SECOND DIVISION
|
ROSULO
LOPEZ MANLANGIT, Petitioner, -
versus - HONORABLE
SANDIGANBAYAN |
G.R. No. 158014 Present: Quisumbing,
J., Chairperson, Carpio, Carpio
Morales, Tinga,
and VELASCO, JR., JJ. |
|
and PEOPLE
OF THE Respondents. |
Promulgated: August 28, 2007 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
DECISION
QUISUMBING, J.:
This
petition for review seeks to reverse both the Decision[1]
dated
The
antecedent facts of the case are as follows:
On
P176,300 to fund the 6th Founding Anniversary Info-Media
Activities of the Commission. A few
months thereafter, he resigned without accounting for the fund.
On
In
his counter-affidavit dated
However,
according to Virginia C. Yap, the appointed Deputy Executive Director of the
Commission, petitioner had not submitted any liquidation report for the P176,300. She underscored
the inconsistency between the date of petitioner’s counter-affidavit,
On
Meantime,
in a letter dated
After
the Ombudsman rested its case, petitioner, with leave of court, filed a
demurrer to evidence. He insisted that
there was no criminal delay on his part since there was no demand from the COA
for an accounting. Further, the sanction
provided in the COA circular for failure to render account was simply the
withholding of wages. Moreover,
petitioner averred that the case was rendered moot and academic by the letter
of Undersecretary Relampagos.
On
Petitioner
moved for reconsideration but it was denied.
Thereafter, petitioner presented evidence in his defense.
In the
Decision dated
Wherefore, premises considered, we find accused
Rosulo Lopez Manlangit guilty of violating the provision of Article 218
of the Revised Penal Code as amended, and is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment
of one year.
SO ORDERED.[10]
Upon
denial of his motion for reconsideration, petitioner now comes before us
raising the following issues:
I.
IS PRIOR DEMAND BY THE
COMMISSION ON AUDIT OR PROVINCIAL AUDITOR FOR THE PUBLIC OFFICER TO RENDER AN
ACCOUNT, NOT AN ELEMENT OF THE CRIME PENALIZED UNDER ARTICLE 218 OF THE REVISED
PENAL CODE?
II.
IS THE RULING IN UNITED
STATES VS. SABERON (19 PHIL. 391) STILL A GOOD LAW, OR STILL APPLICABLE UP
TO THE PRESENT?
III.
HAS ARTICLE 218 OF THE REVISED
PENAL CODE DISPENSED WITH THE NECESSITY OF DEMAND ENUNCIATED IN THE SABERON
CASE, BY “SPECIFICALLY MENTION(ING) THAT THE PUBLIC OFFICER CONCERNED MUST BE
REQUIRED BY LAW OR REGULATION TO RENDER ACCOUNTS TO THE INSULAR AUDITOR (NOW
COMMISSION ON AUDIT)”?
IV.
THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN
HAVING “CONCEDED THAT THE APPLICABLE REGULATION IN THIS CASE IS COA CIRCULAR
NO. 90-331,” IS IT NOT OBVIOUS, BY A MERE READING OF THE SAID COA CIRCULAR,
THAT “THE AO (ACCOUNTABLE OFFICER) SHALL LIKEWISE BE
HELD CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO SETTLE HIS ACCOUNTS,” “IF 30 DAYS HAVE
ELAPSED AFTER THE DEMAND LETTER IS SERVED AND NO LIQUIDATION OR EXPLANATION IS
RECEIVED, OR THE EXPLANATION RECEIVED IS NOT SATISFACTORY”?
V.
IT BEING AN ESTABLISHED FACT
THAT NO PRIOR DEMAND, OR DEMAND LETTER HAD BEEN SERVED ON HEREIN PETITIONER,
WILL HIS LIQUIDATION REPORT OF JULY 12, 2000 (EXHIBIT “1”), CERTIFIED TO AS
SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE, NOT RENDER THE INSTANT CASE MOOT AND ACADEMIC?[11]
In sum,
we are asked to resolve whether demand is necessary for a conviction of a
violation of Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code.
Citing
For the
People, the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) counters that demand is not
an element of the offense and that it is sufficient that there is a law or
regulation requiring the public officer to render an account. The OSP insists that Executive Order No. 292,[13]
Presidential Decree No. 1445,[14]
the COA Laws and Regulations, and even the Constitution[15]
mandate that public officers render an account of funds in their charge. It maintains that the instant case differs
from Saberon which involved a violation of Act No. 1740[16]
where prior demand was required. In this
case involving a violation of Article 218, prior demand is not required. Moreover, the OSP points out that petitioner
even admitted his failure to liquidate the funds within the prescribed period, hence, he should be convicted of the crime.
We
shall now resolve the issue at hand.
Article
218 consists of the following elements:
1. that the offender is a public officer, whether in the
service or separated therefrom;
2. that he must be an accountable officer for public
funds or property;
3. that he is required by law or regulation to render
accounts to the Commission on Audit, or to a provincial auditor; and
4. that he fails to do so for a period of two months
after such accounts should be rendered.
Nowhere in the provision does it
require that there first be a demand before an accountable
officer is held liable for a violation of the crime. The law is very clear. Where none is provided, the court may not
introduce exceptions or conditions, neither may it engraft into the law
qualifications not contemplated.[17] Where the law is clear and unambiguous, it
must be taken to mean exactly what it says and the court has no choice but to
see to it that its mandate is obeyed.[18] There is no room for interpretation, but only
application.[19]
Petitioner’s reliance on Saberon
is misplaced. As correctly pointed out
by the OSP, Saberon involved a violation of Act No. 1740 whereas the
present case involves a violation of Article 218 of the Revised Penal
Code. Article 218 merely provides that
the public officer be required by law and regulation to render account. Statutory construction tells us that in the
revision or codification of laws, all parts and provisions of the old laws that
are omitted in the revised statute or code are deemed repealed, unless the
statute or code provides otherwise.[20]
Pertinent
provisions of COA Circular No. 90-331 read as follows:
4.4 Field/Activity Current Operating Expenses
(COE)
4.4.1 The
special cash advance shall be used to pay the salaries and wages of the
employees and the miscellaneous operating expenses of the activity...
x x x x
5.1 The AO shall liquidate his
cash advance as follows:
x x x x
5.1.2 Petty Operating Expenses and Field Operating Expenses
– within 20 days after the end of the year; subject to replenishment during the
year.
x x x x
5.8 All cash advances shall be
fully liquidated at the end of each year...[21]
As
shown by the foregoing provisions of COA Circular No. 90-331, petitioner was
required to render an account of the fund disbursed for the Commission’s Info-Media
Activities within 20 days after the end of the year. In this case, he should have submitted his
liquidation report not later than
Indeed the Honorable Sandiganbayan did not err in finding petitioner guilty of
violating Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code. But, there is a need to modify the penalty of
one year imprisonment that it imposed on petitioner.
Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code provides that the
felony is punishable by “prision correccional in its minimum period, or by a fine
ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both.”
To determine the proper penalty the Code provides:
Art.
64. Rules for the application of
penalties which contain three periods. – In cases in which the penalties
prescribed by law contain three periods, … the courts
shall observe for the application of the penalty the following rules, according
to whether there are or are no mitigating or aggravating circumstances:
1. When there are neither aggravating nor
mitigating circumstances, they shall impose the penalty prescribed by law in
its medium period.
x x x x
Art.
65. Rule in cases in which the
penalty is not composed of three periods. – In cases in which the penalty
prescribed by law is not composed of three periods, the courts shall apply the
rules contained in the foregoing articles, dividing into three equal portions
the time included in the penalty prescribed, and forming one period of each of
the three portions.
In the present case, there are no
aggravating or mitigating circumstances proven.
Hence, the penalty should be taken from the medium period of prision correccional
minimum of one (1) year, one (1) month and eleven (11) days to one (1) year, eight
(8) months and twenty (20) days. Under
the circumstances, the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law is called
for. It provides that “the court shall
sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which
shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly
imposed under the rules of the said Code, and the minimum of which shall be
within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for
the offense.” The penalty next lower to prision correccional
minimum is arresto mayor maximum the
duration of which is four (4) months and one (1) day to six (6) months.
WHEREFORE,
the petition is DENIED. The
Decision dated
SO ORDERED.
|
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
WE CONCUR:
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
|
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
|
A T T E S T A T I O N
I
attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
|
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice Chairperson |
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
|
|
REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Justice |
[1] Rollo, pp. 53-62. Penned by Associate Justice Rodolfo G. Palattao with Associate Justices Gregory S.
Ong and Ma. Cristina G. Cortez-Estrada concurring.
[2]
[3] ART. 218.
Failure of accountable officer to render accounts. – Any public
officer, whether in the service or separated therefrom by resignation or any
other cause, who is required by law or regulation to render account to the
Insular Auditor, or to a provincial auditor and who fails to do so for a period
of two months after such accounts should be rendered, shall be punished by prision
correccional in its minimum period, or by a fine
ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both.
[4] 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 to reclusion 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 funds or property with which he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly authorized officer, shall be prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or property to personal use.
[5] Rollo, pp. 81-89.
[6] Restatement with Amendments of the Rules
and Regulations on the Granting, Utilization and Liquidation of Cash Advances
Provided for Under COA Circular No. 90-331 dated
[7] Sandiganbayan rollo, Vol. I, pp. 1-2.
[8] Exhibit “1,” folder of exhibits.
[9] Rollo, pp. 125-130.
[10]
[11]
[12] 19 Phil. 391 (1911).
[13] Administrative Code of 1987.
[14] Government Auditing Code of the
[15] ARTICLE XI
Accountability of Public Officers
Section 1. Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.
x
x x x
[16] An Act providing for the punishment of
public officers and employees who fail or refuse to account for public funds or
property or who make personal use of such funds or property, or any part
thereof, or who misappropriate the same, or any part thereof, or who are guilty
of any malversation with reference to such funds or property, or who through
abandonment, fault, or negligence permit any other person to abstract,
misappropriate, or make personal use of the same. Enacted on
[17] Ramos v. Court of Appeals, No.
L-53766,
[18] Abello
v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 120721,
[19] Commissioner of Internal Revenue v.
American Express International, Inc. (Philippine Branch), G.R. No. 152609,
[20] People v. Binuya,
61 Phil. 208 (1935).
[21] Rollo, pp. 83-85.