Sarion v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Tito S. Sarion, then Mayor of Daet, was convicted of Malversation of Public Funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019. The conviction stemmed from the approval of a disbursement voucher and signing of a Landbank check for payment of price escalation to Markbilt Construction, despite the absence of appropriation and non-compliance with R.A. No. 9184. The contract for the Phase II construction of the Daet Public Market was entered into on December 29, 2003, with an appropriation of P71,499,875.29, which was fully released. Markbilt claimed price escalation based on a clause in the contract, but there was no specific appropriation for this claim. The claim was processed and paid in May 2008, during petitioner's term, after being refused by the previous mayor. Procedural History: The Sandiganbayan convicted petitioner for Malversation and violation of R.A. No. 3019. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Petitioner's petition for review on certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court in its March 18, 2021 Decision, which affirmed the Sandiganbayan's findings. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner argued that he was not guilty of gross inexcusable negligence, citing a dissenting opinion that the Information was defective and that non-compliance with Section 61 of R.A. No. 9184 did not pertain to him. He also argued that he relied in good faith on other municipal officers and that there was no "patent irregularity." The Supreme Court denied the Motion for Reconsideration.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court should reconsider its denial of the petition for review on certiorari, which affirmed the Sandiganbayan's factual findings. Whether petitioner Tito S. Sarion committed Malversation of Public Funds. Whether petitioner Tito S. Sarion violated Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019.
Ruling
The Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. The Court's Decision dated March 18, 2021, is AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration and the nature of the issues: The Court reiterated that a motion for reconsideration, like a petition for review on certiorari, must demonstrate that the case falls under the established exceptions to the rule that factual findings of lower courts are binding. Petitioner failed to discharge this burden in his original petition and only alleged exceptions in his motion for reconsideration after the Court pointed out the error. Therefore, the Court cannot countenance such a procedural misstep. The Court's previous ruling that the issues were factual and beyond the scope of certiorari remains valid. On Malversation of Public Funds: The Court found that petitioner, as Mayor, is an accountable officer. Malversation was committed through gross inexcusable negligence when he permitted Markbilt to receive payment for price escalation despite the absence of appropriation and failure to comply with R.A. No. 9184. By approving the disbursement voucher and signing the check, he facilitated the illegal release of public funds. The Court clarified that petitioner was guilty of two acts constituting malversation: failure to comply with R.A. No. 9184 and payment of price escalation without appropriation. Good faith is not a defense as circumstances should have alerted him to inquire further. The Court clarified that the "absence" referred to in the Information was the lack of specific appropriation for the price escalation payment, not the entire project. While Supplemental Budget No. 01 existed, it did not cure the fundamental defect of a prior specific appropriation required by P.D. No. 1445 for such an expenditure. The contract clause for price escalation, without a corresponding appropriation, was void and unenforceable, making the officer liable for damages. The Arias doctrine does not serve as a shield for public officers who fail to exercise due diligence when circumstances warrant further inquiry. In this case, the petitioner's position as Mayor, the significant delay in processing the claim after the project's completion, the fact that the claim exceeded the original appropriation, and the prior refusal of his predecessor should have alerted him to conduct further verification. His immediate instruction to find funds and approve the disbursement, without consulting the Municipal Engineer or verifying the claim's basis, demonstrated gross inexcusable negligence. On violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019: The Court affirmed the conviction, finding petitioner guilty of gross inexcusable negligence for violating basic disbursement rules, causing undue injury to the Municipality of Daet. This negligence stemmed from his failure to comply with procurement requirements and disbursement protocols, which directly led to the illegal release of public funds. The Court emphasized that his administrative position required more than ministerial action, especially concerning a contract entered into during his prior term and a claim significantly exceeding the original appropriation.
Main Doctrine
A public officer's approval of disbursement vouchers for public funds without prior appropriation and without complying with procurement laws, particularly when circumstances should have alerted them to exercise a higher degree of circumspection, constitutes gross inexcusable negligence, rendering them liable for Malversation of Public Funds and violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. The Arias doctrine does not shield officers who fail to exercise due diligence when red flags are present.