G.R. No. 185960 - Icdang vs. Sandiganbayan

Petitioner Marino B. Icdang was the Regional Director of the Office for Southern Cultural Communities (OSCC) Region XII in Cotabato City during the transactions at issue.
He was responsible for the administration and accountability of public funds earmarked for various socio-economic and cultural development projects for indigenous communities.

On January 19, 1998, the Commission on Audit (COA) Regional Office XII formed a Special Audit Team pursuant to COA Regional Office Order No. 98-10 to review the 1996 funds allocated for livelihood projects of the OSCC-Region XII.
The audit team, led by Hadji Rashid A. Mudag, discovered that petitioner and other officials had received substantial cash advances from a total amount of P920,933.00, with a notable deficiency in the liquidation of these funds.
Specifically, petitioner was granted cash advances amounting to P232,000.00 but subsequently failed to account for the amount, resulting in a shortage of P219,392.75.

The audit revealed that P297,392.75 out of the granted cash advances remained unliquidated as of December 31, 1997.
The report indicated several irregularities including:

The lack of proper cashbooks to record transactions, with the office relying solely on subsidiary ledgers.
Failure to implement the intended projects such as the Ancestral Domain Development Program, tribal cooperative operationalization, adult literacy, child care, and other socio-economic projects.

In an Audit Observation Memorandum dated March 18, 1998, COA Region XII noted unexplained discrepancies in the final trial balance, indicating the potential misappropriation of funds.

In response to the discovered cash shortage, the COA issued a demand letter for immediate explanation and production of the missing funds.
Petitioner requested an extension to account for the funds, claiming ongoing processes for liquidation and notification of payees, but failed to comply within the stipulated period.
On September 21, 2000, the Office of the Ombudsman found probable cause against petitioner for violating Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code and Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019.
Two criminal cases were filed:

Criminal Case No. 26327 charging petitioner with malversation of public funds.
Criminal Case No. 26328 charging petitioner with a violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019.

The prosecution’s key witness, COA State Auditor IV Hadji Rashid A. Mudag, presented disbursement vouchers, checks, and other documentary evidence demonstrating:

During cross-examination, Mudag acknowledged that although certain certifications and field interview reports were secured, they were not made under oath.
Extensive evidence pointed to the absence of official records and the non-implementation of the projects for which the funds were intended.

A series of postponements and rescheduling of hearings occurred over several years (from 2002 up to 2008) largely due to:

Petitioner's financial constraints and health issues, including his counsel’s various postponement requests owing to illness and lack of witnesses.
Multiple opportunities provided by the Sandiganbayan for the defense to present evidence, including the appointment of counsel de oficio in instances of non-appearance by petitioner’s counsel.

Despite these opportunities, petitioner failed to produce crucial liquidation reports, certifications, and other documentary evidence to rebut the audit findings.

On May 26, 2008, the Sandiganbayan (Second Division) rendered its decision, convicting petitioner of malversation of public funds in Criminal Case No. 26327 while acquitting him of the anti-graft charge in Criminal Case No. 26328.
The court imposed an indeterminate penalty ranging from TEN (10) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY up to EIGHTEEN (18) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY, perpetual special disqualification, and a fine, along with the directive to reimburse the government for the missing funds.

Gravely negligent assistance by his counsel.
Denial of his opportunity to present evidence due to repeated postponements and scheduling issues.

He argued that his inability to attend hearings (attributed to financial constraints and geographic remoteness) constituted a lack of a fair trial.
Moreover, petitioner's attempt to seek relief through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was challenged because the proper remedy (petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45) had not been pursued within the prescribed period.

Did the failure of petitioner to liquidate the cash advances and account for the shortage of public funds, as evidenced by the audit findings, establish the prima facie case of malversation?
Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion by proceeding with the promulgation of judgment despite the alleged absence of petitioner’s counsel and repeated postponements which the petitioner claims impeded his right to be heard.
Whether the failure to timely file an appeal for reconsideration and the subsequent resort to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, as opposed to the proper appeal mechanism under Rule 45, invalidates or undermines the decision rendered by the lower court.
Whether the ample opportunities given to the defense to present evidence and the absence of any substantive rebuttal evidence justify the conviction for malversation.