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