ChanRobles Virtual law Library
|
PHILIPPINE SUPREME
COURT
DECISIONS
FLORDELIZA F. QUERIJERO, Petitioner, G.R.
No.
153483
THE PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred D E C I S I O N chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred Mendoza, J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary chanrobles virtuallaw libraryredchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred This is a petition for review of the decision,[1] dated February 5, 2001, of the Sandiganbayan, finding petitioner Flordeliza F. Querijero guilty of malversation of public funds and sentencing her to suffer a penalty of ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to eighteen (18) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum; to indemnify the Republic of the Philippines in the amount of P165,722.78; to pay a fine in the same amount and the costs of the suit; and to suffer perpetual special disqualification to hold public office. Petitioner likewise seeks the reversal of the resolution,[2] dated April 25, 2002, of the Sandiganbayan, denying her motion for reconsideration.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred The information against petitioner Flordeliza F. Querijero alleged -chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred That on or about July 29, 1986, or for some time prior thereto, in Lucena City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, an accountable public officer being a Cashier of Integrated Provincial Health Office, Lucena City and as such accountable for public funds collected and received by her by reason of her office, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously malverse, convert, and misappropriate for her personal use and benefit the amount of One Hundred Sixty Five Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty Two Pesos and 78/100 (P165,722.78), Philippine Currency, to the damage and prejudice of the government, particularly Lucena City, in the aforementioned amount.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred CONTRARY TO LAW.[3]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred Upon arraignment, petitioner
pleaded not guilty to the charge, whereupon she was tried.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Rosalinda Lusterio, collecting officer of the Quezon Integrated Provincial Health Office, testified that there were several collectors in their office. She was in charge of summarizing the official receipt duplicates, while Ofelia Villapando collected the GSIS and SSS payments in representation of their office. According to her, petitioner had nothing to do with the GSIS and SSS checks, and that the latter was no longer working in the office on July 8, 1986. She likewise testified that Ofelia Villapando, who was in charge of the collection of Provincial Aid, deposited the same in the bank. Petitioner, as cashier, was the one who gave the salaries to the employees and entered the transactions in the cash book. Petitioner also conducted the cash count and afterwards placed the money in the vault, where the same remained until they were used for payments based on the vouchers. Petitioner also prepared the remittance advice when the collections were deposited in the bank, and these were recorded in the cash book.[16]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred Evelyn A. Cabana testified that she was detailed to the Cashier’s Office from 1985 to 1990 as Clerk I. Her duties were to process Medicare claims and to record the same. She said that sometimes Ofelia Villapando assigned her to issue receipts for the Medicare income. However, she said it was Ofelia Villapando who regularly issued the receipts for the collection of Medicare claims and deposited the corresponding payments to the bank.[17]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred Luisito Q. Rivamonte, who was Administrative Officer III at the time of his testimony, stated that petitioner last reported for work on July 8, 1986. On July 10, 1986, he was designated as Acting Cashier.[18]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred Based on the foregoing evidence of the parties, the Sandiganbayan rendered its decision on February 5, 2001, the dispositive portion of which reads:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred WHEREFORE, the quantum of evidence sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt having been established, the Court FINDS Flordeliza Querijero y Faller "GUILTY" beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Malversation of Public Funds penalized under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, there being no mitigating nor aggravating circumstance, she is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of TEN (10) years, and ONE (1) day of Prision Mayor as Minimum to EIGHTEEN (18) years, EIGHT (8) months and ONE (1) day of Reclusion Temporal as Maximum.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred She is likewise ordered to indemnify the Republic of the Philippines the amount of One Hundred Sixty Five Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty Two Pesos and Seventy Eight Centavos (P165,722.78); to pay a fine in the same amount, which is the amount of money malversed and the costs of the suit, and, finally, to suffer perpetual special disqualification to hold public office.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred Quezon City, Philippines, September 14, 2000.[19]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but her motion was denied. Hence this appeal.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred Petitioner raises the following issues:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred First - WHETHER OR NOT, IN LIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD, THE AUDIT WAS REGULARLY CONDUCTED AND THE ALLEGED FUND SHORTAGE OF PETITIONER WAS ACCURATELY ESTABLISHED AS BASIS FOR THE PRESUMPTION RELIED UPON FOR HER CONVICTION OF MALVERSATION;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred Second - WHETHER OR NOT, GIVEN THE EVIDENCE ON THE MATTER, ACTUAL RECEIPT BY PETITIONER OF THE DEMAND REQUIRED FOR THE PRESUMPTION TO ARISE HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED BY COMPETENT EVIDENCE; andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred Third - WHETHER OR NOT THE TOTALITY OF THE EVIDENCE AGAINST PETITIONER IS SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH PETITIONER’S GUILT OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.[20]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred After due consideration of the evidence in this case, we find the appeal meritorious.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred Conviction for malversation of public funds or property under Art. 217[21] of the Revised Penal Code requires proof that (a) the offender is a public officer; (b) he has the custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his office; (c) the funds or property involved are public funds or property for which he is accountable; and (d) he has appropriated, taken or misappropriated, or has consented to, or through abandonment or negligence permitted, the taking by another person of such funds or property.[22]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred Petitioner was, at the time of the alleged commission of the crime, the cashier of the Integrated Provincial Health Office in Lucena City. She had been in the government service for 40 years, 27 years of which as cashier. She was found guilty pursuant to Art. 217 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides that "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."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred This presumption is negated when the accused is able to present sufficient evidence that can nullify any likelihood that he had put the funds or property to personal use.[23] Petitioner alleges that the presumption provided under Art. 217 of the Revised Penal Code cannot arise in this case because the audit conducted was "irregular, incomplete, and inaccurate," and, consequently, the alleged shortage was not established. Indeed, the records show that aside from petitioner, there were other accountable officers in the Cashier’s Office, among whom were Ofelia Villapando, who collected GSIS and SSS payments, Provincial Aid, and Medicare Claims and deposited the corresponding payments in the bank; Rosalinda Lusterio, who had been collecting officer since 1975; and Luisito Rivamonte, who had been designated Acting Cashier on July 10, 1986. However, only the cash and accounts of petitioner were examined by the COA auditors. Such incomplete audit, which resulted in an alleged shortage that was attributed solely to petitioner’s accountability, is susceptible to errors and inaccuracies. The prima facie presumption under Art. 217 of the Revised Penal Code arises only if there is no issue as to the accuracy, correctness, and regularity of the audit findings and if the fact that funds are missing is indubitably established.[24]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred An accountable officer
under Art. 217 of the Revised Penal Code is a public officer who, by
reason
of his office, is accountable for public funds or property. Sec. 101(1)
of the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines (P.D. No. 1445)
defines
accountable officer to be every officer of any government agency whose
duties permit or require the possession or custody of government funds
or property and who shall be accountable therefor and for the
safekeeping
thereof in conformity with law. In the determination of who is an
accountable
officer, it is the nature of the duties which he performs - the fact
that,
as part of his duties, he received public money for which he was bound
to account, and not the nomenclature or the relative importance the
position
held - which is the controlling factor.[25]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(d) Simultaneous cash count. - All types of funds held by an officer should be examined at one time. Likewise, simultaneous cash examination should be made of all accountable officers located in one place. The auditor should employ as many men as needed to effect a simultaneous cash count. If this is not possible, he should see to it that all cash to be counted are adequately controlled.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred (e) Inspection of cash receptacles. - The auditor should not only demand of the accountable officer to produce all the funds for which he is accountable, but should also invariably inspect the safe, desk drawers, and other receptacles where the officer usually keeps his cash. The purpose is to assure the auditor that all cash, official or otherwise, is presented to him.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred Petitioner was the only one whose cash and accounts were audited despite the fact that there were at least three other accountable officers in the office. Another irregularity in the audit conducted was that the auditors did not open the other vault which was also located in the same office. No explanation was given by the audit team as to why the smaller vault was not opened. The audit team should have inspected the total contents of the safes and other cash receptacles of each accountable officer or employee to establish absolute certainty that no other cash, checks, warrants, or valid cash items had been left out of the count and inventory.[27] Thus, in Dumagat v. Sandiganbayan,[28] this Court has held that the audit examination cannot be made the basis for holding petitioner therein liable for malversation because it failed to establish that funds were indeed missing since funds kept in other vaults were not included in the examination.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred That the audit made was incomplete, irregular, and inaccurate is made more evident when the audit report included in the shortage allegedly incurred by petitioner the amount of P30,748.85 representing unaccounted/unrecorded GSIS/SSS checks. As heretofore mentioned, the records show that it was Ofelia Villapando, and not petitioner, who was in charge of this account. Besides, petitioner’s last day in office was on July 8, 1986,[29] but in the List of Unrecorded Collections, the dates stated in the official receipt of the GSIS and SSS checks were July 8, 1986 and July 9, 1986. Had the audit team been more thorough and complete in its examination by including all the accountable officers and inspecting all the safes and cash receptacles in their possession, the report would have been more credible and accurate. As stated in Tinga v. People:[30]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred At this juncture, it may not be amiss to state that considering the gravity of the offense of Malversation of Public Funds, just as government treasurers are held to strict accountability as regards funds entrusted to them in a fiduciary capacity, so also should examining COA auditors act with greater care and caution in the audit of the accounts of such accountable officers to avoid the perpetration of any injustice. Accounts should be examined carefully and thoroughly "to the last detail," "with absolute certainty" in strict compliance with the Manual of Instructions.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred In this case, the shortage of funds which was attributed to petitioner was not indubitably established considering that the audit conducted was incomplete, irregular, and inaccurate and did not follow standard auditing procedures by excluding from the examination the other accountable officers in the office and failing to open the other safe used in the office. Hence, the presumption under Art. 217 of the Revised Penal Code, which was made the basis of petitioner’s conviction by the Sandiganbayan, is not applicable.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred In view of the foregoing, we find that the guilt of petitioner has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the evidence of the prosecution does not pass the test of moral certainty sufficient to support a judgment of conviction.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred WHEREFORE, the decision of the Sandiganbayan dated February 5, 2001 and its resolution dated April 25, 2002, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE and petitioner Flordeliza F. Querijero is ACQUITTED of the crime of malversation of public funds.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred Bellosillo, (Chairman),
Quisumbing, Austria-Martinez and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Endnotes:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
[1]
Per Justice Anacleto D. Badoy, Jr. and concurred in by Justices Minita
V. Chico-Nazario and Ma. Cristina G. Cortez-Estrada.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Back to Top - Back to Main Index - Back to Table of Contents -2003 SC Decisions - Back to Home |
|