3/2/2016

G.R.No.166680

TodayisWednesday,March02,2016

Search

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
SECONDDIVISION
G.R.No.166680July7,2014
ALOYSIUSDAITLUMAUIG,Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,Respondent.
DECISION
DELCASTILLO,J.:
Apriornoticeordemandforliquidationofcashadvancesisnotaconditionsinequanonbeforeanaccountable
publicofficermaybeheldliableunderArticle2181oftheRevisedPenalCode.
Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court of the September 10,
2004Decision2oftheSandiganbayaninCriminalCaseNo.26528anditsJanuary11,2005Resolution3denying
reconsiderationthereof.
TheInformation4datedJanuary25,2001underwhichpetitionerAloysiusDaitLumauig(petitioner)wastriedand
convictedhasthisaccusatoryportion:
ThatinoraboutAugust1994orimmediatelypriororsubsequentthereto,inAlfonsoLista,Ifugaoandwithinthe
jurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,theabovenamedaccusedthenMunicipalMayorofAlfonsoLista,Ifugao,and
assuchaccountablepublicofficer,andresponsiblefortheamountofP101,736.00whichtheaccusedreceivedby
way of cashadvance for payment of the insurance coverage of the twelve (12) motorcycle[s] purchased by the
Municipality,and,hencewiththecorrespondingdutyunderthelawtoaccountforthesame,didthenandthere,
willfully and feloniously fail to liquidate and account for the same to the damage and prejudice of the
Government.5
Thefactsaremattersofrecordorotherwiseundisputed.
SometimeinJanuary1998,CommissiononAudit(COA)AuditorFlorenceL.Paguiriganexaminedtheyearend
reports involving the municipal officials of Alfonso Lista, Ifugao. During the courseof her examination of the
records and related documents of the municipality, she came across a disbursement voucher6 for P101,736.00
preparedforpetitioner,aformermayorofthemunicipality,ascashadvanceforthepaymentoffreightandother
cargochargesfor12unitsofmotorcyclessupposedtobedonatedtothemunicipality.Theamountwascovered
by Land Bank Check No. 118942007 dated August 29, 1994 wherein the payee is petitioner. Her further
investigation of the accounting records revealed that no payment intended for the charge was made to Royal
Cargo Agencies for the month of August 1994. Thus, she issued a certification8 to this effect on November 29,
2001.Shelikewiseclaimedthatshepreparedtwoletterstoinformthepetitionerofhisunliquidatedcashadvance
but the same were not sent to him because she could not get his exact address despite efforts exerted. She
averredthatonJune4,2001,petitionerpaidthesubjectcashadvancebeforethetreasurerofthemunicipality,
forwhichreason,incumbentMayorGlennD.PrudencianoexecutedanAffidavitofDesistance.9
PetitioneradmittedhavingobtainedthecashadvanceofP101,736.00duringhisincumbencyasmunicipalmayor
of Alfonso Lista, Ifugao.10 This amount was intended for the payment of freight and insurance coverage of 12
unitsofmotorcyclestobedonatedtothemunicipalitybytheCityofManila.However,insteadofmotorcycles,he
wasabletosecuretwobusesandfivepatrolcars.Heclaimedthatitnevercametohismindtosettleorliquidate
the amount advanced since the vehicles were already turned over to the municipality. He alleged that he was
neither informed nor did he receive any demand from COA to liquidate his cash advances. It was only in 2001
whilehewasclaimingforseparationpaywhenhecametoknowthathestillhasanunliquidatedcashadvance.
Andsoasnottoprolongtheissue,hepaidtheamountofP101,736.00tothemunicipaltreasureronJune4,2001.
FromthesamefactsstemmedanInformationforviolationofSection3ofRepublicAct(RA)No.301911docketed
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jul2014/gr_166680_2014.html

1/6

3/2/2016

G.R.No.166680

asCriminalCaseNo.26527againstpetitionerforhavingallegedlyutilizedthecashadvanceforapurposeother
thanforwhichitwasobtained.
On September 10, 2004, after a joint trial, the Sandiganbayanrendered a consolidated Decision12 disposing
thusly:
WHEREFORE,premisesconsideredtheCourtrulesasfollows:
1.InCriminalCaseNo.26527,accusedALOYSIUSDAITLUMAUIGisherebyACQUITTED.Nocivilliability
shall be imposed there being no basis for its award. The cash bondposted for his provisional liberty is
orderedreturnedtohim,subjecttotheusualaccountingandauditingprocedureand
2.InCriminalCaseNo.26528,accusedALOYSIUSDAITLUMAUIGisherebyCONVICTEDofthefelonyof
Failure of Accountable Officer to Render Accounts under Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code. He is
herebysentencedtoastraightpenaltyofsixmonthsandone(1)dayandafineofPhp1,000.00.
SOORDERED.13
On January 11, 2005, the Sandiganbayanpromulgated its Resolution14 denying petitioners UrgentMotion for
Reconsideration.15
Hence,thisPetition.
After a thorough review of the records of the case and a judicious consideration of the arguments of the
petitioner,theCourtdoesnotfindsufficientbasistoreversethejudgmentofconviction.Fromtheprevailingfacts,
weentertainnodoubtontheguiltofpetitioner.
Theacquittalofpetitionerintheanti
graftcaseisnotabartohisconviction
forfailuretorenderanaccountinthe
presentcase.
PetitionerstakesthepresentPetitionontheassertionthatsincethecasesforwhichhewasindictedinvolvethe
samesubjectcashadvanceintheamountofP101,736.00,hisexonerationintheantigraftcaseshouldlikewise
exculpatehimfromfurtherliabilityinthepresentcase.
Wearenotpersuaded.
It is undisputed that the two charges stemmed from the same incident. "However, [we have] consistently held
thatthe same act may give rise to two or more separate and distinct charges."16 Further, because there is a
variancebetweentheelementsofthetwooffensescharged,petitionercannotsafelyassumethathisinnocence
inonecasewillextendtotheothercaseevenifbothcaseshingeonthesamesetofevidence.
ToholdapersoncriminallyliableunderSection3(e)ofRA3019,thefollowingelementsmustbepresent:
(1)Thattheaccusedisapublicofficeroraprivatepersonchargedinconspiracywiththeformer
(2)Thatsaidpublicofficercommitstheprohibitedactsduringtheperformanceofhisorherofficialdutiesor
inrelationtohisorherpublicpositions
(3)Thatheorshecausesundueinjurytoanyparty,whetherthegovernmentoraprivateparty
(4)Thatsuchinjuryiscausedbygivingunwarrantedbenefits,advantageorpreferencetosuchpartiesand
(5) That the public officer has acted withmanifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable
negligence.17
Ontheotherhand,theelementsofthefelonypunishableunderArticle218oftheRevisedPenalCodeare:
(1)Thattheoffenderisapublicofficerwhetherintheserviceorseparatedtherefrom
(2)Thathemustbeanaccountableofficerforpublicfundsorproperty
(3)ThatheisrequiredbylaworregulationtorenderaccountstotheCOAortoaprovincialauditorand,
(4)Thathefailstodosoforaperiodoftwomonthsaftersuchaccountshouldberendered.18
Theglaringdifferencesbetweentheelementsofthesetwooffensesnecessarilyimplythattherequisiteevidence
toestablishtheguiltorinnocenceoftheaccusedwouldcertainlydifferineachcase.Hence,petitionersacquittal
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jul2014/gr_166680_2014.html

2/6

3/2/2016

G.R.No.166680

intheantigraftcaseprovidesnorefugeforhiminthepresentcasegiventhedifferencesbetweentheelements
ofthetwooffenses.
Priordemandtoliquidateisnota
requisiteforconvictionunderArticle
218oftheRevisedPenalCode.
Thecentralaspectofpetitionersnextargumentisthathewasnotremindedofhisunliquidatedcashadvances.
TheOfficeoftheSpecialProsecutorcounteredthatArticle218doesnotrequiretheCOAortheprovincialauditor
to first make a demand before the public officer should render an account. It is sufficient that there is a law or
regulation requiring him to render an account. The question has been settled in Manlangit v. Sandiganbayan19
whereweruledthatpriordemandtoliquidateisnotnecessarytoholdanaccountableofficerliableforviolationof
Article218oftheRevisedPenalCode:
xxx[W]eareaskedtoresolvewhetherdemandisnecessaryforaconvictionofaviolationofArticle218ofthe
RevisedPenalCode.
CitingUnitedStatesv.Saberon,petitionercontendsthatArticle218punishestherefusalofapublicemployeeto
renderanaccountoffundsinhischargewhendulyrequiredbyacompetentofficer.Hearguesthathecannotbe
convictedofthecrimeunlesstheprosecutionhasproventhattherewasademandforhimtorenderanaccount.
PetitionerassertsthatCOACircularNo.90331providesthatthepublicofficershallbecriminallyliableforfailure
tosettlehisaccountsafterdemandhadbeenmade.Moreover,petitionerassertsthatthecasehadbecomemoot
andacademicsincehealreadysubmittedhisliquidationreport.
ForthePeople,theOfficeoftheSpecialProsecutor(OSP)countersthatdemandisnotanelementoftheoffense
andthatitissufficientthatthereisalaworregulationrequiringthepublicofficertorenderanaccount.TheOSP
insiststhatExecutiveOrderNo.292,PresidentialDecreeNo.1445,theCOALawsandRegulations,andeventhe
Constitutionmandatethatpublicofficersrenderanaccountoffundsintheircharge.Itmaintainsthattheinstant
case differs from Saberonwhich involved a violation of Act No. 1740 where prior demand was required. In this
caseinvolvingaviolationofArticle218,priordemandisnotrequired.Moreover,theOSPpointsoutthatpetitioner
evenadmittedhisfailuretoliquidatethefundswithintheprescribedperiod,hence,heshouldbeconvictedofthe
crime.
Weshallnowresolvetheissueathand.
Article218consistsofthefollowingelements:
1.thattheoffenderisapublicofficer,whetherintheserviceorseparatedtherefrom
2.thathemustbeanaccountableofficerforpublicfundsorproperty
3.thatheisrequiredbylaworregulationtorenderaccountstotheCommissiononAudit,ortoaprovincial
auditorand
4.thathefailstodosoforaperiodoftwomonthsaftersuchaccountsshouldberendered.Nowhereinthe
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
exceptionsorconditions,neithermayitengraftintothelawqualificationsnotcontemplated.Wherethelaw
isclearandunambiguous,itmustbetakentomeanexactlywhatitsaysandthecourthasnochoicebutto
seetoitthatitsmandateisobeyed.Thereisnoroomforinterpretation,butonlyapplication.
PetitionersrelianceonSaberonismisplaced.AscorrectlypointedoutbytheOSP,Saberoninvolvedaviolationof
ActNo.1740whereasthepresentcaseinvolvesaviolationofArticle218oftheRevisedPenalCode.Article218
merelyprovidesthatthepublicofficerberequiredbylawandregulationtorenderaccount.Statutoryconstruction
tellsusthatintherevisionorcodificationoflaws,allpartsandprovisionsoftheoldlawsthatareomittedinthe
revisedstatuteorcodearedeemedrepealed,unlessthestatuteorcodeprovidesotherwise.20
PetitionerisliableforviolationofArticle218oftheRevisedPenalCode.
Section 5 of COA Circular No. 90331, the circular in force at the time petitioner availed of the subject cash
advance,pertinentlyprovides:
5.LIQUIDATIONOFCASHADVANCES
5.1TheAO(AccountableOfficer)shallliquidatehiscashadvanceasfollows:
xxxx
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jul2014/gr_166680_2014.html

3/6

3/2/2016

G.R.No.166680

5.1.2PettyOperatingExpensesandFieldOperatingExpenseswithin20daysaftertheendoftheyearsubject
toreplenishmentduringtheyear.
Since petitioner received the subject cash advance sometime in 1994, he was, thus, required to liquidate the
sameonorbeforeJanuary20,1995.Further,toavoidliabilityunderArticle218,heshouldhaveliquidatedthe
cash advance within two months from the time it was due, or on or before March 20, 1995. In the case at bar,
petitioner liquidated the subject cash advance only on June 4, 2001. Hence, as correctly found by the
Sandiganbayan,petitionerwasliableforviolationofArticle218becauseittookhimoversixyearsbeforesettling
hisaccounts.
Thepenaltyimposedonpetitionershouldbemodified.
PetitionerarguesthatassumingthatheisliableforviolationofArticle218,heshouldbemetedalesserpenalty
considering that (1) he subsequently liquidated the subject cash advance when he later discovered and was
confronted with his delinquency, and (2) the COA did not immediately inform him of his unliquidated cash
advance.
Onthispoint,wepartiallyagreewithpetitioner.
In sentencing petitioner to a straight penalty of six months and one day of prisin correccionaland a fine of
P1,000.00,theSandiganbayancorrectlyconsideredthemitigatingcircumstanceofvoluntarysurrender,asborne
by the records,21 in favor of petitioner.However, it failed toconsider the mitigating circumstance of return or full
restitutionofthefundsthatwerepreviouslyunliquidated.
In malversation of public funds, the payment, indemnification, or reimbursement of the funds misappropriated
maybeconsideredamitigatingcircumstancebeinganalogoustovoluntarysurrender.22Althoughthiscasedoes
notinvolvemalversationofpublicfundsunderArticle217oftheRevisedPenalCodebutratherfailuretorender
anaccountunderArticle218(i.e.,thesucceedingArticlefoundinthesameChapter),thesamereasoningmaybe
appliedtothereturnorfullrestitutionofthefundsthatwerepreviouslyunliquidatedinconsideringthesameasa
mitigatingcircumstanceinfavorofpetitioner.
TheprescribedpenaltyforviolationofArticle218isprisincorreccionalinitsminimumperiodorsixmonthsand
one day to two years and four months, or by a fine ranging from 200to 6,000 pesos, orboth. Considering that
therearetwomitigatingcircumstancesandtherearenoaggravatingcircumstances,underArticle64(5)23ofthe
RevisedPenalCode,theimposablepenaltyisthepenaltynextlowertotheprescribedpenaltywhich,inthiscase,
isarrestomayorinitsmaximumperiodorfourmonthsandonedaytosixmonths.
1 w p h i1

The Indeterminate Sentence Law, under Section 2,24 is not applicable to, among others, cases where the
maximumtermofimprisonmentdoesnotexceedoneyear.Indetermining"whetheranindeterminatesentence
and not a straight penalty is proper, what is considered is the penalty actually imposed by the trial court, after
consideringtheattendantcircumstances,andnottheimposablepenalty."25Inthecaseatbar,sincethemaximum
oftheimposablepenaltyissixmonths,thenthepossiblemaximumtermthatcanbeactuallyimposedissurely
lessthanoneyear.Hence,theIndeterminateSentenceLawisnotapplicabletothepresentcase.Asaresult,and
inviewoftheattendantcircumstancesinthiscase,wedeemitpropertoimposeastraightpenaltyoffourmonths
andonedayofarrestomayoranddeletetheimpositionoffine.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED IN PART. The Decision of the Sandiganbayanin Criminal Case No.
26528datedSeptember10,2004convictingpetitionerofthefelonyofFailureofAccountableOfficertoRender
AccountsunderArticle218oftheRevisedPenalCodeisAFFIRMEDwiththefollowingMODIFICATIONS:
1. Petitioner is sentenced to a straight penalty of four months and one day of arresto mayor, and 2. The
impositionoffineintheamountofP1,000.00isdeleted.
SOORDERED.
MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO
AssociateJustice
WECONCUR:
ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson
ARTUROD.BRION
AssociateJustice

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jul2014/gr_166680_2014.html

JOSEPORTUGALPEREZ
AssociateJustice

4/6

3/2/2016

G.R.No.166680

ESTELAM.PERLASBERNABE
AssociateJustice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourt'sDivision.
ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitutionandtheDivisionChairperson'sAttestation,Icertifythatthe
conclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriterof
theopinionoftheCourt'sDivision.
MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
ChiefJustice

Footnotes
1

ARTICLE 218. Failure of Accountable Officer to Render Accounts. Any public officer, whether in the
serviceorseparatedtherefrombyresignationoranyothercause,whoisrequiredbylaworregulationto
renderaccounttotheInsularAuditor,ortoaprovincialauditorandwhofailstodosoforaperiodoftwo
monthsaftersuchaccountsshouldberendered,shallbepunishedbyprisi6ncorreccionalinitsminimum
period,orbyafinerangingfrom200to6,000pesos,orboth.
2

Sandiganbayan records, pp. 202219 penned by Associate Justice Ma. Cristina G. CortezEstrada and
concurredinbyAssociateJusticesFranciscoH.Villaruz,Jr.andTeresitaV.DiazBaldos.
3

Id.at278281pennedbyAssociateJusticeMa.CristinaG.CortezEstradaandconcurredinbyAssociate
JusticesRolandB.JuradoandTeresitaV.DiazBaldos.
4

Id.at34.

Id.at3.

Exhibit"A,"id.at171.

Exhibit"D,"id.at174.

Exhibit"B,"id.at172.

Id.at65.

10

SeeJointStipulationofFacts,id.at115A.

11

AntiGraftandCorruptPracticesAct.

12

Sandigabayanrecords,pp.202219.

13

Id.at218219.

14

Id.at278281.

15

Id.at225231.

16

Suerov.People,490Phil.760,771(2005).

17

PresidentialAdHocFactFindingCommitteeonBehestLoansv.Desierto,585Phil.1,1415(2008).

18

Manlangitv.Sandiganbayan,558Phil.166,174(2007).

19

Id.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jul2014/gr_166680_2014.html

5/6

3/2/2016

G.R.No.166680
20

Id.at173175.

21

On June 1, 2001, petitioner voluntarily surrendered and posted his cash bail bond.
(Sandiganbayanrecords,p.26)
22

Kimpov.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.95604,April29,1994,232SCRA53,62.

23

ARTICLE 64. Rules for the Application of Penalties Which Contain Three Periods. In cases in which
thepenaltiesprescribedbylawcontainthreeperiods,whetheritbeasingledivisiblepenaltyorcomposed
ofthreedifferentpenalties,eachoneofwhichformsaperiodinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofArticles
76 and 77, the courts shall observe for the application of the penalty the following rules, according to
whetherthereareorarenomitigatingoraggravatingcircumstances:
xxxx
5. When there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstances are present,
the court shall impose the penalty next lower to that prescribed by law, in the period that it may deem
applicable,accordingtothenumberandnatureofsuchcircumstances.
24

Section2oftheIndeterminateSentenceLawprovidesinpart:

Sec.2.ThisActshallnotapplyxxxtothosewhosemaximumtermofimprisonmentdoesnotexceedone
year.xxx
25

Ladinov.Garcia,333Phil.254,259(1996)Peoplev.Dimalanta,92Phil.239,242(1952).

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jul2014/gr_166680_2014.html

6/6