Guillen v. Constantino
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Pepito Guillen charged respondent Luis Constantino, the Sandiganbayan Supply Officer, with falsification of public document and malversation of public property. On November 13, 1990, Sanyo Pentagon Automation Corporation awarded the office one calculator and one typewriter as promotional items, received by respondent Constantino. On August 11, 1995, a copier machine operated by complainant Guillen was picked up by Sanyo technicians for overhaul. Upon its return on August 14, 1995, respondent signed a Sales Invoice No. 23810, acknowledging receipt of the merchandise in good condition, despite complainant's advice that it was still defective. Sanyo technicians assured respondent they would return the next day to fix any defects. Subsequent inspections on August 15 and 18, 1995, revealed defects. Sanyo was eventually paid for the overhaul in April 1996, with the condition that respondent would reimburse the amount if found negligent. Respondent claimed he signed the receipt in good faith based on the technicians' assurances and a subsisting warranty. Procedural History: The investigating officer, Madame Justice Chico-Nazario of the Sandiganbayan, found respondent not liable for falsification and malversation. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with the finding of simple negligence and simple misconduct, clarifying the nature of the offenses and the penalty. The Petition: The case originated from a complaint filed by Pepito Guillen against Luis Constantino for falsification of public document and malversation of public property.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Luis Constantino is guilty of falsification of public document under Article 171, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code. Whether respondent Luis Constantino is guilty of malversation of public property. Whether respondent's failure to record promotional items constitutes simple misconduct or simple negligence.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the investigating officer's findings that respondent is not guilty of falsification of public document and malversation of public property. However, it modified the finding regarding simple negligence and simple misconduct, holding respondent guilty of simple misconduct. Respondent was ordered to pay a fine of P5,000.00 and to surrender the promotional items. The Court also warned that repetition of the act would be dealt with severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the charge of falsification of public document: The Court found no sufficient proof that respondent made an absolutely false statement when he signed Sales Invoice No. 23810. The evidence revealed good faith on his part. Firstly, there was no sufficient proof that the paper showing defects was from the August 14, 1995 test; it could have been from a later date. Respondent's assertion that the defect was minor when he received the machine remained unrebutted. Secondly, repairs were covered by a 90-day warranty, obligating the supplier to fix defects. Thirdly, respondent accommodated the Sanyo technicians for humanitarian reasons, as they had other deliveries. Fourthly, he was assured of a return visit for repairs, which the technicians fulfilled. Fifthly, the Sandiganbayan's sole copier machine might have compelled respondent to accept it despite a minor defect. Sixthly, respondent lacked the technical know-how to foresee an irreparable defect, especially since the technicians later revealed the machine had outlived its lifespan. Lastly, the Court noted that the institution of the case might have been motivated by ill-will from the complainant. It is a judicial dictum that there is no falsification by one who acted in good faith. On the charge of malversation of public property: The Court agreed with the investigating officer that respondent could not be held liable for malversation. While respondent received promotional items as Supply Officer, he denied bringing them home and instead kept them in his office cabinet. There was no direct evidence of misappropriation, as respondent immediately showed the items when asked to produce them. His actuation was characterized as simple misconduct, not malversation, as the items were not acquired with government funds and he presented them upon demand. On the nature of the offense regarding promotional items: The Court disagreed with the investigating officer's finding of simple negligence. Negligence involves a deficiency in perception or failure to foresee injury. Respondent knew the machine was functioning, and his signature was based on the technicians' assurances and promise of repair. He cannot be said to have failed in observing the required degree of care. However, his acts relative to the promotional items constituted simple misconduct. Misconduct in office is unlawful behavior by a public officer in relation to his duties, willful in character. Respondent failed to enter the promotional items in the inventory books in violation of Commission on Audit (COA) rules and his duties as Property Custodian, which included making periodic inventories and maintaining a record of accountable properties. He was duty-bound to record these items received in his official capacity, even if not acquired with government funds, as per P.D. 1445 and the Revised Administrative Code. Therefore, he was found guilty of simple misconduct.
Main Doctrine
A public officer who acts in good faith, even if making a misstatement in a public document, is not guilty of falsification. Furthermore, failure to record promotional items received in an official capacity, even if not acquired with government funds, constitutes simple misconduct, not malversation, if the items are presented when requested and there is no direct evidence of misappropriation.