People v. Alejo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Lieutenant Colonel Pacifico G. Alejo, then Commanding Officer of the Real Estate Preservation Economic Welfare Center (REPEWC) and Task Force Commander of Task Force Sagip Likas Yaman (TFSLY), was charged with Malversation of Public Property for allegedly misappropriating 1,000 board feet of confiscated illegal logs valued at ₱20,000.00. The logs were confiscated as part of an anti-illegal logging campaign, pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the 7th Infantry Division (7th ID) of the Philippine Army and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Region III. Under the MOA, the 7th ID was to accept custody of confiscated forest products for safekeeping. Prosecution witnesses testified that Lt. Col. Alejo instructed his subordinates to load the confiscated logs from the Atate Detachment into a truck and deliver them to his residence, where they were unloaded. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Palayan City, Branch 40, found Lt. Col. Alejo guilty of Malversation of Public Property but acquitted him of Violation of R.A. No. 3019 and Direct Bribery. The RTC sentenced him to imprisonment and ordered him to pay the value of the misappropriated lumber. The RTC later reopened the case for additional evidence, but ultimately affirmed its decision. The Sandiganbayan affirmed the RTC's conviction but modified the penalty. The Supreme Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan's decision in toto. The Petition: Lt. Col. Alejo filed a petition for review on certiorari, asserting that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He argued that the prosecution witnesses were unreliable due to alleged intimidation and recantation, that no documentary evidence proved the existence and turnover of the logs, that he was not an accountable officer, and that there were inconsistencies in the testimonies regarding the quantity of logs and the presence of individuals during unloading.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the elements of Malversation of Public Property against the petitioner. Whether the petitioner, as Commanding Officer of REPEWC and Task Force Commander of TFSLY, was an accountable public officer for the confiscated logs. Whether the confiscated logs constituted public property subject to malversation. Whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the existence and value of the confiscated logs. Whether inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and their alleged recantations cast doubt on their credibility.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Sandiganbayan, finding Lieutenant Colonel Pacifico G. Alejo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Malversation of Public Property. The Court sentenced him to suffer imprisonment ranging from 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum, to 16 years, 5 months and 11 days of reclusion temporal as maximum, with the accessories of the law, perpetual special disqualification, and a fine of ₱20,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On the elements of Malversation of Public Property: The Court found that all elements were sufficiently established. The petitioner was a public officer by reason of his position as Commanding Officer of REPEWC and Task Force Commander of TFSLY. Through these positions, he had custody and control over the confiscated logs stored at the Atate Detachment, as stipulated in the MOA between the 7th ID and DENR, which designated the 7th ID to accept custody of confiscated forest products for safekeeping. The prosecution presented direct evidence through the testimonies of subordinates Rodolfo Estremos, Nelson Flores, and Amrodin Sultan, who testified that petitioner ordered them to transport the confiscated logs to his residence, where they were unloaded. This direct evidence established that the petitioner appropriated the logs for his own benefit. On whether the petitioner was an accountable public officer: The Court held that petitioner was an accountable public officer. As Commanding Officer of REPEWC and Task Force Commander of TFSLY, he had control and custody over the confiscated forest products placed within the Atate Detachment. The MOA explicitly stated that the 7th ID, through its authorized representatives, would accept custody of confiscated mineral and forest products for safekeeping and would be responsible for any loss. Prosecution witness Atty. Salome Cansino, Chief Legal Counsel of DENR, affirmed that the military component, specifically the task force commander (petitioner), had supervision and control over these confiscated products, even though DENR retained authority over their disposition. Therefore, petitioner was bound to account for these logs. On whether the confiscated logs constituted public property: The Court ruled that the confiscated logs were considered public property. Article 222 of the Revised Penal Code allows private property seized or deposited by public authority to be the object of malversation. These logs, having been confiscated in the course of an anti-illegal logging campaign and placed under military custody for safekeeping, partook of the nature of public property for which the accountable officer was responsible. On the existence and value of the confiscated logs: The Court found that the existence and value of the logs were sufficiently proven. While no documentary evidence of inventory was presented, the defense itself stipulated the valuation of the lumber at ₱20,000.00 through its counsel during an RTC Order dated August 5, 1998. Furthermore, Detachment Commander Amrodin Sultan testified to having seen the logs stocked at the Atate Detachment. The stipulation by the defense regarding the value of the lumber removed any doubt about its existence and monetary worth. On the credibility of witnesses and alleged recantations: The Court gave credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, finding them credible despite alleged inconsistencies and recantations. The Court reiterated that the credibility of witnesses is best assessed by the trial courts, whose findings are generally respected on appeal, especially when affirmed by the appellate court. Minor inconsistencies regarding the number of logs unloaded or the number of persons present during unloading were deemed insignificant and did not detract from the overall credibility of the witnesses. The Court also held that affidavits of recantation are generally considered inferior to testimonies given in open court, especially when the recantations were taken ex parte and the in-court testimonies effectively repudiated them. The defense of denial was also found to be weak and unsubstantiated, failing to overcome the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
Main Doctrine
A public officer who has custody or control of public property by reason of the duties of his office, and who appropriates, takes, or misappropriates such property, or consents to or permits another person to take it, is guilty of malversation of public property, even if the property is privately seized or deposited by public authority, and even in the absence of direct evidence of misappropriation, provided a shortage in accounts is unexplained or direct evidence of misappropriation exists.