THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 199935. April 8, 2013.]
EDGAR Y. SANTOS, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated April 8, 2013, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 199935 — (Edgar Y. Santos v. People of the Philippines). — This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the May 24, 2011 Decision 1 and the December 22, 2011 Resolution 2 of the Sandiganbayan (SB), finding accused Edgar Y. Santos (Santos) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Failure to Render Accounts defined and penalized under Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and sentencing him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from Four (4) Months and One (1) Day of Arresto Mayor, as minimum, to One (1) Year, One (1) Month and Eleven (11) Days of Prision Correccional, as maximum; and ordering him to pay a fine of P6,000.00 and to restitute in favour of the Government the amount of P20,000.00.
The Facts:
Santos was the mayor of Balingoan, Misamis Oriental. He was charged with the crime of Failure to Render Accounts, defined and penalized under Article 218 of the RPC. ADCETI
When arraigned, Santos pleaded Not Guilty. Thereafter, trial ensued. After the prosecution had rested, Santos applied for leave to file his demurrer, which was granted. The prosecution then filed its comment/opposition to the demurrer. After the matter was submitted for resolution, the SB denied it.
Thereafter, the defense presented its evidence. Santos denied the charge against him and claimed that upon his return to his office from official travels, he always made sure that all supporting documents for liquidation were duly accomplished and submitted within the 30-day liquidation period. He admitted, however, that he had no evidence or any written document to prove that he had indeed liquidated his subject cash advance. His office staff took care of accomplishing and submitting the documents to the municipal accountant for evaluation and recording purposes. He further claimed, among others, that Municipal Accountant, Cristy L. Paguia, refused to accept and record his liquidation documents despite the fact that the only requirement lacking was the authority to travel coming from the Office of the Governor.
As earlier stated, the SB found Santos guilty as charged.
The SB explained that all the essential elements of the crime of Failure of Accountable Officer to Render Accounts were present, namely: 1) that the offender is a public officer whether in service or separated therefrom; 2) that he is accountable for public funds or property; 3) that he is required by law or regulation to render account to the Auditor General or to Provincial Auditor; and 4) that he fails to do so for a period of two (2) months after such accounts should be rendered. Moreover, the SB noted that Santos did try to submit a liquidation report, but it was not accepted as it was not for his travelling expenses, but for freight and handling firetruck expenses.
Aggrieved, Santos filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied. The SB stressed that even assuming arguendo that Santos had no deliberate or malicious intent, the fact remained that his questioned act fell under culpable felonies where intent was replaced by fault. Even his claim of good faith was not substantiated. The SB emphasized that the evidence could not justify a finding of good faith. Thus, the denial of the motion.
Aggrieved, Santos filed the subject petition. TECIHD
The Court's Resolution:
After a perusal of the records, the Court finds no merit in the petition.
Santos contends that the failure to render accounts under Article 218 of the RPC is a felony by omission. In so arguing, he cites the case of U.S. v. Saberon (1911). 3He stresses that as an intentional felony, the act must be done with malice or intent.
Contrary to his contention, however, nowhere can it be found in the abovementioned case that the Court classifies the offense of Failure to Render Accounts under the RPC as a felony by omission. In fact, the said case involves a violation of Sec. 1 of Act 1740, 4which penalizes the crime of malversation. Furthermore, the Court, as early as 1911, has recognized the criminal liability of an accountable officer for his failure to render an accounting. Specifically, in the Saberon Case, cited by Santos, it was written that:
. . . . True it is that the unjustified refusal to render an account may produce a suspicion that there are at least irregularities in the officer's bookkeeping, but neither is this in itself conclusive proof of misappropriation, nor does the law in imposing punishment in any wise take into account the more or less correct condition of the funds which may be in this charge. The law makes the mere fact of that refusal a crime and punishes it as such, in absolute distinction from the other fact, entirely immaterial to the case, as to whether or not the funds in the safe entrusted to the officer are intact. So true is this that, although such funds are found to be intact and the official having them in charge is found not to have committed the smallest or most insignificant defalcation, still he would not be exempt from the criminal liability established by law if he refused or failed to render an account of said funds on being requested to do so by competent authority. 5
In stressing that Article 218 is a felony by omission, Santos would like to impress upon the Court that the act refers to an intentional felony. Thus, the prosecution must prove that he had the malicious intent not to render an accounting for the subject cash advance.
Santos fails to persuade the Court. Felonies, whether intentional or unintentional, refer to acts and omissions punishable by law. 6
Even granting that Article 218 is an intentional felony, Santos still cannot escape liability therefrom by claiming good faith and absence of intent. His allegations of submission of liquidation papers, albeit appearing that the subject cash advance was not included, and a request for evaluation even before a demand by COA was made, do not justify good faith. Rather, they even bolstered the fact of malice/intent in not complying with what was incumbent upon him as an accountable officer. Despite having knowledge that the subject cash advance had not yet been liquidated, Santos did not make any effort to submit the lacking necessary documents and to settle, once and for all, any unliquidated cash advances. Good faith was defeated when, despite the demand by the COA, Santos still failed to make good or settle his accountabilities.
It must be stressed that the mere failure to timely liquidate the cash advance is the gravamen of the offense. Verily, the law seeks to compel the accountable officer, by penal provision, to promptly render an accounting of the funds which he has received by reason of his office. 7 The Court has already sanctioned belated filing of liquidation reports. With more reason shall an accountable officer be held criminally liable after it has been clearly shown that he failed to render an account.
Accordingly, the Sandiganbayan did not commit any reversible error in finding accused Edgar Y. Santos guilty of the crime of Failure to Render Accounts under Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. ACTESI
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Penned by Associate Justice Francisco H. Villaruz, Jr. with Associate Justices Samuel R. Martires and Alex L. Quiroz, concurring.
2.Id.
3.G.R. No. L-5180, August 4, 1911.
4.An Act providing for the punishment of public officers and employees who fail or refuse to account for public funds or property or who makes personal use of such funds or property, or any part thereof, or who misappropriate the same, or any part thereof, or who are guilty of any malversation with reference to such funds or property, or who through abandonment, fault, or negligence permit any other person of abstract, misappropriate, or make personal use of the same.
5.US v. Saberon, G.R. No. L-5180, August 4, 1911.
6.Article 3, Revised Penal Code.
7.People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 147504, March 21, 2011.