Sarion v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Tito S. Sarion, as Municipal Mayor of Daet, Camarines Norte, entered into a Contract Agreement on December 29, 2003, for the Phase II construction of the Daet Public Market with Markbilt Construction for P71,499,875.29, to be completed within 365 days. The project was completed in 2006. On November 13, 2006, Markbilt requested payment for contract price escalation amounting to P5,222,903.75. Petitioner was re-elected Mayor in 2007. On January 21, 2008, Markbilt reiterated its demand. Petitioner instructed Municipal Administrator Elmer Nagera to find funds, leading to Supplemental Budget No. 1. The Sangguniang Bayan passed Resolution No. 063 on March 6, 2008, approving Supplemental Budget No. 1-2008, allotting P4,400,000.00 for the "Construction of Market." On April 14, 2008, Markbilt again demanded payment. After certification of available appropriation and Obligation Request, Administrator Nagera issued Disbursement Voucher No. 08041239 for P1,000,000.00, payable to Markbilt as partial payment for price escalation. Municipal Accountant Caroline Maisie Robles consulted the COA Auditor and Municipal Legal Officer Edmundo Deveza II, who opined that payment was proper under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1594. On April 21, 2008, Accountant Robles certified supporting documents as complete, and after the Municipal Treasurer certified funds were available, Petitioner approved the release. Markbilt received P1,000,000.00 on April 24, 2008. On November 27, 2008, a resident filed a complaint against Petitioner for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. Procedural History: The Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer found merit in the complaint and charged Petitioner with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (SB-11-CRM-0256) and Malversation of Public Funds (SB-11-CRM-0257). Petitioner pleaded not guilty. The Sandiganbayan, Third Division, rendered a Decision on September 29, 2017, finding Petitioner guilty of both offenses. Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the Sandiganbayan on November 8, 2018. The Petition: Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on certiorari under Rule 45, arguing that the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting him of Malversation and violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, as not all elements were proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Issue(s)
Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting the petitioner of Malversation of Public Funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code. Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting the petitioner of Violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019. Whether the petitioner's reliance on the legal opinion of the Municipal Legal Officer and the defense of good faith absolve him of liability.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision dated September 29, 2017, and the Resolution dated November 8, 2018, of the Sandiganbayan, finding petitioner Tito S. Sarion guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Malversation of Public Funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code and of violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the conviction for Malversation of Public Funds: The Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan's finding that the petitioner, as Municipal Mayor, was a public officer accountable for the municipal funds. His approval of the disbursement voucher and signing of the check facilitated the release of P1,000,000.00 to Markbilt for contract price escalation, despite the absence of a specific appropriation for such purpose and non-compliance with R.A. No. 9184. The Court found that the petitioner acted with gross inexcusable negligence, which is a mode of committing malversation through culpa. The claim for price escalation was not supported by a prior sufficient appropriation as required by P.D. No. 1445, and the Supplemental Budget No. 1 did not specifically cover such payment. The contract clause cited by Markbilt was deemed void for lack of appropriation and certification of availability of funds. Therefore, the petitioner permitted Markbilt to receive public funds to which it was not entitled, satisfying the elements of malversation. On the conviction for Violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019: The Court reiterated the elements of the offense: (a) the accused is a public officer; (b) he acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or inexcusable negligence; and (c) his action caused undue injury to the government or gave any private party unwarranted benefits. The Court found that the petitioner's act of approving the disbursement without verifying the propriety of the price escalation claim, despite the lack of appropriation and non-compliance with R.A. No. 9184, constituted gross inexcusable negligence. This negligence resulted in undue injury to the Municipality of Daet and unwarranted benefits to Markbilt. The Court emphasized that the petitioner's failure to exercise due diligence, especially considering the delay in the claim and the fact that the original appropriation was already fully released, amounted to gross inexcusable negligence, if not bad faith. On the defense of reliance on legal opinion and good faith: The Court rejected the petitioner's defense that he relied in good faith on the legal opinion of the Municipal Legal Officer and the certifications of other officials. Citing Rivera v. People, the Court stated that the Arias doctrine is not an absolute shield, and public officers cannot hide behind their subordinates when circumstances warrant a higher degree of circumspection. The Court found that the petitioner should have been alerted by the circumstances, such as the significant delay in the claim and the fact that the original contract amount had been fully released, to conduct further verification. His failure to do so, despite having the opportunity, demonstrated gross inexcusable negligence. The presumption of regularity does not apply when an official act is irregular on its face, as was the case with the disbursement without proper appropriation and compliance with procurement laws.
Main Doctrine
A public officer who approves the disbursement of public funds for a claim not supported by a proper appropriation and without complying with the requirements of law, particularly regarding contract price escalation under R.A. No. 9184, is guilty of Malversation of Public Funds and violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 due to gross inexcusable negligence.