Tuesday, January 17, 2017

Maamo & Silor vs. People Case Digest

Zenaida P. Maamo and Juliet O. Silor vs. People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 201917. December 1, 2016

Facts
Petitioners herein were accused of Malversation through Falsification of Public Documents in a Letter-Complaint dated April 10, 2001 (Complaint) filed with the OMB detailing a series of acts allegedly committed by them. Petitioner Maamo filed a Counter-Affidavit dated July 9, 2001, denying the allegations contained in the Complaint for being "false, imaginary, capricious, baseless, and politically motivated.”
In its Resolution dated September 26, 2001, the OMB found probable cause against the Petitioners for Malversation through Falsification of Public Documents and recommended the filing of the necessary informations against them with the SB. The prosecution of the nine (9) criminal cases thereafter ensued.

In the questioned Decision, the SB convicted the Petitioners for the crime of Malversation through Falsification of Public/Official Document under Criminal Case Nos. 27117, 27118, 27119 and 27124. Notably, the SB also concluded that only one (1) crime was technically committed by the Petitioners under the principle of delito continuado, there being a plurality of acts performed during a period of time and unity of intent and penal provision violated.

Thus, on July 5, 2012, Petitioners filed the instant Petition.

Issue: Whether the SB erred in finding petitioners guilty of the crime of Malversation through Falsification by feigning a signature.

Ruling: We grant the Petition.
This Court has repeatedly adhered to the policy that when the guilt of the accused is not proven with moral certainty, the presumption of innocence must be favored, and exoneration must be granted as a matter of right. After judicious examination of the records and the submissions of the parties, the Court rules in the negative.   

Thus, to be found guilty of Malversation, the Prosecution has the burden to prove the following essential elements:
(a) The offender is a public officer;
(b) The offender has 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 the offender is accountable; and
( d) The offender 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. In sum, what is necessary for conviction is sufficient proof that the accountable officer had received public funds, that he did not have them in his possession when demand therefor was made, and that he could not satisfactorily explain his failure to do so.
Here, while the records support the presence of the first three (3) elements, we find that the Prosecution was unable to satisfactorily prove the fourth element.
In the first place, as correctly argued by the Petitioners, nowhere was the fact of demand shown in any of the documentary exhibits or testimonies of the witnesses of the Prosecution. Such failure is underscored by the fact that the Prosecution itself admitted in its Comment dated January 17, 2013 that no demand for the alleged malversed funds had been made.
Thus, considering that the Prosecution never established such material fact, the burden of evidence was never shifted to the Petitioners to prove their innocence, there being no prima facie presumption of misappropriation under the facts obtaining. Thus, following Estino, the Prosecution had the additional burden to prove Malversation by direct evidence, which, as stated at the outset, it had failed to do.

Moreover, as argued by the Petitioners, the mere absence of a name in the Time Book and Payroll does not automatically translate to the non-existence of the alleged worker. Contrary to the conclusions of the SB, there are other "logical explanation[ s ]" for such omission, one of which is the explanation proffered by the Petitioners, i.e., that what was presented during trial were the third original carbon copies on which the carbon paper did not work to copy those names listed on the first page. Indeed, it is also entirely possible that the person responsible simply forgot to write down the name of the payee-laborer even as he secured their signatures.

Certainly, the allegation that Petitioners hired "ghost employees" must be weighed against the fact that Time Book and Payrolls were found to be in order. Meanwhile, defense witness Geraldine A. Juaton, who was also charged with the verification of the completeness and regularity of the Payrolls, testified that there were no findings of irregularity regarding the same.

In addition, the fact that the July 1-15, 1997 Time Book and Payroll was able to pass audit and that no Notice of Suspension was issued by the Commission on Audit (COA) was an indication that said documents were in order. Indeed, if it were true that there were blanks next to the signatures of the unnamed employees, such glaring deficiency surely would not have gone unnoticed by the COA
As to the finding on the non-existence of a road directly connecting Barangay San Isidro and Barangay Gud-an, the Court ruled that the fact that the road from Barangay Gud-an to Barangay San Isidro traverses through Barangay Calian was confirmed by Conrado E. Encio and Engr. Alberto S. Causing, both witnesses for the Prosecution. Moreover, the Petitioners presented Gaudencio P. Goltea, the Barangay Captain, who testified that the Municipality of Lilo-an indeed undertook the maintenance of barangay roads. In any case, assuming without conceding that the defenses raised by the Petitioners were not credible, such fact did not lessen the burden of the Prosecution to prove Malversation through Falsification through competent and conclusive evidence. As already discussed above, the conviction of the Petitioners must not rest on the weakness of the defense but on the strength of the prosecution. Mere speculations and probabilities cannot substitute for proof required to establish the guilt of an accused.

All told, we cannot subscribe to the conclusion of the SB that the blanks next to the signatures are, by themselves alone, enough to prove that Petitioners committed Malversation through Falsification by feigning the said signatures. This Court is not prepared to deprive Petitioners of their liberty with finality simply on the basis of a superficial deficiency in Time Books and Payrolls.

For the reasons above-stated, the instant Petition should be granted.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, finding the evidence insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, Petitioners are hereby ACQUITTED.

No comments:

Post a Comment