Case Digest (G.R. No. 249945)
Facts:
People of the Philippines charged Antonio M. Suba with violating Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code for failing to render accounts for cash advances totaling P132,978.68 covering plane fare and hotel accommodation, per diems and allowances, and pre-travel expenses for his foreign travel to Beijing, China on October 10 to 14, 2006. The cash advances were approved and released, but the liquidation documents lacked the Travel Authority and accused-appellant later submitted his liquidation report only on August 22, 2007, after COA suspension of the advances.The Sandiganbayan convicted accused-appellant on July 31, 2019, ruling that he was an accountable officer, that the law required liquidation within sixty days from return to the Philippines, and that belated settlement did not erase criminal liability. It sentenced him to imprisonment, but later the Supreme Court modified the penalty to a fine only.
Issues:
- Whether accused-appellant was proven beyond reasonable doubt guilty
Case Digest (G.R. No. 249945)
Facts:
- Initiation of the criminal case in the Sandiganbayan
- The People of the Philippines filed an appeal pursuant to Rule XI, Section 1(a) of A.M. No. 13-7-05-SB, challenging the Sandiganbayan’s Decision dated July 31, 2019 in Criminal Case No. SB-14-CRM-0425.
- The accused-appellant was Antonio M. Suba, charged with violation of Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code (failure of accountable officer to render accounts).
- The case originated from an Information filed by the Field Investigation Officer (FIO) of the Office of the Ombudsman.
- The accusatory portion alleged that:
- In March 2007 or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in Pasay City, Metro Manila, within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, the accused was a high-ranking public officer as Department Manager B of the Philippine Aerospace Development Corporation (PADC), a GOCC attached to the DOTC.
- By reason of his office, he willfully and unlawfully failed to render accounts totaling P132,978.68, representing cash advances received for:
- Plane fare and hotel accommodation (P108,500.00);
- Per diems and allowances (US$ 458.40 or P22,978.68);
- Pre-travel expenses (P1,500.00).
- The cash advances related to foreign travel to Beijing, China from October 10 to 14, 2006 (as alleged), and the information invoked:
- Executive Order No. 298 (amending Executive Order Nos. 248 and 248-A);
- COA Circular No. 96-004, requiring liquidation of foreign travel cash advances within sixty days after return to the Philippines.
- The failure was alleged to prejudice the government.
- Accused-appellant’s role and the cash advance transactions
- The prosecution claimed that accused-appellant served as Treasurer/Acting Vice-President for Operations of PADC, a GOCC attached to DOTC.
- In September 2006, Col. Roberto R. Navida (Navida), then President of PADC, informed accused-appellant that they would attend the 4th Biennial International Aircraft Conversion & Maintenance Conference in Beijing, China, from October 11 to 14, 2006.
- Navida instructed accused-appellant to secure cash advances for the foreign travel.
- Accused-appellant prepared the Request for Cash Advance and other forms.
- A cash advance of P241,478.68 was approved by Navida, evidenced by Disbursement Vouchers:
- Disbursement Voucher Nos. 01-06-10-017;
- Disbursement Voucher Nos. 01-06-10-024;
- Disbursement Voucher Nos. 01-06-10-018;
- all dated October 6, 2006.
- The three disbursement vouchers were approved by Navida without the signature of the Comptroller on Box A.
- The approved cash advances were allocated as follows:
- Plane fare and hotel accommodation: P217,000.00 (for both Navida and Suba);
- Per diems and allowances: P22,978.68 (for Suba);
- Pre-travel expenses: P1,500.00 (for Suba);
- Total: P241,478.68.
- On October 9 and October 16, 2006, accused-appellant received:
- Per diems and allowances: US$ 458.40 (or P22,970.68);
- Pre-travel expenses: P1,500.00.
- The cash advance of P217,000.00 was made in accused-appellant’s name under Navida’s instruction.
- A check issued in accused-appellant’s name was encashed by Corazon T. Aguinaldo (Aguinaldo), then Acting Treasurer, for payment to Tour Spectrum Inc. for plane tickets and hotel accommodation of Navida and accused-appellant.
- Tour Spectrum Inc. issued:
- Statement of Account No. 14779; and
- Official Receipt No. 5339,
- For Navida:
- Hotel accommodation: P60,461.60;
- Air fare: P42,067.60;
- Taxes: P4,066.20;
- Travel tax: P1,620.00;
- Total: P108,395.40.
- For Suba:
- Hotel accommodation: P60,461.60;
- Air fare: P42,067.60;
- Taxes: P4,066.20;
- Travel tax: P1,620.00;
- Total: P108,395.40.
- Overall total: P216,790.80.
- The missing travel authority and the trip’s continuation
- Navida, through a letter dated September 15, 2006, requested from DOTC Secretary Leandro R. Mendoza (Sec. Mendoza) approval of a Travel Authority for him and accused-appellant for the Beijing trip.
- The request was unacted upon.
- Despite the absence of Travel Authority, Navida approved the cash advances and the parties proceeded with the conference on October 11 to 14, 2006.
- COA notices, disallowance, and administrative/financial consequences
- On June 29, 2007, PADC received Notice of Suspension (NS) No. 2007-001-(2006) issued by COA State Auditor IV Arsenio S. Rayos, Jr., suspending the cash advances with respect to the Beijing travel due to lack of requirements necessary for proper liquidation.
- On August 22, 2007, accused-appellant submitted a Memorandum indicating liquidation of the cash advance, explaining that the delay resulted from the absence of the travel authority from the DOTC Secretary.
- He claimed he submitted all required documents except the Travel Authority and Itinerary of Travel.
- He averred that Navida informed him and Aguinaldo that Sec. Mendoza gave verbal approval prior to departure.
- He stated they were later informed that the Travel Authority request was disapproved.
- On March 17, 2008, PADC received Notice of Disallowance (ND) No. 2008-001-(2006) disallowing expenses incurred during the Beijing trip from October 11 to 14, 2006 for lack of approved Authority to Travel and Itinerary of Travel.
- ND directed payment to settle the cash advance in the total amount of P241,478.68.
- Accused-appellant filed a Motion for Reconsideration; it was denied in COA Office of the Cluster Director’s 4th Indorsement dated January 9, 2008.
- On February 2, 2010, a Notice of Finality of Decision (NFD) issued for lack of appeal.
- In the NFD, Navida, VP for Admin and Finance Richard Lazaro (Lazaro), Acting Treasurer Aguinaldo, Comptroller/Cashier Rolando Broas (Broas), and accused-appellant were held solidarily liable for the disallowed cash advance under ND No. 2008-001-(2006).
- COA issued an Order of Execution dated June 28, 2010 directing the Comptroller of PADC to withhold the payment of accused-appellant’s salaries to settle liabilities under ND No. 2008-001-(2006) in the amount of P241,478.68.
- Ombudsman complaint and trial chronology
- On November 2, 2011, the FIO of the Office of the Ombudsman lodged a complaint against:
- Navida;
- accused-appellant;
- Lazaro;
- Aguinaldo; and
- Broas.
- The complaint charged malversation of public funds and property and failure of accountable officer to render accounts under Article 217 and 218 of the RPC, respectively, and violation of Secti...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether accused-appellant was proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code
- Whether the prosecution established all the elements of Article 218 of the RPC:
- that the offender was a public officer;
- that he was an accountable officer for public funds or property;
- that he was required by law or regulation to render accounts to COA or a provincial auditor; and
- that he failed to do so for a period of two months after such account should be rendered.
- Whether accused-appellant was an accountable officer, considering that:
- accused-appellant claimed Navida, as head of the agency, primarily approved the transaction as evidenced by disbursement vouchers, budget utilization slips, and the check; and
- accused-appellant claimed the comptroller/disbursing officer (Josephina Cabangangan) should be considered an accountable officer.
- Whether the element of failure to render accounts was present, considering accused-appellant’s defenses:
- the travel was not a “ghost” transaction and expenses were supported by evidence;
- accused-appellant claimed he submitted everything except the Travel Authority;
- accused-appellant claimed the travel was not unauthorized because of...(Subscriber-Only)