A.C. No. 5119 - Berenguer-Landers vs. Florin

The petitioners, Zacaria A. Candao, Abas A. Candao, and Israel B. Haron, were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of malversation of public funds.
The respondents in the case were the People of the Philippines and the Sandiganbayan.
The case was heard before the First Division of the Supreme Court, with the decision reported in 680 Phil. 788 and decided on February 01, 2012.

The petitioners were convicted under Article 217, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, for malversation of public funds.
The offense involved an amount exceeding P22,000.00, which invoked the imposition of the penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua.
The original sentencing by the Sandiganbayan had fixed a maximum period for the indeterminate sentence at 17 years and 4 months, which later became the focus of judicial scrutiny.

The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration petitioning for a reversal or modification of the sentencing decision.
In the motion, the petitioners challenged the computation of the maximum period of the indeterminate sentence imposed in their case.
The petitioners argued that the court erred in fixing the maximum period at 17 years and 4 months instead of following the proper computation guidelines under the law.

Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, in a notable suggestion, pointed out the error in setting the maximum period of the sentence.
The Court clarified that the penalty for malversation, when the amount involved exceeds P22,000.00, should be understood in light of Article 65 of the Revised Penal Code.
According to the proper application of Article 65:

When the penalty imposed is not divided into three periods, the court must divide it into three equal portions to determine the minimum, medium, and maximum periods.
Specifically, for reclusion temporal when it is capped at reclusion perpetua, the correct breakdown is as follows:

Since no aggravating or mitigating circumstances were found, the maximum imposed must come from the medium period of the penalty range, i.e., between 18 years, 8 months and 20 years.

Aside from the determination on the sentence, the Court also ordered the petitioners to pay a fine and restitution.
The restitution was set at a total amount of P21,045,570.64, payable jointly and severally to the Republic of the Philippines through the ARMM-Regional Treasurer.
In the execution of their sentences, the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of the three-fold rule under Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.

Whether the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration raised sufficient grounds to reverse or modify the previous sentencing decision.
Whether the imposition of the maximum period of 17 years and 4 months was in accordance with the prescribed method of computing indeterminate sentences under Article 65 of the Revised Penal Code.
Whether the correction suggested by Justice Bersamin regarding the computation of the maximum period—from the medium period of the prescribed penalty—was properly warranted and applicable in the case of malversation of public funds.