People v. Consigna
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Pablo A. Consigna, the Division Property Clerk, and Prospero E. Borja, a warehouseman, were charged with malversation of 860 G.I. corrugated sheets valued at P4,773.00. The sheets were requisitioned for the repair of elementary schools in Hinatuan, Surigao, but were allegedly misappropriated by the accused for their personal use. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Surigao acquitted both accused, citing absolute lack of evidence for Consigna and reasonable doubt for Borja. The court also ordered their reinstatement, with Consigna to be paid his full salary during suspension. The provincial fiscal moved for reconsideration regarding Consigna's reinstatement and salary. The court modified its decision by eliminating the salary payment but maintained the reinstatement order. The Government appealed this portion. The Petition: The State appealed the trial court's authority to order the reinstatement of Consigna after his acquittal, arguing that the only issue in a criminal case is guilt or innocence, and thus only acquittal or conviction can be rendered.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court, after acquitting Consigna for absolute lack of evidence of willful malversation, had the authority to order his reinstatement. Whether the acquittal of Consigna in the criminal case for malversation impliedly acquitted him of malversation through negligence.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court ordering the reinstatement of Pablo A. Consigna. The Court held that the trial court had the authority to order reinstatement and was justified in doing so. The appeal by the Government was denied.
Ratio Decidendi
On the authority to order reinstatement: The Court disagreed with the State's position that the trial court lacked authority to order reinstatement. It reasoned that while the State invoked decisions stating that a court's judgment in a criminal case is limited to acquittal or conviction, this did not preclude ordering reinstatement as a remedy for an illegal deprivation of office. The Court noted that Consigna's preventive suspension followed his indictment, and his subsequent dismissal from an administrative investigation, conducted while the criminal case was pending, was deemed an illegal deprivation of office upon his acquittal in the criminal proceedings. The Court paraphrased its ruling in Batungbakal vs. National Development Company, et al., stating that "the least that could be done is to restore to him the office and post of which he had been illegally deprived..." to remedy the wrong committed. On implied acquittal of malversation through negligence: The Court clarified that under the information charging willful malversation, Consigna could have been convicted not only of the willful offense but also of malversation through negligence. Citing Rufino T. Samson vs. The Court of Appeals, et al., the Court explained that a conviction for negligence can be had under an information charging a willful offense because the greater offense includes the lesser one. Therefore, Consigna's acquittal "for absolute lack of evidence" showing his guilt of willful malversation necessarily implied his acquittal of malversation through negligence as well. This further supported the justification for his reinstatement, as conviction for malversation, whether willful or through negligence, would result in dismissal and disqualification.
Main Doctrine
An acquittal in a criminal case for malversation, based on absolute lack of evidence of willful commission, does not preclude the authority of the court to order the reinstatement of the accused to his former position, especially when the administrative investigation, conducted during the pendency of the criminal case, resulted in a finding of gross negligence and removal from office, which removal is deemed illegal upon acquittal.