Case Digest (G.R. No. 98000-02)
Facts:
Dr. Inocencio Penanueva, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 98000-02, June 30, 1993, the Supreme Court En Banc, Quiason, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Dr. Inocencio V. Penanueva, Jr., then Chief of Hospital of Hinatuan District Hospital, was charged before the Sandiganbayan in three informations for malversation under Article 217, Revised Penal Code (Criminal Cases Nos. 12238, 12239 and 12240), and in a separate case (Criminal Case No. 12314) with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. He pleaded not guilty to all informations and was tried jointly. The Sandiganbayan acquitted him in Crim. Case No. 12314 (R.A. 3019) but convicted him of malversation in Crim. Cases Nos. 12238–12240, finding restitution as a mitigating circumstance and imposing varying indeterminate prison terms, perpetual disqualification, and fines corresponding to the values of the medicines alleged to have been misappropriated (P5,502.95; P9,525.30; and P10,620.00 respectively).
Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court by a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court and Section 7, Paragraph 3 of P.D. No. 1606. In his petition he principally contested the sufficiency of the evidence as to Criminal Case No. 12239 and asserted several defenses: that drawing medicines on a “vale” (good-for) receipt was an established hospital practice; that the medicines taken were expired or near expiration and were intended for replacement by drug suppliers; and that hospital employees motivated by hostility sought his ouster and fabricated charges.
At trial the prosecution presented testimony by Juanito Pagalan, the acting supply officer, who testified that on July 27, 1985 petitioner directed him to deliver various drugs, that he prepared and filled a “requisition and issue voucher” listing drugs totaling P9,525.30 (Exh. O) and that petitioner signed the voucher. The prosecution also introduced invoices from Zuellig Pharma Corporation and other documentary exhibits corroborating the hospital stock deliveries and the vouchers (Exhs. J, K, L, M, O).
The defense produced certificates from drug salesmen (Exhs. 5–8) purporting to show replacement of certain expired drugs, and argued that the “vale” practice and replacement by suppliers negated criminal intent. The Sandiganbayan found, however, that (a) the word “vale” on vouchers was placed at petitioner’s direction, (b) hospital administrative officer Nathaniel Majam testified that withdrawal of medicines by “vale” was contrary to hospital rules, (c) there was no contemporaneous indication on the vouchers that the medicines were expired or for replacement, (d) the certificates of replacement were doubtful in veracity and contradicted by a Zuellig branch certificate (Exh. FF) and a letter from Metro Drug’s main office (Exh. GG), and (e) the total value of alleged replacements (P15,297.25) did not match the greater value of medicines taken (P25,22...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the evidence sufficient to convict petitioner of malversation in Criminal Case No. 12239?
- Do the defenses that (a) withdrawal by “vale” was an established practice, (b) the medicines were expired or to be replaced by drug suppliers, and (c) alleged ill motive of hospital employees, negate criminal liability for malversation?
- Was the Sandiganbayan’s appreciation of restitution as a mitigating circumstance correct and did res...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)