People v. Candao
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case concerns the alleged malversation of public funds totaling over ₱21 million by officials of the Autonomous Region for Muslim Mindanao (ORG-ARMM). An expanded special audit conducted by the Commission on Audit (COA) revealed that numerous checks were issued and encashed without the required disbursement vouchers. These checks, issued between December 1992 and March 1993, were payable to the order of Israel B. Haron, the Disbursing Officer II, and were co-signed by petitioners Zacaria A. Candao (Regional Governor) and Abas A. Candao (Executive Secretary). The audit report indicated that these withdrawals were made from ORG-ARMM's depository accounts without proper supporting documentation, leading to charges of malversation of public funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code. Procedural History: Following the COA's expanded special audit and subsequent demand for restitution of the funds, criminal cases for malversation were filed in the Sandiganbayan against Zacaria A. Candao, Israel B. Haron, Abas A. Candao, and Pandical M. Santiago. The case against Santiago was dismissed due to his death. After trial, the Sandiganbayan, in its Decision dated October 29, 2008, found petitioners Haron, Zacaria A. Candao, and Abas A. Candao guilty beyond reasonable doubt of malversation of public funds. The Sandiganbayan denied their subsequent motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated February 20, 2009. This decision and resolution are now under review by the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioners seek acquittal from the malversation charges, arguing that the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting them despite the existence of disbursement vouchers, which they claim were refused by the COA, thereby denying them due process. They also contend that the Sandiganbayan failed to apply the equipoise rule and that the charge of conspiracy against Zacaria A. Candao and Abas A. Candao was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The petition is filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking a review on certiorari of the Sandiganbayan's decision and resolution.
Issue(s)
Whether the Sandiganbayan committed a reversible error in convicting the petitioners for malversation of public funds despite the alleged existence of disbursement vouchers that the COA refused to accept, and whether the petitioners were denied due process of law. Whether the Sandiganbayan committed a reversible error in not applying the "equipoise rule." Whether the Sandiganbayan committed a reversible error in convicting petitioners Zacaria A. Candao and Abas A. Candao despite the alleged unproven charge of conspiracy.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition for review on certiorari for lack of merit. It affirmed the Decision of the Sandiganbayan finding the petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of malversation of public funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, with modifications to the penalty imposed. The petitioners were ordered to pay, jointly and severally, the total amount of ₱21,045,570.64 malversed funds as restitution.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged existence of disbursement vouchers, denial of due process, and malversation: The Supreme Court found no merit in the petitioners' claim that disbursement vouchers existed but were refused by the COA. The Court noted that petitioner Haron could not produce the vouchers upon demand by the COA, Resident Auditor Gagwis certified she had not received them, and the entries in the Report of Checks Issued by Deputized Disbursing Officer (RCIDDO) showed no voucher numbers. Furthermore, the supposed original disbursement vouchers belatedly submitted were undated, unnumbered, and lacked supporting documents as required by COA circulars. The Court also found that the ORG-ARMM was duly notified of the expanded audit and requested to submit vouchers, but failed to do so. The petitioners' failure to account for the funds upon demand created a prima facie presumption of malversation, which was not overcome by their defense. The Court found no denial of due process as the petitioners failed to heed the COA's requests and formal demands. On the application of the equipoise rule: The Supreme Court ruled that the equipoise rule was not applicable in this case. The Court explained that this rule applies when the evidence is in equipoise or there is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates, leading to a lack of moral certainty. In this case, the prosecution successfully proved by adequate evidence that Disbursing Officer Haron failed to account for funds under his custody and control upon demand, specifically for the ₱21,045,570.64 illegally withdrawn. The Court reiterated that direct evidence of personal misappropriation is not necessary in malversation cases; the failure to account for the funds upon demand is sufficient. On the conspiracy of petitioners Zacaria A. Candao and Abas A. Candao: The Supreme Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan's ruling that petitioners Zacaria A. Candao and Abas A. Candao acted in conspiracy with petitioner Haron. The Court emphasized that conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it, and this can be inferred from their conduct. As co-signatories to the subject checks, their signatures made possible the illegal withdrawals. The Court rejected their argument that their act of signing was merely ministerial, stating that as Regional Governor and Executive Secretary, they are accountable public officers responsible for supervising subordinates and preventing loss of government funds. Their indispensable participation in the issuance of the checks to effect illegal withdrawals was duly established, making them liable as co-principals, even if the misappropriation was due to negligence rather than intentional design.
Main Doctrine
The failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public fund 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. The absence of required disbursement vouchers for withdrawals, coupled with the failure to account for the funds upon demand, establishes the crime of malversation. Co-signatories to checks, by their indispensable participation in the issuance of checks for illegal withdrawals, can be held liable for conspiracy in malversation, even if they claim their act was merely ministerial, as they are accountable public officers with a duty to supervise subordinates and prevent loss of government funds.