G.R. No. 158014 - Manlangit vs. Sandiganbayan

Petitioner Rosulo L. Manlangit was the Officer-in-Charge for Information, Education, and Communication of the Pinatubo Commission.
On October 16, 1998, he received P176,300 to fund the 6th Founding Anniversary Info-Media Activities of the Commission.
A few months later, he resigned without accounting for the funds.

On April 12, 2000, Artaserxes L. Sampang, the Executive Director of the Commission, filed an affidavit-complaint against Manlangit for violating Articles 217 and 218 of the Revised Penal Code.
The complaint was based on COA Circular No. 90-331, which required Manlangit to render a true and correct account of the public funds entrusted to him.

In his counter-affidavit dated July 11, 2000, Manlangit claimed he had no intention to appropriate the funds for himself.
He cited reasons for the delay in submitting the liquidation report, including organizational confusion due to a new management, his resignation, and personal and family problems.
He claimed to have submitted his liquidation report on July 12, 2000, and settled the account.

Virginia C. Yap, the Deputy Executive Director, testified that Manlangit had not submitted any liquidation report for the P176,300.
She highlighted the inconsistency between the date of Manlangit’s counter-affidavit (July 11, 2000) and the date he allegedly submitted his report (July 12, 2000).

On March 5, 2001, the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon filed an information against Manlangit for violating Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code.
The prosecution presented the affidavit-complaint of Sampang, the counter-affidavit of Manlangit, and the reply of Yap as evidence.

On August 12, 2001, Undersecretary Mario L. Relampagos of the Department of Budget and Management Task Force Mt. Pinatubo informed the Ombudsman that Manlangit had rendered an accounting and requested the withdrawal of the case.

After the prosecution rested its case, Manlangit filed a demurrer to evidence, arguing that there was no criminal delay since there was no demand from the COA for an accounting.
He also claimed that the case was moot and academic due to the letter from Undersecretary Relampagos.
The Sandiganbayan denied the demurrer, ruling that demand was not an element of Article 218 and that the letter had no bearing on the offense.

On February 27, 2003, the Sandiganbayan convicted Manlangit of violating Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced him to one year of imprisonment.
His motion for reconsideration was denied.

Elements of Article 218: The crime under Article 218 requires: (1) the offender is a public officer, whether in service or separated; (2) he is an accountable officer for public funds or property; (3) he is required by law or regulation to render accounts to the COA or a provincial auditor; and (4) he fails to do so for two months after the accounts should be rendered. Demand is not an element.
Inapplicability of Saberon: The Saberon case involved Act No. 1740, which required prior demand. Article 218, however, does not require demand, and the omission of such a requirement in the Revised Penal Code indicates that it is no longer necessary.
COA Circular No. 90-331: The circular mandates that accountable officers must liquidate their cash advances within 20 days after the end of the year. Manlangit failed to comply with this requirement, making him liable under Article 218.
Penalty Modification: The Sandiganbayan correctly convicted Manlangit but imposed an incorrect penalty. The proper penalty under Article 218 is prision correccional in its minimum period, which ranges from one year, one month, and eleven days to one year, eight months, and twenty days. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court modified the penalty to four months and one day of arresto mayor as minimum to one year, one month, and eleven days of prision correccional as maximum.