, said court found that it failed to indicate the particular disbursement voucher that corresponds to each of the 52 checks, aside from the fact that it was prepared by the ARMM Chief Accountant who is under the control and supervision of the ORG. Notably, the JAO is used to summarize obligations incurred and to monitor the balance of unobligated allotments, which is prepared by function, and project for each fund and allotment class.[24] The JAO is thus separate and distinct from the Report of Checks Issued (RCI) which is prepared by the Disbursing Officer to report checks issued for payment of expenditures and/or prior accounts payable. What is clear is that the disbursement of funds covered by the 52 checks issued by the petitioners are subject to the rule that disbursement voucher “shall be used by all government entities for all money claims” and that the “voucher number shall be indicated on the voucher and on every supporting document.”[25] Inasmuch as the JAO for the months of January, February and March 1993 do not at all reflect or indicate the number of each of the disbursement vouchers supposedly attached to the 52 checks, it cannot serve as evidence of the recording of the original vouchers, much less the existence of those disbursement vouchers at the time of the issuance of the 52 checks and the conduct of the expanded audit.
Petitioners further raise issue on the regularity, completeness and objectivity of the expanded audit conducted by the COA. However, records showed that the ORG-ARMM were duly notified of the expanded audit at its commencement and was even requested thru the COA Resident Auditor to submit the needed disbursement vouchers. It must be noted that at an earlier date, a main audit had already been conducted for the financial transactions of ORG-ARMM during which State Auditor Mendoza experienced threats against her own security that she had to be immediately recalled from her assignment. Thus, by the time the expanded audit was conducted in August 1993 upon the directive of the COA Chairman, petitioners, especially Haron, should have seen to it that the records of disbursements and financial transactions including the period January to March 1993, were in order and available for further audit examination. In any case, even if there was no so-called entry conference held, there is absolutely no showing that petitioners were denied due process in the conduct of the expanded audit as they simply refused or failed to heed COA’s request for the production of disbursement vouchers and likewise ignored the formal demand made by COA Chairman Banaria for the restitution of the illegally withdrawn public funds, submitting their compliance only after the special audit team had submitted their report.
In fine, the Sandiganbayan committed no reversible error in holding that the testimonial and documentary evidence presented by the petitioners failed to overcome the prima facie evidence of misappropriation arising from Haron’s failure to give a satisfactory explanation for the illegal withdrawals from the ARMM funds under his custody and control. Petitioners likewise did not accomplish the proper liquidation of the entire amount withdrawn, during the expanded audit or any time thereafter. There is therefore no merit in petitioners’ argument that the Sandiganbayan erred in not applying the equipoise rule.
Under the equipoise rule, where the evidence on an issue of fact is inequipoise or there is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates, the party having the burden of proof loses. The equipoise rule finds application if the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, for then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty, and does not suffice to produce a conviction.[26] Such is not the situation in this case because the prosecution was able to prove by adequate evidence that Disbursing Officer Haron failed to account for funds under his custody and control upon demand, specifically for theP21,045,570.64 illegally withdrawn from the said funds. In the crime of malversation, all that is necessary for conviction is sufficient proof that the accountable officer had received public funds, that he did not have them in his possession when demand therefor was made, and that he could not satisfactorily explain his failure to do so. Direct evidence of personal misappropriation by the accused is hardly necessary in malversation cases.[27]
As to the liability of petitioners Zacaria A. Candao and Abas A. Candao, the Sandiganbayan correctly ruled that they acted in conspiracy with petitioner Haron to effect the illegal withdrawals and misappropriation of ORG-ARMM funds.
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence and may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime, which are indicative of a joint purpose, concerted action and concurrence of sentiments. In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. Conspiracy is present when one concurs with the criminal design of another, indicated by the performance of an overt act leading to the crime committed. It may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated.[28]
In this case, petitioners Zacaria A. Candao and Abas A. Candao were co-signatories in the subject checks issued without the required disbursement vouchers. Their signatures in the checks, as authorized officials for the purpose, made possible the illegal withdrawals and embezzlement of public funds in the staggering aggregate amount of P21,045,570.64.
Petitioners Zacaria A. Candao and Abas A. Candao assail their conviction as co-conspirators in the crime of malversation contending that their only participation was in the ministerial act of signing the checks. The checks having passed through processing by finance and accounting personnel of ORG-ARMM, petitioners said they had to rely on the presumption of regularity in the performance of their subordinates’ acts. Furthermore, they assert that since conspiracy requires knowledge of the purpose for which the crime was committed, they could not have been conspirators in the design to defraud the government.
We disagree with such postulation.
As the Regional Governor of ARMM, petitioner Zacaria A. Candao cannot exonerate himself from liability for the illegally withdrawn funds of ORG-ARMM. Under Section 102 (1) of the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines, he is responsible for all government funds pertaining to the agency he heads:
Section 102. Primary and secondary responsibility. – (1) The head of any agency of the government is immediately and primarily responsible for all government funds and property pertaining to his agency.
x x x x (Emphasis supplied.)
Petitioners Zacaria A. Candao and his Executive Secretary Abas A. Candao are both accountable public officers within the meaning of Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. No checks can be prepared and no payment can be effected without their signatures on a disbursement voucher and the corresponding check. In other words, any disbursement and release of public funds require their approval,[29] as in fact checks issued and signed by petitioner Haron had to be countersigned by them. Their indispensable participation in the issuance of the subject checks to effect illegal withdrawals of ARMM funds was therefore duly established by the prosecution and the Sandiganbayan did not err in ruling that they acted in conspiracy with petitioner Haron in embezzling and misappropriating such funds.
Moreover, as such accountable officers, petitioners Zacaria A. Candao and Abas A. Candao were charged with the duty of diligently supervising their subordinates to prevent loss of government funds or property, and are thus liable for any unlawful application of government funds resulting from negligence, as provided in Sections 104 and 105 of the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines, which read:
Sec. 104. Records and reports required by primarily responsible officers. – The head of any agency or instrumentality of the national government or any government-owned or controlled corporation and any other self-governing board or commission of the government shall exercise the diligence of a good father of a family in supervising accountable officers under his control to prevent the incurrence of loss of government funds or property, otherwise he shall be jointly and solidarily liable with the person primarily accountable therefor. x x x x
Sec. 105. Measure of liability of accountable officers. x x x
(2) Every officer accountable for government funds shall be liable for all losses resulting from the unlawful deposit, use, or application thereof and for all losses attributable to negligence in the keeping of the funds.
The fact that ARMM was still a recently established autonomous government unit at the time does not mitigate or exempt petitioners from criminal liability for any misuse or embezzlement of public funds allocated for their operations and projects. The Organic Act for ARMM (R.A. No. 6734) mandates that the financial accounts of the expenditures and revenues of the ARMM are subject to audit by the COA.[30] Presently, under the Amended Organic Act (R.A. No. 9054), the ARMM remained subject to national laws and policies relating to, among others, fiscal matters and general auditing.[31] Here, the prosecution successfully demonstrated that the illegal withdrawals were deliberately effected through the issuance of checks without the required disbursement vouchers and supporting documents. And even if petitioners Zacaria A. Candao and Abas A. Candao invoke lack of knowledge in the criminal design of their subordinate, Disbursing Officer Haron, they are still liable as co-principals in the crime of malversation assuming such misappropriation of public funds was not intentional, as alleged in the informations, but due to their negligence in the performance of their duties. As this Court ratiocinated in Cabello v. Sandiganbayan[32]:
Besides, even on the putative assumption that the evidence against petitioner yielded a case of malversation by negligence but the information was for intentional malversation, under the circumstances of this case his conviction under the first mode of misappropriation would still be in order. Malversation is committed either intentionally or by negligence. The dolo or the culpa present in the offense is only a modality in the perpetration of the felony. Even if the mode charged differs from the mode proved, the same offense of malversation is involved and conviction thereof is proper. A possible exception would be when the mode of commission alleged in the particulars of the indictment is so far removed from the ultimate categorization of the crime that it may be said due process was denied by deluding the accused into an erroneous comprehension of the charge against him. That no such prejudice was occasioned on petitioner nor was he beleaguered in his defense is apparent from the records of this case.[33] (Emphasis supplied.)
Under Article 217, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, the penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period toreclusion perpetua shall be imposed if the amount involved exceedsP22,000.00, in addition to fine equal to the funds malversed. Considering that neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstance attended the crime charged, the maximum imposable penalty shall be within the range of the medium period of reclusion temporal maximum to reclusion perpetua, or eighteen (18) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to twenty (20) years. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum penalty, which is one degree lower from the maximum imposable penalty, shall be within the range of prision mayor maximum to reclusion temporal medium, or ten (10) years and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months.[34] The penalty imposed by the Sandiganbayan on petitioners needs therefore to be modified insofar as the maximum penalty is concerned and is hereby reduced to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal medium, for each count.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated October 29, 2008 in Criminal Case Nos. 24569 to 24574, 24575, 24576 to 24584, 24585 to 24592, 24593, 24594, 24595 to 24620 finding petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Malversation of Public Funds under Article 217, paragraph 4 of theRevised Penal Code, as amended, and the Resolution dated February 20, 2009 of the Sandiganbayan (First Division), denying petitioners’ motion for reconsideration are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS in that petitioners are instead accordingly sentenced to suffer an indeterminate prison term of ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor maximum, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporalmedium, as maximum, in each of the above-numbered criminal cases.
In addition to the payment of the fine ordered by the Sandiganbayan, and by way of restitution, the petitioners are likewise ordered to pay, jointly and severally, the Republic of the Philippines through the ARMM-Regional Treasurer, the total amount of P21,045,570.64 malversed funds as finally determined by the COA.
In the service of their respective sentences, the petitioners shall be entitled to the benefit of the three-fold rule as provided in Article 70 of theRevised Penal Code, as amended.
With costs against the petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
x x x." |
No comments:
Post a Comment