G.R. No. 107838 - Felix Nizurtado vs. Sandiganbayan and People

Felix Nizurtado served as the Barangay Captain of Panghulo, Malabon, Metro Manila from 1983 to 1988.
The government, through the Ministry of Human Settlements (MHS), Metro Manila Commission (MMC), and Kilusang Kabuhayan at Kaunlaran (KKK), initiated a livelihood program for barangays which provided a loan of ₱10,000.00 per barangay to finance viable projects.

Under the program’s guidelines, the ₱10,000.00 check issued to Barangay Panghulo was to be encashed only after the submission of a Barangay Council resolution that identified a specific project for investment.
The check was received by Nizurtado in his capacity as Barangay Captain and was entrusted to the Barangay Treasurer, Manuel Romero, for safekeeping.

The proper process required an actual meeting of the Barangay Council to decide on the livelihood project; however, no such meeting was held on August 25, 1983, or on any other day to approve the project.
Nizurtado, after reclaiming the check from Romero, procured a blank resolution in mimeograph form and induced Romero and Councilman Santos Gomez to sign it under the representation that the proposal for a barangay service center would later be indicated as the chosen project.
Subsequent to their signatures, the blank spaces in the resolution were filled in—assigning it the title “T-shirt Manufacturing” with appropriate details (location, date, and names/signatures of the council members)—to fabricate the appearance of a duly approved project.

Nizurtado encashed the ₱10,000.00 check on October 18, 1983, relying on the falsified resolution (Exhibit D) to support the encashment.
Instead of utilizing the funds for the intended livelihood project, Nizurtado re-lent the entire amount to himself and the members of the Barangay Council, distributing ₱1,000.00 to each of the council members and lesser amounts to the barangay secretaries.
Later inquiries by Romero and Gomez revealed discrepancies: the signature-bearing blank resolution, once accomplished, falsely indicated that a council session had been held and a project approved on August 25, 1983.

The anomalies surrounding the resolution and the subsequent distribution of funds led Romero and Gomez to lodge a complaint against Nizurtado with the Office of the Tanodbayan on August 9, 1984.
Evidence, including documentary exhibits (Exhibits B, C, D, E, F, and J), was adduced to demonstrate the falsification and misappropriation of funds.
Partial repayments by some council members were collected over several months; however, the fund’s intended purpose was bypassed.
The case was prosecuted, and after pretrial stipulations and evaluation of evidence, Nizurtado was convicted by the Sandiganbayan for malversation committed through the falsification of a public document.

The Sandiganbayan, having found substantial evidence and credible testimony (notably from Romero and Gomez), convicted Nizurtado of the complex crime.
His motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting him to file a petition for review on certiorari, wherein he challenged both the characterization of the resolution as falsified and the misappropriation of the ₱10,000.00.

Whether Resolution No. 17, dated August 25, 1983, genuinely reflected a council meeting and the identification of a livelihood project, or whether it was a falsified document.
Whether Nizurtado intentionally misled the council members into signing a blank resolution that was later completed with false details.

Whether Nizurtado, having assumed responsibility for the livelihood fund as Barangay Captain, misappropriated the public funds by diverting them for personal benefit and unauthorized personal transactions.
Whether the re-lending of the ₱10,000.00 in smaller amounts to himself and council members constituted a misapplication of the funds.

Whether the defense that the funds were invested in alternative projects because ₱10,000.00 was insufficient for the original project has any legal merit, given the program guidelines.
Whether the discretionary authority alleged by Nizurtado in managing livelihood funds justifies the reallocation of the funds outside the prescribed guidelines.

Whether the imposed sentence, based on the maximum penalty prescribed for malversation and the subsidiary charge of falsification, appropriately reflects the gravity of the offenses.
How mitigating factors—such as voluntary surrender, restitution of the malappropriated funds, and the absence of explicit grave intent—should impact the final sentencing within the ambit of complex crimes.