Romeo Diego y De Joya v. The Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Romeo Diego y De Joya, as Evidence Custodian of the National Capital Region, Criminal Investigation Service Command (NCRO, CISC) at Camp Crame, Quezon City, was entrusted with 40 self-sealed transparent plastic bags of methamphetamine hydrochloride ("shabu") with an estimated street value of Five Million Pesos (₱5,000,000.00). He received three subpoenas to present the "shabu" as evidence in Criminal Case No. 92-2097 before Branch 111, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Pasay City. On the first two occasions, he was accompanied by police escorts, but the hearings were postponed. The RTC Presiding Judge refused to accept the "shabu" for safekeeping due to the lack of a vault. On February 9, 1993, the third subpoena was issued. Petitioner left his office alone around 7:30 a.m. to bring the "shabu" to the RTC Pasay City. Along F.B. Harrison, he was allegedly waylaid by holduppers who took the bag containing the "shabu". Petitioner reported the incident to the RTC Judge and his office, and subsequently gave a statement to the police. Procedural History: Petitioner was charged with Malversation of Public Property. The Information alleged that by reason of gross negligence, he failed to adequately secure and safeguard the "shabu", resulting in its loss to the damage and prejudice of the Government. Prior to trial, the prosecution and defense entered into a Stipulation of Facts, agreeing that petitioner was the Evidence Custodian, received the "shabu" for safekeeping, was subpoenaed to bring it to court, failed to deliver it, and it was not returned to the evidence room. They also stipulated that petitioner testified about the loss. The prosecution rested its case on its exhibits and the stipulation of facts. The defense presented its witnesses and exhibits. The Sandiganbayan convicted petitioner as principal in the crime of Malversation of Public Property, sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty, a fine, and perpetual special disqualification. A motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioner appealed the Sandiganbayan's decision and resolution, raising issues regarding the sufficiency of the prosecution's evidence, the adequacy of his explanation for the loss, the propriety of basing the penalty on the "street value" of the "shabu", and whether his guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Issue(s)
Whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution is sufficient to prove the essential elements of Malversation of Public Property, and whether petitioner's guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Whether petitioner's explanation for the loss of the "shabu" is sufficient to exonerate him from liability. Whether the estimated "street value" of the "shabu" is a proper basis for assessing the penalty. Whether the Sandiganbayan reversed the normal order of trial.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Sandiganbayan, finding petitioner Romeo Diego y De Joya guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Malversation of Public Property. He was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum; to pay a fine of Five Million Pesos (₱5,000,000.00); and to suffer the penalty of perpetual special disqualification from holding any public office.
Ratio Decidendi
On the sufficiency of evidence and proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt: The Court held that all four elements of malversation were present: (1) the offender is a public officer; (2) he had custody or control of property by reason of his office; (3) the property was public property for which he was accountable; and (4) he appropriated, took, misappropriated, or through abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take it. Petitioner, as Evidence Custodian, had custody of the "shabu", which was public property. While direct misappropriation was not proven, the loss of the "shabu" was attributed to petitioner's gross negligence. The stipulation of facts, admitting that the "shabu" was in his custody, he was subpoenaed to present it, and he failed to deliver it to the court nor return it to the evidence room, established the presumption of malversation. This presumption was not successfully rebutted by petitioner. On the adequacy of petitioner's explanation for the loss: The Court found that petitioner's explanation of a robbery was insufficient to exonerate him. The loss was not a fortuitous event, as the nature and value of the "shabu" posed foreseeable risks, including forcible taking by armed men. Petitioner's prior actions, such as seeking police escorts and attempting to turn over the "shabu" to the court, demonstrated his awareness of these dangers. His decision to proceed alone without adequate escorts, despite knowing the risks, constituted gross negligence. The Court emphasized that petitioner failed to exercise the diligence commensurate with the circumstances, such as waiting for alternative escorts or informing the judge of his predicament. On the propriety of basing the penalty on the "street value" of the "shabu": The Court ruled that the Sandiganbayan did not err in basing the penalty on the stipulated "street value" of the "shabu". Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code provides that the penalty for malversation is dependent on the value of the public funds or property malversed. In this case, the value of the "shabu" was not disputed, as petitioner subscribed to the stipulation of facts stating its street value was Five Million Pesos (₱5,000,000.00). This stipulation constituted a judicial admission binding on the petitioner, and there was no showing of palpable mistake in its making. Therefore, the stipulated value was a proper basis for imposing the penalty. On the procedural order of trial: The Court dismissed petitioner's contention that the Sandiganbayan reversed the normal order of trial. The records showed that the trial proceeded in accordance with Rule 119, Section 3 of the Rules of Court. The prosecution's reliance on stipulation of facts and exhibits without testimonial evidence was its prerogative. Petitioner's failure to file a Demurrer to Evidence and his subsequent presentation of his own evidence indicated his acquiescence to the proceedings.
Main Doctrine
The failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property with which he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly authorized officer, shall be prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or property to personal uses. This presumption can only be overcome by evidence demonstrating that the loss was due to a fortuitous event or that the officer exercised the diligence of a prudent person.