Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2016 > April 2016 Decisions > G.R. Nos. 221849-50, April 04, 2016 - DATU GUIMID P. MATALAM, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.:

This resolves the Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Joint Decision¹ dated April 28, 2015 and Resolution dated November 2, 2015 of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case Nos. 26707 to 26708. The Sandiganbayan found petitioner Datu Guimid P. Matalam (Matalam) guilty of non-remittance of the employer's share in Government Insurance System and Home Development Mutual Fund (Pag-IBIG Fund) premiums.

The Office of the Ombudsman charged Matalam, Regional Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform-Autonomous Region for Muslim Mindanao (DAR-ARMM), with the commission of crimes under "Section 52 (g) of Republic Act No. 8921, otherwise known as the [Government Service Insurance System (GSIS)] Act of 1997, and Section 1, Rule XIII of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 7742":²

Criminal Case No. 26707
(Violation of Sec. 52 (g), Republic Act No. 8291)

"That sometime in 1997, or prior to or subsequent thereto, in Cotabato City, Maguindanao, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused DATU GUIMID MATALAM, a high-ranking public officer being the Regional Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform-Autonomous Region for Muslim Mindanao (DAR-ARMM), ANSARRY LAWI and NAIMAH B. UNTE, both are low-ranking officials being the Cashier and Accountant, respectively, of the same aforestated government office, committing the offense in relation to their official duties and taking advantage of their official positions, conspiring together and taking advantage of their official positions, conspiring together and helping one another, and as such accountable officers involved in the collection and remittance of accounts to GSIS, did, there and then, willfully, unlawfully and criminally, fail and/or refuse to pay or remit the sum of TWO MILLION FOUR HUNDRED EIGHTEEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED SEVENTY-SEVEN AND 33/100 PESOS (P2,418,577.33), representing employer's contribution of [DAR Provincial Office]-Maguindanao for the period of January, 1997 to June 1998, to GSIS, it being due and demandable, without justifiable cause and despite repeated demands made.

CONTRARY TO LAW."

Criminal Case No. 26708
(Violation of Sec. 1, Rule XIII of the Implementing Rules &
Regulations of Republic Act No. 7742)

"That sometime in 1997, or prior to or subsequent thereto, in Cotabato City, Maguindanao, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused DATU GUIMID MATALAM, a high-ranking public officer being the Regional Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform-Autonomous Region for Muslim Mindanao (DAR-ARMM), ANSARRY LAWI and NAIMAH B. UNTE, both are low-ranking officials being the Cashier and Accountant, respectively, of the same aforestated government office, committing the offense in relation to their official duties and taking advantage of their official positions, conspiring together and helping one another, and as such accountable officers involved in the collection and remittance of accounts to Home Development Mutual Fund (PAG-IBIG), did, there and then, willfully, unlawfully and criminally, fail and/or refuse to pay or remit the sum of ONE HUNDRED FORTY-NINE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED PESOS (P149,100.00), representing employer's contribution of [DAR Provincial Office]-Maguindanao for the period of January, 1997 to June 1998, to GSIS, it being due and demandable, without justifiable cause and despite repeated demands made.

CONTRARY TO LAW."³ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

On August 11, 2003, Matalam was arraigned and he pleaded not guilty.⁴ On October 20, 2004, Matalam's co-accused, Ansarry Lawi (Lawi) and Naimah B. Unte (Unte), were arraigned and they separately pleaded not guilty.⁵

The Prosecution presented both documentary and testimonial evidence for both criminal cases.⁶ The Prosecution presented five (5) witnesses: (1) Lilia Gamut-gamutan Delangalen, Accountant III of the GSIS, Cotabato Branch; (2) Rolando Roque, Chief of Division under the Member Services Division of Pag-IBIG Fund, Cotabato Branch; (3) Husain Enden Matanog, State Auditor III of the Office of the Auditor and Resident of DAR-ARMM, DAR Regional Office; (4) Luz Cantor-Malbog, Director of Bureau C of the Department of Budget and Management; and (5) Abdulkadil Angas Alabat, Department Manager of the Land Bank of the Philippines, Cotabato Branch.⁷

According to the Prosecution, Matalam, Lawi, and Unte were the officers involved in the collection and remittance of accounts to the GSIS and Pag-IBIG Fund and, thus, were accountable for the non-remittance.⁸ Matalam and his co-accused failed and/or refused to remit the required contributions without justifiable cause despite repeated demands.⁹

Matalam, for his part, presented both testimonial and documentary evidence. He claimed that his co-accused Lawi and Unte were responsible for remitting the GSIS and Pag-IBIG Fund government contributions.¹⁰ Matalam presented a document entitled Fourth Indorsement dated April 30, 1998 addressed to Lawi, directing the latter to comment or act on the Third Indorsement of Husain Matanog. The Fourth Indorsement was signed by Atty. Tommy A. Ala, who was then Matalam's Chief of Staff.¹¹ Matalam also presented other memoranda directing Unte and Lawi to comment on the Indorsement of Husain Matanog.¹² When asked why he did not sanction Lawi and Unte upon their failure to comply with his directive, Matalam said that he did not have time to do so because he had numerous pending tasks at that time.¹³

Lawi and Unte failed to present evidence despite the opportunities given them.¹⁴

In the Joint Decision dated April 28, 2015, the Sandiganbayan found Matalam guilty of the crimes charged.¹⁵

In Criminal Case No. 26707,¹⁶ the Sandiganbayan held that on July 17, 1998, Zenaida D. Ferrer, GSIS Officer-in-Charge, sent a Notice of Underpayment to Matalam, which reads:¹⁷

We wish to inform you that we have validated your office Premium Master List as of 31 December 1997 and actual remittances for compulsory GSIS Premiums covering the month/s of January 1997-June 1998.

Based on the Remittance Lists submitted to this office, your total actual remittances for the above-stated period is understated per attached Statement of Account.

Due to this understatement, interests and surcharges will accrue from the due date to the time of payment. Kindly make necessary adjustments on your next remittances.

Should there be discrepancy with the amount based on your records, please come to our office for reconciliation.

Your cooperation on this matter is highly appreciated.¹⁸

The Sandiganbayan found that wjth the Notice of Underpayment were six (6) Statements of Account of Compulsory Contributions Due and Payable as of June 30, 1998, all addressed to Matalam.¹⁹

Further, the Sandiganbayan found that the Department of Budget and Management released the funds to the DAR-ARMM through the corresponding Advice of Notice of Cash Allocation issued.²⁰ According to the court:

These funds were credited to the account of the Office of the Regional Governor of the ARMM, which had the obligation to remit to the various line agencies of the ARMM the specific amounts provided to them. As for the remittance to DAR-ARMM, it appears based on the confirmation by Abdulkadil Angas Alabat, the Department Manager of the Cotabato Branch of Landbank of the Philippines, which has been the official depository of the ARMM since the latter s inception, that the following amounts were deposited into Account No. 0372-1054-29 maintained by DAR-ARMM for its Fund 101 [.]²¹ (Emphasis supplied)

Hence, the Sandiganbayan held that:

The act constituting the offense is the failure, refusal or delay in the payment, turnover, remittance or delivery of such accounts to the GSIS within thirty (30) days from the time that the same shall have been due and demandable.

Accused Matalam was admittedly the DAR-ARMM Secretary from January 1997 until 1998, and also the concurrent Vice-Governor of the ARMM Region. As the DAR-ARMM Secretary from January 1997 until 1998, [Matalam] was considered the highest official of DAR-Maguindanao. As such he falls under the first category of responsible officials. . . The thrust of his defense shifting the duty to remit to his co-accused, Lawi and Unte, is unavailing since these two officials fall under the second category of officials responsible for such remittance.²²

In Criminal Case No. 26708,²³ the Sandiganbayan found Matalam guilty of non-remittance of the employer's share of Pag-IBIG Fund premiums.

According to the Sandiganbayan, under the pertinent rules and law, it is the employer who is penalized for the non-remittance to Pag-IBIG Fund:

Since it is the employer who is penalized for non-remittance of the contribution under Section 5, Rule VI and Section 1, Rule XIII ... the term "employer" should be characterized as to its exact coverage. As defined in Section 1 of Rule III of the same Implementing Rules and Regulations, an "employer" is any person, natural or juridical, domestic or foreign, who carries on in the Philippines any trade, business, industry, undertaking or activity of any kind, and uses the services of another person who is under his orders as regards such services, the government, its national and local offices, political subdivision, branches, agencies, or instrumentalities including corporations owned and/or controlled by the Government.²⁴

Based on the definition of the term "employer" under the law, the Sandiganbayan ruled that it is the head of the office or the agency that has the obligation to remit the contributions. That the letters of the Pag-IBIG Fund's Chief of the Member Services Division (Cotabato Branch), which directed remittance of the employer's share to the Pag-IBIG Fund, were addressed to the Head of Office of the DAR Provincial Office in Maguindanao bolsters the correct application of the provisions of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 7742.²⁵cralawred

The dispositive portion of the Sandiganbayan Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, in the light of all the foregoing, the Court hereby renders judgment as follows:

1. In Criminal Case No. 26707, accused DATU GUIMID MATALAM, ANSARRY LAWI and NAIMAH UNTE are hereby found Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 52(g) of R.A. No. 8291, and are each sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from one (1) year as minimum to three (3) years as maximum, and to pay a fine of P20,000.00 each. They shall further suffer absolute perpetual disqualification from holding public office and from practicing any profession or calling licensed by the Government.

2. In Criminal Case No. 26708, accused DATU GUIMID MATALAM is hereby found Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 1, Rule XIII of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 7742, and is hereby sentenced to pay a fine of P190,506.00, and in addition, to pay a penalty of three percent per month of the amounts payable computed from the date the contributions fell due and until the same are paid.

For lack of basis, accused ANSARRY LAWI and NAIMAH UNTE are hereby ACQUITTED of this offense.

SO ORDERED.²⁶

Matalam filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision, which was denied by the Sandiganbayan on November 2, 2015.²⁷cralawred

Matalam now comes before this court and assails the Sandiganbayan Decision.

Matalam argues that a review of the factual findings of the Sandiganbayan would reveal that there is reasonable doubt that he committed the crimes imputed to him.²⁸ Testimonies of the witnesses showed that the funds for the remittances due to GSIS and Pag-IBIG Fund were released to the Office of the Regional Governor of the ARMM and not to DAR-ARMM.²⁹ Even if the funds were, indeed, released to DAR-ARMM, "Matalam as the Regional Secretary could not be held accountable for the non-payment or remittance, since as a matter of procedure, he merely acts as a signatory to whatever document is necessary for the payment of the employer's share to both GSIS and Pag-IBIG [Fund]."³⁰ It is the Office of the Regional Governor that has the duty to release the funds.³¹

Matalam insists that his duty to affix his signature as head of the office was only ministerial.³² His signature was conditioned on his receipt of the disbursement vouchers prepared by the accountant and checked by the cashier.³³

Matalam also claims that he was not negligent in reminding his co-accused to respond to the complaints regarding non-remittance to GSIS and Pag-IBIG Fund.³⁴ Matalam sent four (4) memoranda addressed to Lawi and Unte as DAR-ARMM's cashier and accountant, respectively, to respond to the complaints and to the letter of Husain Matanog, the State Auditor.³⁵

In addition, the billing statements were not addressed to Matalam.³⁶ The billing statements were sent to the Accounting Division of DAR; hence, it should have been Unte's duty as accountant to deal with the statements or to bring them to Matalam's attention.³⁷

Matalam also assails the testimony of witness Abdulkadil Alabat for being incomplete. According to Matalam, not all of the bank statements allegedly related to ARMM's account with the Land Bank of the Philippines, Cotabato Branch, was presented in court. Moreover, based on witnesses' testimonies, the Notices of Cash Allocation were addressed to the Office of the Regional Governor of the ARMM, not to DAR-ARMM.³⁸

Furthermore, Matalam argues that even if the offenses he allegedly committed are mala prohibita, his guilt must still be proven beyond reasonable doubt.³⁹ The pieces of evidence presented in this case create a reasonable doubt as to his guilt.⁴⁰ Thus, a re-evaluation of the evidence is required.⁴¹

The main issue in this case is whether petitioner Datu Guimid P. Matalam is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of non-remittance of the employer's share of the GSIS and Pag-IBIG Fund premiums.

We deny the Petition.

Petitioner failed to show that the Sandiganbayan committed reversible error in rendering the assailed Decision and Resolution. Petitioner is liable for the non-remittance of the contributions to GSIS and Pag-IBIG Fund.

Petitioner's liability for the non-remittance to GSIS and Pag-IBIG Fund of the employer's share in the contributions is clearly set out in the laws mandating the collection and remittance of the premiums:

Republic Act No. 8291, Sec. 52 (g):

I. PENAL PROVISIONS

SEC. 52. Penalty.

Back to Home | Back to Main