SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. Nos. 235111-246. January 8, 2018.]
VICENTE C. CARLET, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 08 January 2018 which reads as follows:
"G.R. Nos. 235111-246 (Vicente C. Carlet v. People of the Philippines)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the October 5, 2017 Decision 1 of the Sandiganbayan (Sandiganbayan) in Criminal Case Nos. 26920-27100, convicting petitioner Vicente C. Carlet (petitioner) of: (1) several counts of Malversation of Public Funds, as defined and penalized under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC); (2) violations of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. (RA) 3019, 2 as amended; and (3) violations of Section 89, in relation to Section 128 of Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1445, 3 otherwise known as the "Government Auditing Code of the Philippines."
As a rule, the Court's jurisdiction over decisions of the Sandiganbayan is limited to questions of law. 4 Thus, factual findings of the Sandiganbayan are conclusive upon this Court absent any of the recognized exceptions, 5 which are not extant in this case.
In any event, a review of the records shows that the Sandiganbayan correctly held that a municipal treasurer is a public officer having custody or control of, and therefore accountable for, the local government unit's public funds. Thus, petitioner's act of releasing money to claimants without compliance with the disbursement procedure (i.e., authorized purpose is not indicated in the disbursement vouchers, lack of the necessary supporting documents, and/or absence of the required signatures) constitutes Malversation of Public Funds, punishable under Article 217 of the RPC. The Sandiganbayan also correctly found petitioner liable under Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 for facilitating the anomalous disbursement of public funds. Since the disbursement vouchers did not indicate the legally authorized purpose or bear some of the required signatures, petitioner acted with evident bad faith resulting in undue injury to the government when he released the money. Finally, the Sandiganbayan correctly held that petitioner violated Section 89 of PD 1445, which mandates that "[n]o cash advance shall be given unless for a legally specific purpose." Notably, the Sandiganbayan acquitted petitioner on several charges wherein the prosecution failed to establish his criminal liability.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, (Vol. I), pp. 124-364. Penned by Associate Justice Maria Theresa V. Mendoza-Arcega with Associate Justice and Chairperson Rafael R. Lagos and Associate Justice Reynaldo P. Cruz concurring.
2. Entitled the "ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT"; approved on August 17, 1960.
3. Entitled "ORDAINING AND INSTITUTING A GOVERNMENT AUDITING CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES"; approved on June 11, 1978.
4. See Zoleta v. Sandiganbayan, 765 Phil. 39, 52 (2015).
5. In Lonzanida v. People (610 Phil. 687, 701-702 [2009]; citation omitted), the Court ruled:
The general rule is that the factual findings of the Sandiganbayan are conclusive upon this Courtexcept where: (1) the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmise and conjectures; (2) the inference made is manifestly an error or founded on a mistake; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts; and (5) the findings of fact are premised on a want of evidence and are contradicted by evidence on record. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)