Binarao v. People

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. Nos. 243962 and 245521-26. July 30, 2019.]

SYLVIA P. BINARAO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated July 30, 2019which reads as follows:

"G.R. Nos. 243962 and 245521-26 (Sylvia P. Binarao v. People of the Philippines)

This Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 assails the Decision 2 dated August 24, 2018 of the Sandiganbayan convicting petitioner Sylvia P. Binarao of estafa through falsification of public documents, two counts of malversation of public funds, two counts of falsification of public documents, and two counts of violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. (R.A.) No. 3019. 3

FACTS OF THE CASE

Petitioner, City Accountant of Zamboanga City, was charged with: (1) estafa through falsification of public documents; (2) two counts of malversation of public funds; (3) two counts of falsification of public documents; and (4) three counts of violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019. 4

Petitioner travelled to Cagayan de Oro on October 27 to 31, 2001 to attend the seminar on Barangay Accounting and Auditing together with six barangay bookkeepers and a driver. They stayed at the Commission on Audit (COA) dormitory occupying three rooms. 5

On December 4 to 9, 2001, petitioner attended the quarterly meeting of the Philippine League of Local Budget Officers in Roxas City. Since there was no direct flight to Roxas City, petitioner first went to Manila. She stayed in First Hotel in Binondo, Manila. 6

On May 12 to 19, 2002, petitioner stayed in Cherry Blossoms Hotel in Ermita, Manila while she was on official business. 7

The prosecution presented seven witnesses to prove the elements of the crimes charged, while petitioner presented two witnesses including herself.

The first witness for the prosecution was State Auditor Mobin A. Abdula who testified that his team conducted a post audit on Disbursement Voucher (D.V.) No. 101-011219515, together with its supporting documents in relation to petitioner's trip to Cagayan de Oro. Based on the audit, it was found that Official Receipt (O.R.) No. 4800345 was altered. Instead of P4,800.00, petitioner placed the amount of P14,800.00. 8 CAIHTE

The second witness presented was Atty. Hilde C. Dela Cruz-Likit, Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer II of the Ombudsman who issued a subpoena to the manager of Cherry Blossoms Hotel ordering it to submit the original of O.R. No. 47034 in order to validate the receipt that was submitted by petitioner as supporting document of D.V. No. 101-020507914. It was found that the amount in the receipt submitted by Cherry Blossoms was P5,914.00 while the amount in the receipt submitted by petitioner as supporting document of the voucher was P16,914.00. 9

A subpoena was also issued to the manager of First Hotel to submit the original of O.R. No. 123429 in order to validate the receipt submitted by petitioner as one of the supporting documents to D.V. No. 101-011220440. The First Hotel submitted a copy of the receipt and it was found that the amount indicated therein was P1,830.00 while the amount in the receipt submitted by petitioner was P5,800.00. 10

The third witness was Atty. Franco C. Oco, Legal Officer, TLC Group of Companies who testified that his clients submitted a duplicate original of O.R. No. 4703. 11 Rodney Robosa, General Manager of Manila Grand Opera Hotel corroborated the testimony of Atty. Franco C. Oco. 12

Kenyon Tan, the Manager of First Hotel also testified that First Hotel submitted a photocopy of O.R. No. 123429 because the duplicate original was destroyed by Typhoon Ondoy. 13

Ethyl Dexie Gerodiaz, Dormitory Supervisor of COA Training Center and Dormitory testified that she issued O.R. No. 4800345 to petitioner for the amount of P4,800.00. The certified true copy of the receipt was submitted in court. 14

For her part, petitioner testified that she refunded the amount of P10,000.00 which was the discrepancy between the amount in the receipt issued by the COA in O.R. No. 480345 and the amount in the receipt submitted by petitioner. As to her stay in First Hotel and Cherry Blossoms Hotel, she claimed that she does not remember the amounts paid. 15

In its Decision 16 dated August 24, 2018, the Sandiganbayan convicted petitioner for all the crimes charged except to one count of violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019.

As to the charge of estafa through falsification of public documents, the Sandiganbayan found that all the elements of both crimes of other deceit and falsification were established when petitioner presented the altered receipt issued by Cherry Blossoms Hotel in liquidating the amount disbursed by the city government for her official business. 17

As to the two counts of malversation, the Sandiganbayan likewise found that all the elements were proved when petitioner failed to give an explanation for the disappearance of the amounts that she had not spent in her official travels to Cagayan de Oro and Roxas City. The release of the funds to her for official purpose is conditioned on the liquidation thereof by submitting supporting documents such as receipts. The fact that she altered the amounts therein points to a conclusion that she pocketed the discrepancy between the real amounts and those altered. Even if she refunded the P10,000.00 discrepancy in the receipt issued by COA, she is still liable for malversation because the fact of refund will not exonerate her from the charge. 18

As to the two counts of falsification of public documents, the Sandiganbayan likewise found that the elements were duly proven when petitioner altered the amounts in the receipts issued by the COA and the First Hotel since it is her duty to prepare the liquidation report of the cash advances she received and to attach the said receipts in support thereof. 19

As to the three counts of violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019, the Sandiganbayan held that petitioner was guilty of only two counts for her falsification of the amounts in the receipts issued by Cherry Blossoms Hotel and First Hotel because in the receipt issued by the COA for the Cagayan de Oro trip, she refunded the amount of P10,000.00. Hence, the government has not incurred actual injury when she refunded the amount therein. 20

Aggrieved, petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court. DETACa

THE RULING OF THE COURT

After a perusal of the records of the case, this Court resolves to deny the Petition for Review on Certiorari for failure of petitioner to show that the Sandiganbayan committed any reversible error in convicting petitioner.

It must be noted that the Court is not a trier of facts. The facts in this case have already been threshed out by the Sandiganbayan in the questioned Decision.

The questions raised in the petition, which were mere rehash of petitioner's arguments in the motion for reconsideration of the assailed Decision, are summarized as follows: (1) the witnesses presented by the prosecution have no personal knowledge as to the execution of the receipts presented during trial; (2) failure by prosecution to present the checks subject of the disbursement vouchers to prove that indeed, funds from the government was received by petitioner; and (3) the receipts presented were not original.

As to the first argument, Section 36, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides for the hearsay rule, such that, "a witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from his own perception." However, an exception thereto is provided in Section 43 of the same rule which states that, "entries made at or near the time of the transactions to which they refer, by a person deceased, or unable to testify, who was in a position to know the facts therein stated, may be received as prima facie evidence, if such person made the entries in his professional capacity or in the performance of duty and in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty."

In this case, when the managers of First Hotel and Cherry Blossoms Hotel testified to the execution of the receipts even if they were not personally the ones who made the entries therein, they are still admissible based on the abovementioned exception.

As to the non-presentation of the check itself subject of the disbursement vouchers, the Sandiganbayan is correct in saying that the petitioner herself signed the disbursement vouchers acknowledging receipt thereof. Additionally, even without the check itself, the elements of the crime charged were still proven. Hence, there is no need to present the actual receipts subject of the disbursement vouchers.

Lastly, the witnesses of the prosecution are not required to present the original of the receipts because these originals were issued to petitioner. The copies retained by establishments are duplicate originals which are considered by the Rules to be admissible as originals because they are copies executed at or about the same time, with identical contents. 21 The First Hotel presented a photocopy of the duplicate original because the latter was lost during Typhoon Ondoy. As the prosecution proved the need to present secondary evidence such as a photocopy thereof, the same is admissible in accordance with the Rules of Court. 22

As to the designation of the offenses, the Sandiganbayan convicted the petitioner for estafa through falsification of a public document because of her alteration of the amounts in the receipt issued by Cherry Blossoms Hotel. It must be noted that the Supreme Court has decided in Monteverde v. People 23(Monteverde) that a private document acquires the character of a public document when it becomes part of an official record and is certified by a public officer duly authorized by law. In Monteverde, the accused public officer submitted a sales invoice issued by a private entity as one of the supporting documents for the liquidation of her accountability to the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation. Hence, when petitioner submitted the hotel receipts as supporting document for liquidation of her disbursement voucher, the same has become part of an official record acquiring the character of a public document.

In either case, the receipt issued to petitioner by Cherry Blossoms Hotel is a commercial document because it is used by merchants and businessmen to promote or facilitate trade or credit transactions. 24 Hence, petitioner was correctly convicted of estafa through falsification of public document because of her alteration of the amount in the receipt issued by Cherry Blossoms Hotel and two counts of falsification of public documents because of her alteration of the amount in the receipt issued by the COA and First Hotel. aDSIHc

The Sandiganbayan, in imposing the penalty for estafa through falsification of public documents, adopted the penalties under R.A. No. 10951. However, upon reading the provisions of the Revised Penal Code, We reduce the fine imposed since the provisions of the Revised Penal Code regarding the fine is more favorable to petitioner.

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. We ADOPT the findings of the Sandiganbayan. The assailed Decision dated August 24, 2018 of the Sandiganbayan in SB-12-CRM-0016, SB-12-CRM-0017-0018, SB-12-CRM-0019-0020 and SB-12-CRM-0021-0023 finding petitioner Sylvia P. Binarao GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of estafa through falsification of public document, two (2) counts of malversation of public funds, two (2) counts of falsification of public documents, and two (2) counts of violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS such that:

1. For estafa through falsification of public documents, petitioner is hereby sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum to ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum and to pay a fine of P5,000.00. Petitioner is also required to pay the City of Zamboanga the amount of P11,000.00 plus interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum until the amount is fully paid.

2. For two (2) counts of malversation of public funds, petitioner is hereby sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of four (4) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period as minimum to two (2) years, four (4) months, and one (1) day of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods as maximum, taking into consideration the mitigating circumstance of restitution; and one (1) year and one (1) day of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period as minimum to three (3) years, six (6) months and twenty-one (21) days of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods as maximum. Petitioner is also required to pay the City of Zamboanga a fine of P3,970.00 plus interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum until the amount is fully paid. Petitioner is also perpetually disqualified from public office for each count.

3. For two (2) counts of falsification of public funds, petitioner is hereby sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of two (2) years, four (4) months, and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum and to pay a fine of P5,000.00 for each case.

4. For the two (2) counts of violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019, petitioner is hereby sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) month as minimum to ten (10) years as maximum, with perpetual disqualification from public office for each case.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 9-54.

2. Penned by Associate Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang, with Associate Justices Sarah Jane T. Fernandez and Zaldy V. Trespeses, concurring; id. at 59-89.

3. Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

4.Rollo, pp. 60-62.

5.Id. at 63.

6.Id.

7.Rollo, p. 79.

8.Id. at 66-67.

9.Id. at 69A.

10.Id. at 69A-70.

11.Id. at 71A-72.

12.Id. at 72A-73.

13.Id. at 73-74.

14.Id. at 74A.

15.Id. at 76A-77.

16.Supra note 2.

17.Rollo, pp. 79-81.

18.Id. at 81A-83.

19.Id. at 85A-86.

20.Id. at 86-88.

21. RULES OF COURT, Rule 130, Sec. 4.

22. RULES OF COURT, Rule 130, Sec. 5.

23.435 Phil. 906 (2002).

24.Id. at 921.