Campomanes v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In 1991, the Philippine Sports Commission (PSC), led by Chairman Cecilio G. Hechanova, bid to host the 1992 Chess Olympiad. The PSC remitted a total of P12,876,008.00 to the Federation Internationale Des Echecs (FIDE), a private international organization, through its President, Florencio B. Campomanes (Campomanes). Following the event, the Commission on Audit (COA) conducted an audit and discovered that the funds were received by Campomanes without official acknowledgment receipts or accounting liquidations. The COA issued a report stating the disbursement was irregular and demanded a detailed accounting from Campomanes. Procedural History: An Information was filed with the Sandiganbayan charging Hechanova and Campomanes with conspiracy to violate Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). The Sandiganbayan acquitted Hechanova for failure to prove conspiracy but convicted Campomanes under Article 218 in relation to Article 222 of the RPC. Campomanes was initially sentenced to imprisonment, but upon reconsideration, the penalty was modified to a fine of P6,000.00 due to his advanced age. Campomanes then sought relief from the Supreme Court. The Appeal: Petitioner Campomanes filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, arguing that his constitutional right to be informed of the charges was violated and that he was not required by any law to render an accounting to the COA. He contended that as a private individual representing a private international organization, the elements of Article 218 were not met because there was no specific law or regulation mandating him to account for the funds received from the PSC.
Issue(s)
Whether a private individual can be convicted under Article 218 in relation to Article 222 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) in the absence of a specific law or regulation requiring him to render accounts to the Commission on Audit (COA).
Ruling
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, SET ASIDE the Sandiganbayan's Decision and Resolution, and ACQUITTED Florencio B. Campomanes.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Liability of Private Individuals under Article 222 RPC: The Court held that for a conviction under Article 218 in relation to Article 222 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), four elements must be present: (1) the offender is a private individual; (2) he has charge of national, provincial, or municipal funds; (3) he is required by law or regulation to render accounts to the Commission on Audit (COA); and (4) he fails to do so for two months after the account should be rendered. In this case, the prosecution failed to identify any specific law or regulation that required Campomanes, as President of the Federation Internationale Des Echecs (FIDE), to render accounts to the COA. The Court emphasized that penal statutes must be liberally construed in favor of the accused and strictly against the State. Applying the principle in Kilosbayan, Inc. v. COMELEC, the Court noted that criminal charges cannot be sanctioned by mere possibilities or rumors. The Sandiganbayan's reliance on the COA Audit Report and the testimony of an auditor did not constitute the 'law or regulation' contemplated by the RPC. Furthermore, Section 102 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1445 refers to government officials and employees, not private entities receiving subsidies. Under the 1987 Constitution, the COA's power to audit non-governmental entities is limited to instances where the law or the granting institution requires such an audit as a condition of the subsidy. Since no such condition or law was proven to exist in the contract between the Philippine Sports Commission (PSC) and FIDE, Campomanes cannot be held criminally liable for failing to render an account.
Main Doctrine
The criminal liability of a private individual under Article 222 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) for failure to render accounts is contingent upon the existence of a legal or regulatory obligation to account to the Commission on Audit (COA). Under Article IX-D, Section 2(1)(d) of the 1987 Constitution, the COA's authority to audit non-governmental entities receiving government subsidies exists only when required by law or the granting institution as a condition of the subsidy. Penal statutes must be strictly construed against the State; thus, without a clear legal mandate to account, the element of the crime requiring the offender to be 'required by law or regulation to render accounts' is not satisfied.