Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 156685. July 27, 2004]
NAZARIO N. MARIFOSQUE, petitioner, vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
DECISION
Page |2
Page |3
Page |4
Page |5
Page |6
Page |7
SO ORDERED.
Page |8
Contrary to law.
Page |9
P a g e | 10
P a g e | 11
P a g e | 12
P a g e | 13
P a g e | 14
P a g e | 15
P a g e | 16
P a g e | 17
P a g e | 18
5,758,96
of the Philippines
233,561.
Malacaang
1,699,86
8,821,73
6,110,11
4,586,61
January 8, 1986
P11,106,
16,617,6
30.7 m
66.5 m
Total
P99.1 m
P a g e | 19
(Sgd.) Fe Roa-Gimenez
Minister[5]
P a g e | 20
Sandiganbayan for this Courts consideration. It v. Sandiganbayan[9] where the Court passed upon
appears, however, that at the core of their plea similar protestations raised by therein accusedthat we acquit them are the following:
petitioner Cabello whose conviction for the same
crime of malversation was affirmed, in this wise:
1) the Sandiganbayan convicted them of a crime
not charged in the amended informations, and
x x x even on the putative assumption that the
evidence against petitioner yielded a case of
malversation by negligence but the information
2) they acted in good faith.
was for intentional malversation, under the
Anent the first proposition, Tabuena and circumstances of this case his conviction under
Peralta stress that they were being charged with the first mode of misappropriation would still be in
intentional malversation, as the amended order. Malversation is committed either
intentionally or by negligence. The dolo or
informations commonly allege that:
the culpa present in the offense is only a modality
x x x accused x x x conspiring, confederating and in the perpetration of the felony. Even if the mode
confabulating with each other, did then and there charged differs from the mode proved, the same
wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously, and with intent to offense of malversation is involved and conviction
thereof is proper. x x x.
defraud the government, take and
misappropriated the amount of x x x.
In Samson vs. Court of Appeals, et. al., we held
But it would appear that they were convicted that an accused charged with willful or intentional
of malversation by negligence. In this connection, falsification can validly be convicted of
the Courts attention is directed to p. 17 of the falsification through negligence, thus:
December 20, 1991 Resolution (denying Tabuenas
and Peraltas motion for reconsideration) wherein While a criminal negligent act is not a simple
modality of a willful crime, as we held in Quizon
the Sandiganbayan said:
vs. Justice of the Peace of Bacolor, G.R. No. L6641, July 28, 1995, but a distinct crime in our
xxxxxxxxx
Penal Code, designated as a quasi offense in our
On the contrary, what the evidence shows is that Penal Code, it may however be said that a
conviction for the former can be had under an
accused Tabuena delivered the P55 Million to
information exclusively charging the commission
people who were not entitled thereto, either as
of a willful offense, upon the theory that the
representatives of MIAA or of the PNCC.Sclaw
greater includes the lesser offense. This is the
situation that obtains in the present
It proves that Tabuena had deliberately consented
case. Appellant was charged with willful
or permitted through negligence or abandonment,
falsification but from the evidence submitted by
some other person to take such public
the parties, the Court of Appeals found that in
funds. Having done so, Tabuena, by his own
effecting the falsification which made possible the
narration, has categorically demonstrated that he
cashing of the checks in question, appellant did
is guilty of the misappropriation or malversation
not act with criminal intent but merely failed to
of P55 Million of public funds. (Underscoring
take proper and adequate means to assure
supplied.)
himself of the identity of the real claimants as an
ordinary prudent man would do. In other words,
To support their theory that such variance is a
the information alleges acts which charge willful
reversible flaw, Tabuena and Peralta argue that:
falsification but which turned out to be not willful
but negligent. This is a case covered by the rule
1) While malversation may be committed
when there is a variance between the allegation
intentionally or by negligence, both modes cannot and proof, and is similar to some of the cases
be committed at the same time.
decided by this Tribunal.
2) The Sandiganbayan was without jurisdiction to x x x
convict them of malversation of negligence where
the amended informations charged them with
Moreover, Section 5, Rule 116, of the Rules of
intentional malversation.[7]
Court does not require that all the essential
elements of the offense charged in the
3) Their conviction of a crime different from that
information be proved, it being sufficient that
charged violated their constitutional right to be
some of said essential elements or ingredients
informed of the accusation.[8]
thereof be established to constitute the crime
proved. x x x.
We do not agree with Tabuena and Peralta on
this point. Illuminative and controlling is Cabello
P a g e | 21
P a g e | 22
xxx
To allow PNCC to collect partially its billings, and
in consideration of its pending escalation
billings, may we request for His Excellencys
approval for a deferment of repayment of PNCCs
advances to the extent of P30 million
corresponding to about 30% of P99.1 million in
escalation claims of PNCC, of which P32.6 million
has been officially recognized by MIADP
consultants but could not be paid due to lack of
funding.
Our proposal will allow BAT to pay PNCC the
amount of P34.5 million out of existing MIA
Project funds. This amount represents the excess
of the gross billings of PNCC of P98.4 million over
the undeferred portion of the repayment of
advances of P63.9 million.
WITNESS
xxxxxxxxx
V. Pres. Marcos order to Tabuena dated January 8,
1986 baseless.
Not only was Pres. Marcos Memo (Exhibit 1) for
Tabuena to pay P55 million irrelevant, but it was
actually baseless.
P a g e | 23
P a g e | 24
the P55
Million. In
the
cases
of US
v.
Acebedo[30] and Ang v. Sandiganbayan,[31] both
also involving the crime of malversation, the
accused therein were acquitted after the Court
arrived at a similar finding of non-proof of
conspiracy.In Acebedo,
therein
accused,
as
municipal president of Palo, Leyte, was
prosecuted for and found guilty by the lower court
of malversation after being unable to turn over
certain amounts to the then justice of the
peace. It appeared, however, that said amounts
were actually collected by his secretary Crisanto
Urbina. The Court reversed Acebedos conviction
after finding that the sums were converted by his
secretary Urbina without the knowledge and
participation of Acebedo. The Court said, which
we herein adopt:
No conspiracy between the appellant and his
secretary has been shown in this case, nor did
such conspiracy appear in the case against
Urbina. No guilty knowledge of the theft
committed by the secretary was shown on the
part of the appellant in this case, nor does it
appear that he in any way participated in the
fruits of the crime. If the secretary stole the
money in question without the knowledge or
consent of the appellant and without negligence
on his part, then certainly the latter can not be
convicted of embezzling the same money or any
part thereof.[32]
P a g e | 25
P a g e | 26
P a g e | 27
records
we
are
about P44
subsequent
as
will
indicate
P a g e | 28
the
*Q As of what date?
*PJ GARCHITORENA
PJ GARCHITORENA
Continue.
PROS. VIERNES
Q In accordance with this letter marked
Exhibit 7 and 7-a, there were credits
made in favor of MIA in July and
November
until
December
1985. These were properly credited to
the account of MIA?
WITNESS
A Yes, sir.
Q In 1986, from your records as appearing
in Exhibit 7-a, there were no payments
made to PNCC by MIA for the months
of January to June 1986?
A Yes, sir.
Q And neither was the amount of P22
million remitted to PNCC by MIA?
A Yes, sir.
PROS VIERNES
PJ GARCHITORENA
Redirect?
ATTY ANDRES
*AJ AMORES
*AJ AMORES
P a g e | 29
Mr. Viernes?
PROS VIERNES
PJ GARCHITORENA
Continue.
PJ GARCHITORENA
PROS VIERNES
(TABUENA)
(In his direct examination, he testified that he
caused the preparation of the checks totalling P55
Million pursuant to the MARCOS Memorandum
and that he thereafter delivered said amount in
cash on the three (3) dates as alleged in the
information to Marcos private secretary Mrs.
Jimenez at her office at Aguado Street, who
thereafter issued a receipt. Tabuena also denied
having used the money for his own personal use.)
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY PROS. VIERNES
Q The amount of P55 million as covered
by the three (3) checks Mr. Tabuena,
were
delivered
on
how
many
occasions?
A Three times, sir.
Q And so, on the first two deliveries, you
did not ask for a receipt from Mrs.
Gimenez?
A Yes, sir.
WITNESS
A Yes, sir.
*PJ GARCHITORENA
P a g e | 30
Proceed.
PROS. VIERNES
Q This receipt was prepared on January
31, although it is dated January 30?
A Yes, sir, because I was there on January
31st.
Q In what particular place did
Gimenez sign this Exhibit 3?
Mrs.
A Nobody, sir.
Q I noticed in this receipt that the last
delivery of the sum of P55 million was
made
on
January
30. Do
we
understand from you that this date
January 30 is erroneous?
A Yes, sir, that January 30 is erroneous. I
noticed it only afterwards. This should
be January 31st, sir.
PROS VIERNES
That will be all, your Honor.
PJ GARCHITORENA
A Yes, sir.
*AJ HERMOSISIMA
*PJ GARCHITORENA
WITNESS
A Because I know her signature, your
Honor. I have been receiving letters
from her also and when she requests
for something from me. Her writing is
familiar to me.
*Q So, when the Presiding Justice asked
you as to how you knew that this was
the signature of Mrs. Gimenez and you
answered that you saw Mrs. Gimenez
signed it, you were not exactly
truthful?
A What I mean is, I did not see her sign
because she went to her room and
when she came out, she gave me that
receipt, your Honor.
PJ GARCHITORENA
That is why you have to wait for the
question to be finished and listen to it
carefully. Because when I asked you,
you said you saw her signed it. Be
careful Mr. Tabuena.
Redirect?
ATTY. ANDRES
*AJ HERMOSISIMA
*Q Why did you not ask for a receipt on
the first and second deliveries?
A Because I know that the delivery was
not complete yet, your Honor.
*PJ GARCHITORENA
*Q So you know that the total amount to
be delivered was P55 million?
A Yes, your Honor.
PJ GARCHITORENA
Response by Mr. Peralta to the testimony
of Mr. Tabuena.
ATTY. ESTEBAL
We are adopting the testimony of Mr.
Tabuena and we will also present the
accused, your Honor.
*AJ DEL ROSARIO
WITNESS
PJ GARCHITORENA
Continue.
PROS VIERNES
P a g e | 31
A: No, sir.
P a g e | 32
mechanics
Honor.
will
come
after,
your
*PJ GARCHITORENA
*AJ HERMOSISIMA
*Q Why were you not made to pay directly
to the PNCC considering that you are
the Manager of MIA at that time and
the PNCC is a separate corporation,
not an adjunct of Malacaang?
WITNESS
or
WITNESS
P a g e | 33
*PJ GARCHITORENA
WITNESS
*PJ GARCHITORENA
WITNESS
not
running
the
P a g e | 34
WITNESS
A No, your Honor.
(PERALTA)
*PJ GARCHITORENA
I bring this up because we are trying to
find out different areas of fear. We are
in the government and we in the
government fear the COA and we also
fear the press. We might get dragged
into press releases on the most
innocent thing. You believe that?
A Yes, your Honor.
*Q And usually our best defense is that
these
activities
are
properly
documented?
A Yes, your Honor.
*Q In this particular instance, your
witnesses have told us about three (3)
different trips from Nichols to Aguado
usually late in the day almost in movie
style fashion. I mean, the money
being loaded in the trunk of your
official car and then you had a backup truck following your car?
A Yes, your Honor.
*Q Is that not quite a fearful experience to
you?
A I did not think of that at that time, your
Honor.
*PJ GARCHITORENA
*Q You did not think it fearful to be driving
along Roxas Boulevard with P25
million in the trunk of your car?
WITNESS
A We have security at that time your
Honor.
ATTY. ANDRES
Your Honor, the P25 million was in the
armored car; only P5 million was in
the trunk of his car.
*PJ GARCHITORENA
Thank you for the correction. Even P1
million only. How much more with P5
million inside the trunk of your car,
was that not a nervous experience?
(He testified on direct examination that he cosigned with Tabuena a memorandum request for
the issuance of the Managers Check for P5 Million
upon order of Tabuena and that he [Peralta] was
aware that MIAA had an existing obligation with
PNCC in the amount of around P27 Million. He
affirmed having accompanied Tabuena at the PNB
Villamor Branch to withdraw the P5 Million, but
denied having misappropriated for his own benefit
said amount or any portion thereof.)
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY PROS VIERNES
Q Will you please tell the Honorable Court
why was it necessary for you to cosign with Mr. Tabuena the request for
issuance of Managers check in the
amount of P5 million?
A At that time I was the Acting Financial
Services Manager of MIAA, sir, and all
withdrawals of funds should have my
signature because I was one of the
signatories at that time.
Q As Acting Financial Services Manager of
MIAA, you always co-sign with Mr.
Tabuena in similar requests for the
issuance of Managers checks by the
PNB?
A That is the only occasion I signed, sir.
Q Did you say you were ordered by Mr.
Tabuena to sign the request?
A Yes, sir, and I think the order is part of
the exhibits. And based on that order,
I co-signed in the request for the
issuance of Managers check in favor
of Mr. Luis Tabuena.
PROS VIERNES
Q Was there a separate written order for
you to co-sign with Mr. Tabuena?
WITNESS
A Yes, sir, an order was given to me by Mr.
Tabuena.
*PJ GARCHITORENA
Was that marked in evidence?
WITNESS
P a g e | 35
*PJ GARCHITORENA
What exhibit?
WITNESS
I have here a copy, your Honor. This was
the order and it was marked as exhibit
N.
PROS VIERNES
*PJ GARCHITORENA
ATTY. ANDRES
it
was
only P100s
*PJ GARCHITORENA
*Q If there were other denominations, you
can not recall?
A Yes, your Honor.
PROS VIERNES
Q In how many boxes were those bills
placed?
A The P5 million were placed in two (2)
peerless boxes, sir.
PROS VIERNES
P a g e | 36
million
PJ GARCHITORENA
*Q There
are
no
other
separate
documents as part of the application
for Managers Check?
Redirect?
ATTY. ESTEBAL
*PJ GARCHITORENA
Questions from the Court.
*AJ DEL ROSARIO
*Q Did you not consider it as odd that
your obligation with the PNCC had to
be paid in cash?
WITNESS
A Based on the order of President Marcos
that we should pay in cash, it was not
P a g e | 37
*PJ GARCHITORENA
*PJ GARCHITORENA
ATTY. ESTEBAL
WITNESS
A The order of president Marcos was legal
at that time because the order was to
pay PNCC the amount of P5 million
through the Office of the President
and it should be paid in cash, your
Honor. And at that time, I know for a
fact also that there was an existing
P.D. wherein the President of the
Republic of the Philippines can
transfer funds from one office to
another and the PNCC is a quasi
government entity at that time.
*AJ HERMOSISIMA
*Q Are you saying that this transaction
was made on the basis of that P.D.
which you referred to?
A I am not aware of the motive of the
President, but then since he is the
President of the Philippines, his order
was to pay the PNCC through the
Office of the President, your Honor.
*Q As Financial Manager, why did you
allow a payment in cash when
P a g e | 38
ATTY. ESTEBAL
*PJ GARCHITORENA
*PJ GARCHITORENA
*PJ GARCHITORENA
P a g e | 39
WITNESS
ATTY. ESTEBAL
*PJ GARCHITORENA
*Q This
Presidential
Decree
which
authorizes the President to transfer
funds from one department to
another, is this not the one that refers
to the realignment of funds insofar as
the Appropriation Act is concerned?
WITNESS
A Because at that time, your Honor, I have
knowledge that the President is
authorized through a Presidential
Decree to transfer government funds
from one office to another.
*PJ GARCHITORENA
*Q Under the Appropriation Act. Are
payments of debts of the MIAA
covered by the Appropriation Act?
A I think the liability was duly recorded
and appropriations to pay the amount
is.....
*PJ GARCHITORENA
*Q It is true that President Marcos was the
President, but he was not an officer of
the MIAA, was he?
A No, your Honor.
*Q In fact, for purposes of internal control,
you have different officers and
different officials in any company
either government or private, which
are supposed to check and balance
each other, is it not?
A Yes, your Honor.
*Q So that when disbursements of funds
are made, they are made by authority
of not only one person alone so that
nobody will restrain him?
A Yes, your Honor.
*Q These checks and balances exist in an
entity so that no one person can
dispose of funds in any way he likes?
A Yes, your Honor.
*Q And in fact, the purpose for having two
(2) signatories to documents and
negotiable documents is for the same
purpose?
A Yes, your Honor.
(interrupted)
*PJ GARCHITORENA
*PJ GARCHITORENA
WITNESS
A Yes, your Honor.
*Q In your case, you would be the counter
check for Mr. Tabuena?
A Yes, your Honor.
*Q In other words, even if Mr. Tabuena is
the Manager, you as Financial Services
Manager and as counter signatory are
in a position to tell Mr. Tabuena, I am
sorry, you are my superior but this
disbursement is not proper and,
therefore, I will not sign it., if in your
opinion the disbursement is not
proper?
A Yes, your Honor.
P a g e | 40
P a g e | 41
P a g e | 42
*PJ GARCHITORENA
*Q This
Presidential
Decree
which
authorizes the President to transfer
funds from one department to
another, is this not the one that refers
to the realignment of funds insofar as
the Appropriation Act is concerned?
*PJ GARCHITORENA
*PJ GARCHITORENA
xxx
*Q Are you telling us that the debts
incurred by MIAA are covered by the
Appropriations Act so that the
payment of this debt would be in the
same level as the realignment of
funds authorized the President? Or are
you telling as you did not read the
Decree?
*PJ GARCHITORENA
Mr. Estebal, will you include in your
memorandum what are the Decrees
authorizing this movement of funds?
ATTY. ESTEBAL
Yes, your Honor.
*PJ GARCHITORENA
*Q It is true that President Marcos was the
President, but he was not an officer of
the MIAA, was he?
*Q In fact, for purposes of internal control,
you have different officers and
different officials in any company
either government or private, which
are supposed to check and balance
each other, is it not?
P a g e | 43
P a g e | 44
P a g e | 45
[7]
[8]
[25]
Decision, p. 45.
[9]
[26]
583
and
[10]
18 Phil. 504.
[27]
Supra.
[11]
24 Phil. 230.
[28]
[12]
47 Phil. 48.
[29]
[13]
[30]
18 Phil. 428.
[31]
[32]
Supra, p. 431.
[33]
Supra, p. 273.
[34]
Development
Bank
Philippines v. Pundogar,
163.
[14]
[15]
[36]
People v. Olfindo,
47
Phil.
1,
citing
U.S. v. Abijan, 1 Phil. 83; People v. Borbano,
76 Phil. 703; Perez v. Court of Appeals, 127
SCRA 636.
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[17]
[18]
[21]
[22]
the
118,
[20]
of
SCRA
[35]
[16]
[19]
218
12,
Confrontation.--Confrontation
consists
of
confronting the witness with damaging facts
which he cannot deny and which are inconsistent
[24]
with his evidence. It is a destructive technique,
Padilla, Revised Penal Code, Book One, Vol. I,
but when it fails to destroy it may still succeed in
7th Ed. 1974., p. 248. See also: Aquino, The
Revised Penal Code, Vol. I, 1987 Ed., p. 207. In the weakening.
very words of the Court in the Nassif case:
Probing.--Probing consists of inquiring thoroughly
[23]
78 Phil. 67.
P a g e | 46
[42]
TSN, May 2, 1990, pp. 11-27; Records, Vol. III, their homes. The beneficiaries provided the labor
pp. 449-465.
needed for construction.
[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]
[47]
[48]
[49]
[50]
[51]
[52]
[53]
P a g e | 47
P a g e | 48
P a g e | 49
THIRD DIVISION
AMANDO TETANGCO,
Petitioner,
G.R. No. 1
Present:
Quisumbin
(Chairman)
Carpio,
Carpio Mor
Tinga, JJ.
- versus -
Records, p. 254.
QUISUMBING, J.:
TSN, May 23, 2006, p. 15 (rollo, pp. 127128) and TSN, August 2, 2007, pp. 15-16
(rollo, p. 130).
10
Id. at 263.
12
13
which
petitioner
dismissed
Amando
the
Tetangco
Complaint
against
of
private
14
chairman
and P1,000
to
P a g e | 50
Counter-Affidavit,
Mayor
Atienza
Petitioner
insists
that
Mayor
Atienza
forum-shopping. He asserted that it was the illegally disbursed public funds when he gave the
Commission on Elections (COMELEC), not the aforementioned
financial
assistance
to
the
Ombudsman that has jurisdiction over the case chairman and tanods of Barangay 105 since the
and the same case had previously been filed disbursement was not authorized by law or
before the COMELEC. Furthermore, the Complaint ordinance,
which
the
Ombudsman
did
not
had no verification and certificate of non-forum consider when it dismissed the Complaint of
shopping.
The
mayor
maintained
that
expenses were legal and justified, the same being by the Ombudsman was capricious since the
supported by disbursement vouchers, and these evidence on record was clear that the mayor was
had passed prior audit and accounting.
dismissal of the Complaint for lack of evidence General, contends that it did not abuse its
and
merit.
The
Ombudsman
adopted
recommendation.
The Office of the Ombudsman, through its
P a g e | 51
It is well-settled that the Court will not sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a
ordinarily
interfere
with
the
determination of whether or not probable cause guilty of the offense with which he is charged.
exists except when it commits grave abuse of
discretion.[8] Grave
abuse
of
discretion
[11]
that
provided
for
an
original
and gross as to amount to evasion of positive appropriation of the amount used for the financial
duty or virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined assistance cited and that it was diverted from the
by, or in contemplation of law. [9] Thus, we held appropriation it was intended for.
in Roxas v. Vasquez,[10]
this Courts consistent policy has
been to maintain non-interference in
the
determination
of
the
Ombudsman of the existence of
probable cause, provided there is no
grave abuse in the exercise of such
discretion. This observed policy is
based not only on respect for the
investigatory
and
prosecutory
powers granted by the Constitution
to the Office of the Ombudsman but
upon practicality as well. Otherwise,
the functions of the Court will be
seriously hampered by innumerable
petitions assailing the dismissal of
investigatory proceedings conducted
by the Office of the Ombudsman with
regard to complaints filed before it,
in much the same way that the
courts would be extremely swamped
with cases if they could be
compelled to review the exercise of
discretion on the part of the fiscals or
prosecuting attorneys each time they
decide to file an information in court
or dismiss a complaint by a private
complainant.
whimsical
or
despotic.
The
P a g e | 52
DA
A
ATTESTATION
provided for by law or ordinance.[12] To constitute I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision
were reached in consultation before the case was
the crime, there must be a diversion of the funds assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts
Division.
from the purpose for which they had been
originally
[13]
appropriated
by
law
or
ordinance.
LEONARD
Ass
Chairm
this case.
Conformably then with Section 2, Rule II of
the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the
Ombudsman,[14] the
Investigating
CERTIFICATION
Officer
the
lack
instant
of
ARTEMIO
C
petition
merit.
No
pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
G.R. NO. 15
P a g e | 53
Present:
- versus PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
follows:
April 6, 2005
x-------------------------------------------------------------------WHEREFORE,
premises
-----------considered, accused Mahmud Darkis
and Nenita P. Aguil are hereby
DECISION
acquitted of the crime charged. The
cash bond posted by each of the said
GARCIA, J.:
accused for their provisional liberty
[1]
are hereby ordered returned to each
Convicted by the Sandiganbayan in its
of them subject to the usual auditing
Crim. Case No. 23261 of the crime of illegal use of
and accounting procedures.
public funds defined and penalized under Article
220 of the Revised Penal Code, or more commonly
Accused Norma Abdulla is
known astechnical malversation, appellant
hereby
convicted of the crime
Norma A. Abdulla is now before this Court on
charged
and
is hereby meted a fine
petition for review under Rule 45.
of three thousand pesos, pursuant to
the second paragraph of Article 220
Along with Nenita Aguil and Mahmud
of the Revised Penal Code. She is
further imposed the penalty of
Darkis, appellant was charged under an
temporary special disqualification for
Information which pertinently reads:
a period of six (6) years. She shall
also pay the costs of the suit.
That on or about November,
SO ORDERED.
1989
or
sometime
prior
or
subsequent thereto, in Jolo, Sulu,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the aboveUpon motion for reconsideration, the
named accused: NORMA A. ABDULLA
Sandiganbayan amended appellants sentence by
and NENITA P. AGUIL, both public
officers, being then the President and
deleting the temporary special disqualification
cashier, respectively, of the Sulu
imposed upon her, thus:
State College, and as such by reason
of their positions and duties are
Premises considered, the
accountable for public funds under
decision
of this Court dated August
their administration, while in the
25, 2000, is hereby amended to the
performance of their functions,
effect that the penalty of temporary
conspiring and confederating with
special disqualification for six (6)
MAHMUD I. DARKIS, also a public
years is hereby cancelled and set
officer, being then the Administrative
aside. Hence, the last paragraph of
Officer V of the said school, did then
said decision shall read as follows:
and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, without lawful authority,
Accused Abdulla
apply for the payment of wages of
is
hereby
convicted of
casuals, the amount of FORTY
the
crime
charged
and
THOUSAND
PESOS
(P40,000.00),
is hereby meted a fine
Philippine Currency, which amount
of
three
thousand
was appropriated for the payment of
pesos,
pursuant
to the
the salary differentials of secondary
second
paragraph
of
school teachers of the said school, to
Article
220
of
the
the damage and prejudice of public
Revised Penal Code.
service.
She shall also pay the
costs of the suit.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
P a g e | 54
SO ORDERED.[3]
Still dissatisfied, appellant, now before this same College; appellant Norma Abdulla herself,
Court, persistently pleas innocence of the crime who was the College President; and Gerardo
charged.
Concepcion, Jr., Director IV and Head of the
Department of Budget and Management, Regional
The record shows that the prosecution Office No. 9, Zamboanga City.
dispensed with the presentation of testimonial
evidence and instead opted to mark in evidence
the following exhibits:
P a g e | 55
presumption
of
innocence
unless
proven
[6]
charged
of
rape
in People
vs.
De
P a g e | 56
Resolution
imposes
upon
it
the
her
first
assigned
error,
appellant
of
Court,
ruled
in
as follows:
constitutional
[8]
P a g e | 57
circumstantial,
intent
to
gain
or animus lucrandi may be presumed
from the furtive taking of useful
property pertaining to another,
unless special circumstances reveal
a different intent on the part of the
perpetrator. The intent to gain may
be presumed from the proven
unlawful taking. In the case at bar,
the act of taking the victims
wristwatch by one of the accused
Cergontes while accused-appellant
Reyes poked a knife behind him
sufficiently
gave
rise
to
the
presumption.
Similarly,
lucrandi is
intent
presumed
to
when
gain
one
is
or animus
found
in
taking of anothers property is an unlawful act. So unlawful intent, the burden of proving by
it is that in People vs. Reyes,[11] the Court held:
competent evidence that appellants act of paying
Accused-appellants
contention
that
the animus
lucrandi was
not
sufficiently
established by the prosecution is
devoid of merit. Animus lucrandi or
intent to gain is an internal act which
can be established through the overt
acts of the offender. Although proof
of motive for the crime is essential
when the evidence of the robbery is
prosecution
took
in
discharging
its
P a g e | 58
of
identifying
and
proving
the
it
rested
its
case.
The
prosecution
2.
3.
4.
prosecutions
deficiency
in
proving
the
In the absence of
[16]
She argued
Court
finds
merit
in
appellants
P a g e | 59
Renovation of
Buildings and
Structures, and
Acquisition of
Equipment
Total New
Appropriations, Sulu
State College
[17]
xxx
Personal
Services
-------------------
by
Maintenance
and Other
Operating
Expenses
------------------
5. Secondary Education
Services
Total, Functions
B. Locally-Funded
Project
1. Acquisition and
Improvements of
Lands, Construction,
Rehabilitation or
P8
==
xxx
Other Compensation
------------------
A. Functions
4. Higher Education
Services
P
2,509,000
=======
===
xxx
Current Operating
Expenditures
-----------------------------------
3. Salary
Standardization
P 6,873,000
=======
===
8
----
Personal Services
2. Administration of
Personnel Benefits
----------------
reproduced hereunder:
1. General
Administration and
Support Services
-----------------
P 1,605,000
P
1,196,000
608,000
57,000
1,967,000
2,636,000
----------------6,873,000
-----------------
736,000
---------------2,509,000
----------------
P a g e | 60
law contemplated in Article 220 of the Revised decision and resolution of the Sandiganbayan in
Penal Code.
The
Court
has
unequivocably
[18]
that in
absence of a law or ordinance appropriating the ordered returned to her subject to the usual
public fund allegedly technically malversed (in auditing and accounting procedures.
that case, the absence of any law or ordinance
appropriating the CRBI fund for the concreting of
Barangay Jalung Road), the use thereof for
another public purpose (there, for the payment of
wages of laborers working on projects other than
the Barangay Jalung Road) will not make the
accused guilty of violation of Article 220 of the
Revised Penal Code.
Appellant herein, who used the remainder
of the forty thousand pesos (P40,000.00) released
by the DBM for salary differentials, for the
payment of the terminal leave benefits of other
school teachers of the Sulu State College, cannot
be held guilty of technical malversation in the
absence, as here, of any provision in RA 6688
specifically
appropriating
said
amount
for
the
Accordingly,
petition
the
is
appealed
SO ORDERED.