SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 220073. November 9, 2016.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. ROBERT JOHN L. SOBREPENA, FERDINAND T. SANTOS, ALFREDO R. YÑIGUEZ III AND EMILY ROCES-FALCO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 09 November 2016 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 220073 — People of the Philippines vs. Robert John L. Sobrepena, Ferdinand T. Santos, Alfredo R. Yñiguez III and Emily Roces-Falco
The Court resolved to grant the motion for extension to file reply filed by the Office of the Solicitor General and to note the said reply.
After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolved to DENY the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari for failure of the petitioner to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 133503 committed any reversible error in setting aside the Orders dated June 27, 2013 and October 31, 2013 of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 6 in Criminal Case Nos. 34422-R and 34423-R.
Under Article 217 1 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), malversation is committed when an offender misappropriates public funds, for which he or she is accountable, for his own personal use or allows any other person to take such public funds for the latter's personal use. What is essential is that the misappropriated funds are public funds.
In this case, however, the sums involved are derived from rentals due to the Bases Conversion Development Authority (BCDA) under a Leaseback Agreement entered by both parties. The sums of money in this case are not the public funds contemplated by the penal provision of Article 217 of the RPC since this is commercial transaction. The CA is correct when it held that the respondents are indebted to the BCDA to pay a sum of money ex contractu or derived from purely commercial terms. The amounts owed to the BCDA are merely corporate debts of the respondents which were not timely paid.
Verily, this case should be confined to a civil case for collection of a sum of money. To allow the petitioner to enforce its right to be paid through a criminal action will run counter to Section 20 of the Bill of Rights which states that, "(n)o person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll tax." 2
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolved to AFFIRM the assailed August 12, 2015 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 133503.
SO ORDERED. (Mendoza, J., on official leave from November 8-15, 2016 per Resolution dated January 26, 2016 in A.M. No. 07-11-02-SC under the 2016 Wellness Program)." DETACa
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. ARTICLE 217. Malversation of Public Funds or Property. — Presumption of Malversation. — Any public officer who, by reason of the duties of his office, is accountable for public funds or property, shall appropriate the same, or shall take or misappropriate or shall consent, or through abandonment or negligence, shall permit any other person to take such public funds or property, wholly or partially, or shall otherwise be guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property, shall suffer: 1. The penalty of prisión correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the amount involved in the misappropriation or malversation does not exceed 200 pesos. 2. The penalty of prisión correccional in its maximum period to prisión mayor in its minimum period, if the amount involved is more than 200 pesos but does not exceed 6,000 pesos. 3. The penalty of prisión mayor in its medium and maximum periods, if the amount involved is more than 6,000 pesos but is less than 12,000 pesos. 4. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its minimum and medium periods, if the amount involved is more than 12,000 pesos but is less than 22,000 pesos. If the amount exceeds the latter, the penalty shall be reclusión temporal in its medium and maximum periods.
In all cases, persons guilty of malversation shall also suffer the penalty of perpetual special disqualification and a fine equal to the amount of the funds malversed or equal to the total value of the property embezzled.
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 uses.
2. CONSTITUTION, Article III, Section 20.