People v. Manlangit
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Rosulo L. Manlangit, as Officer-in-Charge for Information, Education and Communication of the Pinatubo Commission, received ₱176,300.00 on October 16, 1998, to fund the 6th Founding Anniversary Info-Media Activities. He resigned a few months thereafter without accounting for the fund. Procedural History: On April 12, 2000, an affidavit-complaint was filed against petitioner for violation of Articles 217 and 218 of the Revised Penal Code, citing COA Circular No. 90-331, as amended by COA Circular No. 97-0026, which required him to render a true and correct account of public funds entrusted to him. Petitioner claimed he failed to submit the liquidation report due to organizational confusion, his resignation, and personal/family problems, but asserted he submitted it on July 12, 2000, and settled the account. However, a Deputy Executive Director testified that no liquidation report was submitted. The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon filed an information for violation of Article 218. Petitioner filed a demurrer to evidence, arguing no demand was made by the COA and the case was moot due to a subsequent letter requesting withdrawal. The Sandiganbayan denied the demurrer, ruling demand was not an element and the letter had no bearing. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Sandiganbayan convicted petitioner for violating Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced him to one year imprisonment. The Petition: Petitioner sought reversal of the Sandiganbayan's decision, raising issues on whether prior demand is an element of Article 218, the applicability of United States v. Saberon, and whether his liquidation report rendered the case moot.
Issue(s)
Whether prior demand by the Commission on Audit or Provincial Auditor for the public officer to render an account is an element of the crime penalized under Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code. Whether the ruling in United States v. Saberon is still applicable. Whether Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code dispensed with the necessity of demand enunciated in the Saberon case. Whether the petitioner's liquidation report of July 12, 2000, certified as substantial compliance, rendered the instant case moot and academic, given that no prior demand letter had been served. Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in finding the petitioner guilty of violating Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Decision dated February 27, 2003, and the Resolution dated April 24, 2003, of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 26524 are AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that the accused is sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of four (4) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor as minimum to one (1) year, one (1) month and eleven (11) days of prision correccional as maximum.
Ratio Decidendi
On the necessity of demand for violation of Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code: The Court held that demand is not an element of the crime under Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code. The elements of the offense are: (1) the offender is a public officer, whether in the service or separated therefrom; (2) he must be an accountable officer for public funds or property; (3) he is required by law or regulation to render accounts to the Commission on Audit, or to a provincial auditor; and (4) he fails to do so for a period of two months after such accounts should be rendered. The law is clear and unambiguous, and the Court cannot introduce exceptions or conditions not contemplated therein. Where the law is clear, it must be taken to mean exactly what it says, and the court has no choice but to see to it that its mandate is obeyed. On the applicability of United States v. Saberon: The Court found the petitioner's reliance on United States v. Saberon to be misplaced. The Saberon case involved a violation of Act No. 1740, which required prior demand. In contrast, the present case involves a violation of Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code. Article 218 merely requires that the public officer be required by law and regulation to render an account. Statutory construction dictates that provisions omitted in a revised statute or code are deemed repealed unless otherwise provided. Therefore, the ruling in Saberon is not applicable to Article 218. On whether Article 218 dispenses with the necessity of demand: The Court clarified that Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code does not require prior demand. The provision explicitly states that the public officer must be required by law or regulation to render accounts. The absence of a specific requirement for demand in Article 218, unlike in Act No. 1740, means that demand is not an element of the offense. The Court emphasized that statutory construction principles support this interpretation, as provisions from older laws that are omitted in revised codes are considered repealed. On whether the liquidation report rendered the case moot and academic: The Court ruled that the case was not rendered moot and academic by the submission of the liquidation report. COA Circular No. 90-331 requires liquidation of cash advances within 20 days after the end of the year. For the fund issued on October 16, 1998, the liquidation report should have been submitted not later than January 20, 1999. Article 218 penalizes failure to render an account within two months after such accounts should be rendered. Petitioner's submission on July 12, 2000, was clearly beyond the prescribed period, thus constituting a violation of the law. On the Sandiganbayan's finding of guilt: The Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan's finding that the petitioner was guilty of violating Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code. The evidence presented established that petitioner was an accountable officer who received public funds and failed to render an account within the period mandated by law and regulations. The Court found no error in the Sandiganbayan's conviction, although it modified the penalty imposed.
Main Doctrine
Demand is not an element of the crime of failure to render account under Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code; it is sufficient that the public officer is required by law or regulation to render an account and fails to do so within the prescribed period.