Hernan v Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.

217874
5 December 2017

Facts:
- 1982 - petitioner Ophelia Hernan joined the DOTC as an accounting clerk
- 1984 - she got promoted to be Supervising Fiscal Clerk wherein she was designated as
cashier, disbursement and collection officer; she receives fees from clients wherein such
fees are deposited to DOTC bank account
- December 1996 - Ma. Imelda Lopez, an auditor of COA, was instructed by her
supervisor to check on the accounts handled by the petitioner
- Through her cash examination, Lopez discovered that there were two deposit slips that
did not bear a stamp of receipt by the LBP nor was it machine validated.
- The deposit slips were dated Sept. 1996 and Nov. 1996 with the amount of P11,300.00
and P81,348.20, respectively.
- The resident auditor of LBP confirmed that there were no deposits made on the said
dates
- Later on, the auditors found out that the deposit slip dated Nov. 1996 was already duly
accounted
- After various cross-verifications and finding out that the deposit dated Sept. 1996 was
not made, COA demanded that Hernan, petitioner, pay the P11,300.00 but she refused
to do so.
- COA filed a complaint of Malversation of public funds with the Ombudsman against
Hernan, which after due investigation, recommended her indictment for the loss of
P11,300.00
- Case was filed in the RTC:
- RTC ruled Hernan to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt
- Dispositive portion of 7 years, 4 months and 1 day of minimum to 11 years, 6
months and 21 days of maximum imprisonment, and a fine of P11,300.00 plus
legal interest of 12% per annum
- Petitioner appealed to CA
- CA affirmed RTC rule but it was otherwise set aside because they claim that they
have no appellate jurisdiction over the case and that it is the Sandiganbayan who
has
- Sandiganbayan also affirmed RTC’s decision with modification as follows:
- From 6 years and 1 day minimum to 11 years, 6 months and 21 days maximum
imprisonment
- Hernan filed several petitions to (1) reopen her case and (2) for her to be able to submit
additional evidence which Sandiganbayan denied thrice.
- Petitioner filed the instant case to assail Sandiganbayan’s resolutions to her motions to
reopen the Malversation case against her and to be able to submit more evidence

Issue:
● Whether or not the petitioner’s instant case should be honored or not
SC Rule:
● Affirmed with Sandiganbayan’s decision, however, approved the reopening of the case
not to correct the findings but only to modify the penalties imposed on the petitioner.
● The decision is in lieu of the recent passage of RA 10951 which states that the penalty
will be prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods if the misappropriation or
malversation of funds does not exceed P40,000.00. Here, the reduction of penalty is
applicable given that this case presents an exceptional circumstance.
● This exceptional circumstance may include a passage of a law that imposes penalties
that are more lenient and favorable to the accused.