Corpuz v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Nida P. Corpuz, a Revenue Officer I of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) in Alabel, Sarangani Province, was charged with malversation of public funds through negligence under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). The Information alleged that from January 1995 to December 1995, and for some time prior or subsequent thereto, petitioner, through negligence, allowed another public officer, Rolinda Bantawig, to appropriate P2,873,669.00, which she failed to return despite demand. The charge stemmed from a Special Audit that found a total misappropriation of P2,873,669.00, consisting of P2,684,997.60 from tampered official receipts and P188,671.40 from a cash shortage. The audit report identified Mrs. Rolinda R. Bantawig for falsifying official receipts and directing an apprentice to do so, and Mrs. Nida P. Corpuz for neglect of duty. The prosecution's version stated that 26 official receipts were tampered, showing a difference of P2,684,997.60 between the amounts in taxpayer copies and the reported collections. A demand letter for this amount was issued on March 12, 1996. A subsequent cash examination revealed a shortage of P188,671.40, leading to another demand letter on March 29, 1996, for the total amount of P2,873,669.00. Petitioner failed to restitute or account for the amount. The defense did not contest the prosecution's version and petitioner admitted to being an accountable officer of the BIR. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Alabel, Sarangani, Branch 38, in Crim. Case No. 303-99, found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of malversation of public funds through negligence. The RTC noted that while petitioner might not have personally misappropriated P2,684,997.60, which involved tampered receipts issued by Bantawig, she was still liable for the cash shortage of P188,671.40, for which she failed to provide a justifiable explanation. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA)-Cagayan de Oro City, in CA-G.R. CR No. 01526-MIN, affirmed the RTC decision with modification on the penalty, sentencing petitioner to suffer an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to twelve (12) years, five (5) months and eleven (11) days of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The Petition: Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's decision. She raised two main assignments of error: (1) the CA erred in affirming her conviction for malversation of P188,641.40, which she claims violated her right to be informed of the nature and cause of the charges, as the Information charged malversation of P2,873,669.00; and (2) the CA erred in holding that the RTC had jurisdiction to try the case, arguing the crime was committed by Rolinda Bantawig in General Santos City, not in Alabel, Sarangani.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of petitioner for malversation of P188,641.40, thereby violating her right to be informed of the nature and cause of the charges against her. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the Regional Trial Court had jurisdiction to try the case, considering the alleged commission of the crime in a different locality.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals with modification on the penalty. Petitioner Nida P. Corpuz was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of malversation of public funds through negligence. She was sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum. She was also ordered to pay a fine of P188,671.40 with legal interest, and to suffer the penalty of perpetual special disqualification from holding any public office.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether petitioner was informed of the nature and cause of the charges against her: The Court ruled that petitioner was duly informed of the charges. The Information dated August 2, 1999, charged malversation through negligence in the amount of P2,873,669.00, which was the total amount alleged in the audit report. The records showed that petitioner received two demand letters detailing the amounts of P2,684,997.60 and P188,671.40, totaling P2,873,669.00. Furthermore, the Court held that petitioner waived her right to assail the sufficiency of the Information by entering a plea during arraignment and participating in the trial without objection. The Court also clarified that malversation can be committed intentionally or by negligence, and even if the mode charged differs from the mode proved, the same offense of malversation is involved, and conviction is proper as long as due process is not denied. On the issue of jurisdiction and venue: The Court found petitioner's contention unconvincing. It reiterated the settled rule that venue is an essential element of jurisdiction in criminal cases, and the criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court where the offense was committed or where any of its essential ingredients occurred. The Information sufficiently alleged that the crime was committed in connection with petitioner's function as a revenue collection officer of the BIR at Alabel, Sarangani Province, making the RTC of Alabel have jurisdiction over the case. The Court emphasized that the essential ingredients of malversation, including the accountability for public funds and the failure to account for them, occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the RTC of Alabel, Sarangani.
Main Doctrine
A public officer who fails 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 use. This presumption can only be rebutted by presenting a justifiable explanation for the shortage.