Case Digest (G.R. No. 181881) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
The case involves Petitioner Rosulo Lopez Manlangit, who was the Officer-in-Charge for Information, Education and Communication of the Pinatubo Commission. On October 16, 1998, he received a fund of P176,300 intended for the Commission's 6th Founding Anniversary Info-Media Activities. However, a few months later, Manlangit resigned without rendering any account for the fund. On April 12, 2000, Artaserxes L. Sampang, then Executive Director of the Commission, filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman against Manlangit for violations of Articles 217 and 218 of the Revised Penal Code, asserting that under COA Circular No. 90-331, which was amended by COA Circular No. 97-002, he was required to account for any public funds entrusted to him.
In his defense, Manlangit claimed that he had no intention of appropriating the funds and cited reasons for the delay in submitting his liquidation report—changes in management, his job search, and personal issues. He stated he had
Case Digest (G.R. No. 181881) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Background of the Case
- Petitioner: Rosulo Lopez Manlangit, serving as Officer-in-Charge for Information, Education and Communication of the Pinatubo Commission.
- Fund Received: On October 16, 1998, Manlangit received P176,300 intended to finance the 6th Founding Anniversary Info-Media Activities of the Commission.
- Resignation Without Accounting: Shortly after receiving the funds, the petitioner resigned without rendering an account of the said fund.
- Initiation of the Complaint
- Filing of the Affidavit-Complaint:
- On April 12, 2000, Artaserxes L. Sampang, then Executive Director of the Commission, submitted an affidavit-complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman.
- Allegation: The petitioner was charged with violating Articles 217 and 218 of the Revised Penal Code due to his failure to render an account as mandated by COA Circular No. 90-331 (as amended by Circular No. 97-002).
- Regulatory Basis:
- COA Circular No. 90-331 (May 3, 1990) and its amendment (February 10, 1997) require public officers to render a true and correct account of funds entrusted to them.
- Petitioner’s Defense and Counter-Affidavit
- Submission of Counter-Affidavit:
- Dated July 11, 2000, where the petitioner claimed no intention to appropriate the funds.
- Reasons for Delay:
- Organizational confusion due to new management and reorganization of the Commission.
- Inconsistencies Raised:
- The petitioner alleged submission of his liquidation report on July 12, 2000.
- However, Virginia C. Yap, the Deputy Executive Director, testified that no liquidation report for the P176,300 was submitted, highlighting a discrepancy between the dates in the petitioner’s affidavit and the purported report.
- Prosecution and Pre-Trial Developments
- Filing of Criminal Information:
- On March 5, 2001, the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon filed an information against the petitioner for violation of Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code.
- Evidence Presented: Included the affidavit-complaint of Sampang, the petitioner’s counter-affidavit, and the reply of Virginia Yap.
- Request for Withdrawal of the Case:
- On August 12, 2001, Undersecretary Mario L. Relampagos of the Department of Budget and Management Task Force Mt. Pinatubo informed Ombudsman Aniano Desierto that the petitioner had rendered an accounting, suggesting the case be withdrawn.
- Demurrer to Evidence:
- Petitioner filed a demurrer to evidence, arguing:
- There was no criminal delay since no demand was made by the COA for an accounting.
- On February 28, 2002, the Sandiganbayan denied the demurrer, holding that:
- Demand was not an element of the offense under Article 218.
- Trial and Conviction
- Presentation of Evidence: Petitioner presented further evidence in his defense during the trial.
- Decision of the Sandiganbayan:
- On February 27, 2003, the court convicted Manlangit for violating Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code.
- Sentence Imposed: Originally, imprisonment of one year was imposed.
- Post-Trial Developments:
- Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied.
- The petitioner raised issues on appeal concerning the necessity of a prior demand for accountability.
Issues:
- Whether the prior demand by the Commission on Audit or a provincial auditor for a public officer to render an account is an element of the crime under Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code.
- Whether the ruling in United States v. Saberon (19 Phil. 391) remains applicable to the present case.
- Whether Article 218, by specifically requiring that the public officer be mandated by law or regulation to render accounts (i.e., to the COA), dispenses with the necessity of a prior demand as enunciated in the Saberon case.
- Whether, by a reading of COA Circular No. 90-331, it is evident that failure of the accountable officer to liquidate funds within 30 days after the service of the demand letter renders him criminally liable.
- Whether the submission of a liquidation report (dated July 12, 2000) by the petitioner, and its certification as substantial compliance, negates or renders the case moot and academic in the absence of any prior demand.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)