Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 71581 March 21, 1990
CARMEN LABATAGOS, petitioner,
vs.
HON. SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondents.
Guerrero, Carmelo, De Silva, Lagmay & Lazo Law Office and
Pedro R. Lazo for petitioner.
PADILLA, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the
Sandiganbayan (Third Division) * in Criminal Case No. 4799,
finding the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt as
principal of the crime of malversation of public funds defined
and penalized under Article 217, par. 4 of the Revised Penal
Code.
From January 1978 to December 1980, petitioner Carmen
Labatagos was the cashier and collecting officer of the
Mindanao State University MSU General Santos City. She filed
a leave of absence for the months of March, April and May
1978 and did not discharge her duties for the said period.
On 1 October 1980, Francisco T. Rivera, under Commission on
Audit (COA) General Order No. 8022-117 (Exh. C) was
designated leader of a team to conduct the examination of
the cash and accounts of the petitioner. When the team
conducted the examination, the petitioner did not have any
cash in her possession, so she was asked to produce all her
records, books of collection, copies of official receipts and
remittance advices and her monthly reports of collections.
Based on the official receipts and the record of remittances for
the period from January to August 1978, the audit
examination disclosed that the petitioner collected the total
amount of P113,205.58 (Exhs. A-1 and A-2) and made a total
remittance to the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP),
the depository bank of the university, in the amount of
P78,868.69, leaving an unremitted amount of P34,336.19.
On the basis of similar official receipts and record of
remittances, the audit examination further disclosed that for
the period from January 1979 to June 6, 1980, the petitioner
made a total collection of P327,982.00 (Exhs. B, B-1, and B-1a) and remitted to the DBP the total amount of P256,606.25
(Exhs. B-2 and B-2-a) incurring a shortage of P71,365.75.
The petitioner signed without exception both Reports of
Examination (Exhs. A and B) as well as their supporting
summaries.
Thereafter, Francisco T. Rivera submitted his report on the
examination to the Chairman, Commission on Audit, through
the Regional Director, COA, Region IX (Exhs. A-4 and B-4).
Subsequently, Rivera prepared the letters of demand
corresponding to the two (2) audit reports (Exhs. A-3 and B-3)
and served them personally on the petitioner who signed both
letters. Despite the demand letters, the petitioner did not
submit any explanation of her shortages.
Hence, on 27 October 1981, the Tanodbayan filed with the
Sandiganbayan an information charging petitioner with the
crime of Malversation of Public Funds, committed as follows:
1. Vales P 8,846.00
2. Cash shortage (paid vouchers)
already reimbursed and/or paid and
received by you P 48,028.58
3. Cash items disallowed (paid
vouchers) already reimbursed and/or
paid and received by individual
creditors P 5,787.97
4. Cash items disallowed (paid
vouchers) amount disallowed by the
Regional Office P 31,036.85
P 118,003.10 2
=========
On November 27, 1984, petitioner was charged with the crime
of Malversation of Public Funds as defined and penalized
under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code in an
Information 3 which reads as follows:
That on or about September 13, 1983 or prior and subsequent
thereto, in Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Tribunal, the said accused, a
public officer, being the Acting Postmaster of the Bureau of
Posts of the said City, and as such accountable for the public
funds collected and received by reason of his position, did
then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, and with
grave abuse of confidence misappropriate, misapply and
embezzle for his own personal use and benefit from the said
funds, the total sum of ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEEN THOUSAND
AND THREE PESOS AND TEN CENTAVOS (P118,003.10)
Philippine Currency, to the damage and prejudice of the
government.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Before the Sandiganbayan, herein petitioner put up the
following defense:
1. In respect to the shortage of P8,846.00, Item 1 in the
auditor's letter of demand, the amount represents vales (cash
advances) granted to postal employees of Cagayan de Oro
City in payment of salaries or wages which the accused paid
out to them, even before the period for which they were
supposed to be paid. He received reimbursement checks on
the 20th or 25th September, 1983 in payment thereof, but he
remitted these payments to the Land Bank of the Philippines
only on October 17, 1983, per Official Receipt Number
312164. . . .
2. As regards that category of shortage amounting to
P48,028.58, the accused claims that this amount represents
the aggregate of the cash advances to salaries of the Regional
Director, Postal Inspector, and postal employees of Davao,
Iloilo and other places who were assigned in Cagayan de Oro
City. The accused did not have these amounts on hand when
his cash and account were audited on September 13, 1983,
because the reimbursements for the said cash advances were
not yet in his possession. If they were, the amounts given
were less than the amounts stated in the voucher, consisting,
therefore, of partial liquidations. In case of a partial
liquidation, he would simply annotate the partial payment in
JOSE REYES
VS
PEOPLE
DECISION
-----
BERSAMIN, J.:
On February 20, 1986, the IAC promulgated its decision in ACG.R. CV No. 02883, granting Belens appeal,[7] thus:
Antecedents
Belen Lopez Vda. de Guia (Belen) was the registered absolute
owner of two parcels of agricultural land with an area of
197,594 square meters located in Santa Barbara, Baliwag,
Bulacan and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No.
209298 of the Register of Deeds of Bulacan. On March 19,
1975, Belens son, Carlos de Guia (Carlos), forged a deed of
sale, in which he made it appear that his mother had sold the
land to him. Consequently, the Register of Deeds of Bulacan
cancelled TCT No. 209298 by virtue of the forged deed of sale
and issued TCT No. 210108 in Carlos name.
On March 20, 1975, Carlos sold the land to Ricardo San Juan
(Ricardo). On the same date, Ricardo registered the deed of
sale in the Registry of Deeds of Bulacan, which cancelled TCT
No. 210108 and issued TCT No. 210338 in Ricardos name.
Subsequently, Ricardo mortgaged the land to Simeon Yangco
(Simeon).
Upon learning of the transfers of her land, Belen filed
on December 20, 1975 an adverse claim in the Register of
Deeds of Bulacan. Her adverse claim was annotated on TCT
No. 210338. She also filed in the then Court of First Instance
(CFI) of Baliwag, Bulacan a civil action for cancellation of sale,
reconveyance, and damages against Carlos, Ricardo and
Simeon, docketed as Civil Case No. 655-B.
On January 20, 1981, the CFI decided Civil Case No. 655-B,
dismissing Belens complaint and affirming the validity of the
deeds of sale between Belen and Carlos and between Carlos
and Ricardo. Belen filed a motion for reconsideration but her
motion was denied.
Belen appealed to the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC),
docketed as AC-G.R. CV No. 5524-UDK.
On April 19, 1983, the IAC dismissed Belens appeal due to
non-payment of docket fees. The dismissal became final
on May 17, 1983, and entry of judgment was issued on June
21, 1983. The records were remanded to the CFI on July 6,
1983.[3]
The IAC decision became final on March 15, 1986, and entry
of judgment was made on November 7, 1986.[8] The records
were remanded to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baliwag,
Bulacan (RTC).
On December 18, 1986, Belen filed in the RTC a motion for
execution vis--vis the decision in AC-G.R. CV No. 02883. The
RTC granted her motion. However, when the writ of
execution was about to be executed, Belen learned that
Ricardo had sold the land to the tenants through a deed of
reconveyance. Thus, Belen filed in the RTC a motion to declare
Ricardo and the tenants in contempt of court for
circumventing the final and executory judgment in AC-G.R. CV
No. 02883.
On October 12, 1987, the RTC held Ricardo and the tenants in
contempt of court and ordered each of them to pay a fine
ofP200.00. It directed Ricardo and the tenants to reconvey the
land to Belen and to deliver to her the share in the harvest.
Ricardo and the tenants appealed the RTC order to the Court
of Appeals (CA), docketed as CA-G.R. SP No.
14783 entitledMariano Bautista, et al vs. Hon. Felipe N.
Villajuan, Jr. as Judge RTC of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch XIV and
Belen Lopez Vda. De Guia.
SO ORDERED.[12]
Issues
Ruling
The petitioner was correctly held guilty of and liable for
violating Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 in rendering his decision in
DARAB Case No. 034 BUL88, but his conviction for usurpation
of judicial functions under Article 241 of the Revised Penal
Code is reversed and set aside.
A.
1.
The accused must be a public officer discharging
administrative, judicial, or official functions;
2.
He must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad
faith, or gross inexcusable negligence; and
10
11
Penalties
SO ORDERED.
12