SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 226207. July 5, 2017.]
GLENDA C. BIÑAS, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND SANDIGANBAYAN, SPECIAL SECOND DIVISION, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 05 July 2017 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 226207 — Glenda C. Biñas v. People of the Philippines and Sandiganbayan, Special Second Division.
This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse and set aside the December 14, 2015 Decision 1 and the July 21, 2016 Resolution 2 of the Sandiganbayan in Case No. SB-09-A/R-0007, which affirmed, with modification, the October 29, 2009 Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 43, Virac, Catanduanes (RTC) in Criminal Case No. 2887, finding accused Glenda C. Biñas (Biñas) guilty of the crime of Malversation of Public Funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
The Commission on Audit, Regional Office No. V, Rawis, Legazpi City (COA) filed a complaint against Biñas before the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon (OMB-Luzon). In said complaint, it was alleged that sometime in March 1995, an examination of Conrado Arcilla's (Arcilla) cash and accounts was conducted following his retirement as Municipal Treasurer of Virac, Catanduanes, and pursuant to a Confidential Memorandum, dated March 13, 1995, from the Office of the Provincial Auditor of Catanduanes (OPAC). During the examination, it was discovered that there was an accountability in the amount of P457,144.56. Considering that Arcilla had already retired, they asked Biñas, then Cashier II in the Municipal Treasurer's Office of Virac, to produce those undeposited collections and to explain why such a huge amount had accumulated in her possession.
On July 17, 1995, Biñas replied denying said accountability and custody but admitting that, based on her records, the balance amounted only to P371,446.60. The next day, Biñas deposited the amount of P173,000.00 to the Municipal Government of Virac's (Virac) Philippine National Bank (PNB) account. Thus, the total accountability was adjusted to P251,822.11.
In its March 8, 2001 Resolution, 4 the OMB-Luzon recommended the filing of an Information 5 for Malversation of Public Funds against Biñas. The accusatory portion of the Information reads that Biñas malversed public funds in the amount of P457,144.56. The RTC, however, ordered the amendment of the Information to adjust the amount involved from P457,144.56 to P251,822.11.
On August 31, 2001, Biñas was arraigned and pleaded not guilty. During pre-trial, both parties stipulated that she was an accountable officer. Thereafter, trial ensued.
Evidence for the Prosecution
The prosecution presented Cynthia Laynes, Lilia Pitajen and Marilou Vargas, as witnesses. Their combined testimonies tended to prove that an examination of Arcilla's accounts was conducted; they discovered an accountability in the amount of P424,822.11; Biñas deposited P173,000.00 with PNB; Arcilla did not actually handle cash transactions; it was Biñas, as the cashier, who handled the same because all the collections were remitted to her; the collections remained to be the accountability of the cashier, as liquidating officer; and whatever Biñas collected did not pass through the hands of Arcilla because it was her duty to deposit the collections with the bank.
Evidence for the Defense
The defense presented Biñas as its sole witness. She claimed that she was not the accountable officer for the amounts involved; and that she was not the custodian of the cash collections because she had already turned them over to Arcilla.
The RTC Ruling
In its October 29, 2009 Decision, the RTC found Biñas guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Malversation of Public Funds. The trial court explained that: when Biñas failed to produce public funds upon demand, a prima facie case against her was created; that Biñas could no longer deny being an accountable officer because such fact was already admitted; and that Biñas' receipt of the collected amounts, as evidenced by her signature on the daily statement of collections and accountable forms, coupled with the testimony that Arcilla did not actually handle cash transactions, could not be rebutted by her mere denials. The fallo reads:
WHEREFORE, this Court finds Glenda C. Biñas GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Malversation of Public Funds as defined and penalized under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code and, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, hereby sentences her to suffer an indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to eighteen (18) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum; to indemnify the Municipal Government of Virac, Catanduanes the amount of P251,822.11, with legal interest; to pay a fine of P251,822.11; to suffer perpetual disqualification from public office; and to pay the costs of the suit.
SO ORDERED.
Thus, Biñas elevated an appeal to the Sandiganbayan.
The Sandiganbayan Ruling
In its December 14, 2015 Decision, the Sandiganbayan affirmed, with modification the RTC decision. The Sandiganbayan concurred with the trial court's findings that the evidence for both the prosecution and the defense showed that Biñas was an accountable public officer; and that she had the authority to receive cash from revenue collection clerks. It highlighted that Biñas even admitted that she received cash from revenue collection clerks.
The Sandiganbayan, however, observed that the RTC erred when it ordered the amendment of the Information to change the amount involved from P457,144.56 to P251,822.11. It reasoned that the crime of Malversation of Public Funds had already been consummated upon Biñas's failure to remit the funds for which she was accountable. The Sandiganbayan opined that the restitution of a portion of the amount malversed could only be treated as a mitigating circumstance. The anti-graft court further credited Biñas with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender because there was no showing that she had been arrested before she posted her bail. The Sandiganbayan ruled:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal is hereby dismissed and the Decision dated October 29, 2009 is affirmed with modification.
The accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalties of imprisonment of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to twelve (12) years, five (5) months and eleven (11) days of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and of perpetual special disqualification, and to pay a fine in the amount of Php424,822.11. He is also ordered to restitute the balance to the Municipal Government of Virac in the amount of Php251,822.11.
SO ORDERED. 6
Biñas moved for reconsideration, but her motion was denied by the Sandiganbayan in its July 21, 2016 Resolution.
Hence, this appeal.
ISSUE
WHETHER THE SANDIGANBAYAN ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS UNDER ARTICLE 217 OF THE RPC.
Biñas anchors her defense on the Confidential Memorandum, which states that the cash and accounts to be examined was not hers, but of Arcilla. According to her, this indisputably proves that Arcilla was the accountable public officer; and that she was merely wrongfully charged, accused, prosecuted, and convicted.
In its Comment, 7 the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) pointed out that the pieces of evidence relied upon by both the court a quo should have foreclosed all arguments respecting Biñas's accountability for, and custody or control of, the public funds subject of the audit; and that the Sandiganbayan correctly applied the presumption under Article 217 because Biñas failed to refute the presumption that she appropriated the subject funds for her personal use.
The Court's Ruling
After a thorough review of the records, the Court resolves to affirm with modification the ruling of the Sandiganbayan.
Biñas was properly convicted of
For an accused to be guilty of malversation under Article 217 of the RPC, the following must be established: (a) that the offender is a public officer; (b) that he has the custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his office; (c) that the funds or property involved are public funds or property for which he is accountable; and (d) that he has appropriated, taken or misappropriated, or has consented to, or through abandonment or negligence, permitted the taking by another person of, such funds or property. 8
Under the RPC, a public officer is defined as any person who, by direct provision of the law, popular election, or appointment by competent authority, shall take part in the performance of public functions in the Government of the Philippine Islands, or shall perform in said Government or in any of its branches public duties as an employee, agent, or subordinate official, of any rank or class. 9 Here, as Cashier II of Virac Treasurer's Office, Biñas performed activities as an employee of the Republic of the Philippines. Hence, she was undisputably a public officer at the time of the commission of the felony.
Biñas, however, disputes that she could not be considered the accountable public officer for the funds subject of the case. This contention is bereft of any merit. First, it was stipulated during pre-trial that Biñas, by virtue of her position, was an accountable public officer. Second, in her Position Description Form, receiving remittances of collection clerks was one of her functions. Lastly, the evidence for the prosecution showed that as Cashier II, who exercised supervision over revenue collection clerks, Biñas actually received and had custody of funds remitted to her by revenue collection clerks. These remittances from the collection clerks are the very subject of the present case for malversation.
Further, Biñas's reliance on the Confidential Memorandum is misplaced. The said memorandum merely proves that an examination of Arcilla's cash and accounts was initiated. It did not, however, limit solely to Arcilla whatever liability and accountability would be found as a result of such examination. Moreover, the memorandum was not the only piece of evidence presented by the prosecution. It presented several documents and three (3) witnesses who positively pointed to Biñas as the person accountable for the missing funds.
The presumption under Article 217 of the RPC was also properly applied by the court a quo. Under the said provision, 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. 10
In this case, Biñas failed to produce the public funds she was accountable for when the same was demanded from her by duly authorized officers of the OPAC. Instead of complying, she denied accountability therefor. Biñas, however, returned a portion of the alleged accountability. Thus, a disputable presumption of malversation was established, which Biñas failed to refute.
The Penalty
The Sandiganbayan properly appreciated two mitigating circumstances in favor of Biñas. Thus, after applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, Biñas should suffer the penalty of imprisonment of four (4) years, two (2) months, and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to twelve (12) years, five (5) months, and eleven (11) days of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The Court further concurs with the imposition of the penalty of perpetual special disqualification as well as the order for the restitution of the amount of P251,822.11.
The Court, however, finds that the Sandiganbayan erred in increasing the fine to P424,822.11. In People v. Valdez, 11 this Court declared that a practical consequence of the non-allegation of a detail which aggravates the accused's liability is to prohibit the introduction or consideration against the accused of evidence that tends to establish that detail. The allegations in the Information are controlling in the ultimate analysis.
In this case, the Information charged Biñas with malversing public funds in the amount of P251,822.11. Hence, the fine, which is penal in nature, should be limited to that amount only. The Sandiganbayan's ratiocination that the RTC erred in ordering the amendment of the Information is immaterial. While this may be the case, the fact remains that the Information, as amended, subsisted and was not quashed or otherwise declared invalid.
WHEREFORE, the December 14, 2015 Decision and the July 21, 2016 Resolution of the Sandiganbayan in Case No. SB-09-A/R-0007 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that accused Glenda C. Biñas is ordered to pay fine in the amount of P251,822.11 only.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA A. AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Napoleon E. Inoturan, with Associate Justice Teresita V. Diaz-Baldos, and Associate Justice Oscar C. Herrera, Jr., concurring; rollo, pp. 38-58.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Napoleon E. Inoturan, with Associate Justice Teresita V. Diaz-Baldos, and Associate Justice Zaldy V. Trespeses, concurring; id. at 33-37.
3. Penned by Presiding Judge Lelu P. Contreras; id. at 59-68.
4. Penned by Graft Investigation Officer II Cynthia V. Vivar, recommended for approval by Director Ernesto M. Nocos, and approved by Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon Jesus F. Guerrero; id. at 86-88.
5.Id. at 89.
6.Id. at 57.
7.Id. at 176-193.
8.Barriga v. Sandiganbayan, 496 Phil. 764, 774 (2005).
9. Article 203 of the Revised Penal Code.
10. Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code.
11. 679 Phil. 279, 295 (2012).