ALBURO ALBURO AND ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES ALBURO ALBURO AND ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES

contact

MON-SAT 8:30AM-5:30PM

The Supreme Court Decides: Public officers may be held liable for malversation even if they do not use public property or funds under their custody for their personal benefit.

Photo from Unsplash | Mari Gimenez 

The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.

Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.


AT A GLANCE:

In malversation through negligence, what characterizes the negligence is not what the offender did after the public funds or property were taken by another person but what the offender did or omitted to do which permitted the taking thereof.


The Supreme Court Decides: It is hornbook doctrine that an acquittal will not necessarily extinguish civil liability unless the court declares in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil liability might arise did not exist.


During the incumbency of Evangelista as municipal mayor of the Municipality of San Miguel, Bohol, six (6) checks were issued without the necessary supporting documents.

Municipal Accountant Hedeliza L. Carcueva made the discovery sometime in 2002 when she performed bank reconciliation upon the directive of the Commission on Audit (COA).

On February 28, 2006, COA State Auditor III Ernesto Pala submitted the Annual Audit Report on the accounts and operations of the Municipality for the year ended December 31, 2005 to the Cluster Director, COA Cluster IV-Visayas, reflecting therein that no action was taken by the Municipality with respect to the cash shortage of PhP733,148.00 incurred by Millare arising from unrecorded checks from 1998 to 2001.

COA Cluster IV Regional Cluster Director Charlita Leopoldo furnished Evangelista a copy of the annual audit report and requested him to take the necessary action on the comments and observations contained therein and to inform the COA, through its auditor, of the actions taken within one (1) month from receipt of the annual audit report. However, no action was taken by Evangelista. Thus, Pala issued a Notice of Disallowance dated February 12, 2007 involving the subject checks.

On February 21, 2007, Resolution No. 25, Series of 2007 was passed by the Sangguniang Bayan of San Miguel and approved by Evangelista, observing that the accountabilities of Millare have been in the Municipality’s books for more than five (5) years, and requesting her to settle the same. Evangelista issued Millare a Memorandum directing her to comply with the COA AOMs by depositing her collections and remittances intact with the Municipality’s depositary bank, submitting daily reports of collections and deposits, fully settling her cash advance, and strictly monitoring treasury operations to prevent loss of government funds. When Evangelista was about to retire, he spoke with Millare, who informed him that she would issue a waiver in favor of the Municipality to settle her accountabilities.

An administrative complaint was filed before the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) against Millare, former Municipal Mayor Segundinio M. Hencianos, and Evangelista with respect to the cash shortage incurred by Millare.

Millare issued an Affidavit of Undertaking where she acknowledged her monetary obligation to the Municipality in the total amount of PhP1,003,960.19 and undertook to pay said obligation. A year later, she executed an Affidavit of Waiver where she waived her rights to her housing unit in favor of the Municipality.

The OMB found Millare administratively liable for dishonesty and meted the penalty of dismissal, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and disqualification from reemployment in government service, but dismissed the case as to Hencianos on account of his death before he was given an opportunity to be heard, as well as to Evangelista due to insufficiency of evidence.

However, in a Resolution, the OMB found probable cause to indict Evangelista before the Sandiganbayan for six (6) counts of malversation in relation to the six (6) checks subject of this case, and eight (8) counts of malversation against Millare before the Regional Trial Court of Bohol.

After trial on the merits, the Sandiganbayan promulgated its Decision, finding Evangelista guilty  beyond reasonable doubt of Malversation of Public Funds Through Negligence. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.

The issue in this case is whether or not there is no evidence to show that Evangelista allowed the latter to misappropriate funds through abandonment or negligence.

The Supreme Court Decides

The Supreme Court Court granted the petition. Petitioner is acquitted of malversation of public funds for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Nonetheless, he is ordered to pay the Government the total amount of PhP553,148.00 as civil liability, subject to interest at 6% per annum from the finality of the Decision until full payment.

Public officers may be held liable for malversation even if they do not use public property or funds under their custody for their personal benefit, but consent to the taking thereof by another person, or, through abandonment or negligence, permitted such taking.

In malversation through negligence, what characterizes the negligence is not what the offender did after the public funds or property were taken by another person but what the offender did or omitted to do which permitted the taking thereof.

The Court found that petitioner’s negligence did not approximate malice or fraud, thus warranting his acquittal. Nonetheless, it is hornbook doctrine that an acquittal will not necessarily extinguish civil liability unless the court declares in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil liability might arise did not exist. Hence, the Court did not find that the act from which petitioner’s civil liability may arise did not exist. Thus, petitioner is civilly liable in the amount of PhP553,148.00.

 

Source: 


Click here to subscribe to our newsletter

Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 09175772207/ 09778050020.

All rights reserved.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

0 Shares
Share
Tweet
Share