Facts:

The case involves Lieutenant Colonel (Lt. Col.) Pacifico G. Alejo as the petitioner and the People of the Philippines as the respondent. The events leading to this case began on June 8, 1992, in Nueva Ecija, Philippines, where Lt. Col. Alejo, then the Commanding Officer of the Real Estate Preservation Economic Welfare Center (REPEWC) and Task Force Commander of the Task Force Sagip Likas Yaman (TFSLY), was accused of malversation of public property. The charge stemmed from allegations that he misappropriated 1,000 board feet of confiscated illegal logs valued at P20,000.00, which were under his custody due to his position. The logs had been confiscated by elements of the 56th Infantry Battalion, 7th Infantry Division, Philippine Army, and were supposed to be kept for safekeeping as per a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and the 7th ID.

On November 22, 1995, Lt. Col. Alejo was arraigned and pleaded not guilty. H...

Facts:

Background and Charges

• Lieutenant Colonel Pacifico G. Alejo, a public officer and 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.
• The alleged offense involved the misappropriation of 1,000 board feet of logs, valued at ₱20,000.00, which had been confiscated during an anti-illegal logging operation.
• The case was filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Palayan City, Branch 40, with the incident allegedly occurring on or about June 8, 1992, in Nueva Ecija.

Proceedings in the Lower Courts

• On December 29, 1994, petitioner was charged before the RTC with malversation, among other crimes (direct bribery and violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019).
• During arraignment on November 22, 1995, petitioner pleaded not guilty and a motion was later filed to have the bribery and violation cases jointly tried with the malversation case.
• At trial, the prosecution presented key witnesses:
• Colonel Gerardo Lantoria – detailing the complaint and its investigation initiated by the Army’s ethical body.
• Lieutenant Rodolfo Estremos – testified that he loaded and delivered the logs to petitioner’s residence at the latter’s instruction.
• Sergeant Nelson Flores – the driver responsible for transporting the confiscated logs.
• Commander Amrodin Sultan – testified regarding the instructions given for the removal of logs from the Atate Detachment.
• The joint trial resulted in an RTC decision on July 26, 2002, which acquitted petitioner on the bribery and Section 3(e) charges but convicted him for malversation of public property.

Evidence and Chain of Custody

• The prosecution established that:
• The confiscated logs were under the custody of the Task Force under a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the DENR-Region III and the 7th Infantry Division of the Philippine Army.
• As the commanding officer of both REPEWC and TFSLY, petitioner had control over the custody of these confiscated forest products.
• Witness testimonies described how, on June 8, 1992:
• The logs were stockpiled at the Atate Detachment and then loaded onto a truck.
• The logs were driven to petitioner’s residence in Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija, where they were unloaded in the presence of petitioner and family members.
• Additional evidence included affidavits from the prosecution witnesses, despite the existence of recantation affidavits (executed ex parte) by some witnesses prior to trial.
• Petitioner’s defense claimed intimidation of the prosecution witnesses by elements within the military hierarchy and questioned the documentary evidence regarding the logs’ existence and valuation.

Post-Trial Motions and Appellate Developments

• On September 4, 2002, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration and/or to Reopen the Proceedings, arguing lack of proof showing he was an accountable officer.
• The RTC reopened the case for additional evidence; however, following additional testimonies (e.g., Atty. Hermilo Barrios and Atty. Salome Cansino), the RTC ultimately denied the motion and maintained its conviction for malversation.
• Petitioner’s appeal to the Sandiganbayan resulted in an affirmation of the RTC decision on January 31, 2006, with the sentence modified under the Indeterminate Sentence Law to a minimum of 10 years and 1 day and a maximum of 16 years, 5 months, and 11 days imprisonment, plus additional penalties.
• A subsequent motion for reconsideration before the Sandiganbayan was denied, prompting petitioner to elevate the case to the Supreme Court.

Issue:

Sufficiency of Evidence

• Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution, particularly the testimonies concerning the custody and misappropriation of the confiscated logs, was sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt the elements of malversation of public property.
• Whether the absence of documentary evidence (specifically an audited inventory of the logs) undermines the prosecution’s case.

Credibility and Consistency of Witness Testimonies

• Whether the alleged inconsistencies and recantations in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses (Estremos, Flores, and Sultan) affect their overall credibility.
• Whether the defense’s claim of witness intimidation and the influence of a higher-ranking officer (General Soriano) can discredit the witnesses’ direct testimonies.

Application of the Law

• Whether petitioner, as an accountable public officer, can be held liable for malversation under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code despite his claim that the confiscated logs were not vested with the requisite public character.
• Whether the imposition of the sentence in accordance with the Indeterminate Sentence Law meets the statutory requirements given the single element of misappropriation.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)