Inocencio Peñanueva, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner, while serving as Chief of Hinatuan District Hospital, was charged in Criminal Cases Nos. 12238-12240 with malversation of public property under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code for alleged withdrawals of medicines from hospital stocks on dates in 1985. The informations alleged specific values taken in each case and included documentary evidence such as invoices and requisition and issue vouchers. Petitioner was also charged in Criminal Case No. 12314 with violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 but was acquitted of that charge. The defense asserted that withdrawals were made under an established practice using "vale" ("good for") receipts and/or to replace expired or expiring medicines, and submitted certificates from drug salesmen purporting replacements. Procedural History: Petitioner pleaded not guilty at arraignment. Following a joint trial, the Sandiganbayan acquitted petitioner of the graft offense under R.A. 3019 but convicted him of malversation in Criminal Cases Nos. 12238-12240, imposing the sentences and fines as specified in the Sandiganbayan decision and treating partial replacements as restitution, a mitigating circumstance. Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court and Section 7, Par. 3, of Presidential Decree No. 1606 before the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioner argued, among other contentions, lack of evidence in Criminal Case No. 12239, that the "vale" practice established good faith and a promise to replace the medicines, that the medicines were expired or about to expire and thus legitimately removed for replacement, and that the charges were motivated by personal animus from subordinates.
Issue(s)
Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in finding petitioner guilty of malversation in Criminal Case No. 12239 for lack of evidence. Whether the practice of withdrawing medicines via "vale" receipts constituted an established, lawful practice that negates criminal intent in Criminal Cases Nos. 12238 and 12240. Whether the medicines taken were expired or about to expire such that petitioner's withdrawal was justified or intended for replacement. Whether the certificates and documents presented by petitioner proved that the medicines were in fact replaced and thereby negated criminal liability. Whether alleged animus or motivation of hospital employees vitiates the convictions. Whether restitution effected by petitioner extinguished his criminal liability for malversation.
Ruling
The Supreme Court, En Banc, affirmed the Sandiganbayan decision in toto, upholding petitioner's convictions for malversation in Criminal Cases Nos. 12238, 12239 and 12240, with mitigation for restitution but reiterating that restitution does not extinguish criminal liability. The petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 and P.D. No. 1606 was denied and the Sandiganbayan's verdicts and penalties were affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in finding petitioner guilty in Crim. Case No. 12239: The Court found ample evidence to support the conviction. The supply officer Juanito Pagalan testified that petitioner was directed to get various drugs and that petitioner signed the requisition and issue voucher listing drugs totalling P9,525.30; these documentary exhibits corroborated Pagalan's testimony. The Court emphasized that findings of fact supported by evidence cannot be disturbed on appeal, explicitly applying Rodriguez v. Sandiganbayan, 177 SCRA 220 (1989). The concurrence of testimonial and documentary evidence established that petitioner obtained possession of public property in his official capacity, could not account for it when audited, and failed to give a satisfactory explanation for its disappearance, thereby satisfying the elements of malversation under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code. Given this factual matrix and the standard of appellate review on issues of fact, the Court held that the Sandiganbayan did not err in convicting petitioner. On Whether the "vale" Practice Negated Criminal Intent in Crim. Cases Nos. 12238 and 12240: The Court rejected the defense that "vale" receipts reflected an established practice excusing the withdrawals. The record showed that the words "vale" were placed on vouchers at petitioner's orders and that hospital administration regarded such withdrawals as contrary to hospital rules, undermining the claim of an established, lawful practice. The Court reasoned that even if non-accountable personnel might have tolerated such practice, it cannot be allowed for accountable officers because it would render malversation prosecutions nugatory; the Court observed that "such practice cannot be tolerated with respect to similar drawings by accountable public officers. Otherwise, We render nugatory the penal laws on malversation." Applying these principles, the Court concluded that issuance of "vale" receipts by an accountable officer did not negate criminal intent and could not convert criminal liability into a merely civil obligation. Therefore, the supposed custom of "vale" withdrawals did not absolve petitioner of criminal responsibility. On Whether the Medicines Were Expired or About to Expire: The Court accepted the Sandiganbayan's factual finding that the medicines had not lost potency. The Court noted that if the medicines were expired or expiring, that fact should have been indicated in the receipts signed by petitioner for his protection; the absence of such notation supported the inference that the medicines remained potent. The Court further observed that it would be senseless for petitioner to sign "vale" receipts specifically burdening himself with expired drugs if his real intent were merely replacement, rather than appropriation for personal benefit. Given these credibility determinations and documentary circumstances, and applying the rule in Rodriguez that findings of fact supported by the evidence stand, the Court held that the expired-medicine defense failed. On Whether the Certificates Proved Replacements and Negated Liability: The Court scrutinized the certificates submitted by petitioner and found them insufficient. Prosecutorial rebuttal showed that the drug companies either denied replacement of expired stocks or credited customers rather than physically replacing merchandise, casting doubt on the certificates' veracity. The Court further noted discrepancies in values: petitioner allegedly took P25,227.25 worth of drugs while the combined certificates covered only P15,297.25 in replacements; moreover, the certificates did not specify brands or clearly match the items taken. The Court therefore concluded that the certificates failed to establish full replacement or a satisfactory accounting that would negate malversation. On Whether Alleged Motive of Subordinates Affects Liability: The Court treated the allegation that hospital employees sought petitioner's ouster as insufficient to overturn the convictions. It observed that the Sandiganbayan relied on evidentiary proof rather than on the mere existence of an ouster petition, and that even if malicious motives existed, they did not negate documentary and testimonial proof of commission of the crime. Thus, alleged animus did not vitiate the criminal liability established by the record. On Whether Restitution Extinguished Criminal Liability: The Court reiterated the settled doctrine that payment or replacement of property after the commission of malversation does not extinguish criminal liability, citing People v. Miranda, 2 SCRA 261 (1961). Nevertheless, the Court acknowledged restitution as a mitigating circumstance and properly reduced the penalty accordingly, following precedent such as Cimafranca, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, 194 SCRA 107 (1991). Thus restitution did not absolve petitioner but was rightly considered in mitigation.
Main Doctrine
Restitution after the commission of malversation does not extinguish criminal liability; findings of fact supported by evidence will not be disturbed on appeal.