Case Digest (G.R. No. 249945)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Antonio M. Suba, G.R. No. 249945, June 23, 2021, the Supreme Court First Division, Carandang, J., writing for the Court. The appeal sought review of the Sandiganbayan Decision dated July 31, 2019 (Criminal Case No. SB-14-CRM-0425) that convicted Antonio M. Suba (accused‑appellant) for violating Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code (failure of accountable officer to render accounts).The Office of the Ombudsman, through its Field Investigation Officer, filed an Information charging accused‑appellant with failing to render accounts for cash advances totaling Php132,978.68 in connection with an official foreign trip to Beijing, China (10–14 October 2006). The cash advances (totaling Php241,478.68 for fares, hotel accommodation, per diems and pre‑travel expenses) were requested and released in October 2006, with Disbursement Vouchers approved by PADC President Col. Roberto R. Navida though lacking the Comptroller’s signature in Box A. Accused‑appellant, the Treasurer/Acting Vice‑President for Operations of the Philippine Aerospace Development Corporation (PADC), received specific amounts (per diems and pre‑travel expenses directly; airfare and hotel charged in his name and paid to Tour Spectrum, Inc.). Supporting statements of account and official receipts were introduced at trial.
Commission on Audit (COA) issued a Notice of Suspension (29 June 2007) for lack of required liquidation documents and, later, a Notice of Disallowance (17 March 2008) directing settlement of the cash advances. Accused‑appellant submitted a Memorandum on Liquidation on 22 August 2007 explaining that the delay was due to the absence of a Travel Authority from the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC); he asserted verbal approval was given but later denied. COA denied his Motion for Reconsideration and issued a Notice of Finality in February 2010, holding accused‑appellant and others solidarily liable; COA issued an Order of Execution in June 2010 directing salary withholding for recovery.
The Ombudsman found probable cause (24 July 2014) and filed Information before the Sandiganbayan (March 2014). Navida was separately charged and later died during the proceedings; his case was dismissed. The trial against accused‑appellant proceeded. He sought to admit documentary exhibits (24 offered; only 9 admitted), filed motions including a (denied) motion for leave to file a demurrer to evidence, and presented a single witness (the comptroller Broas). On 31 July 2019 the Sandiganbayan, through a decision penned by Associate Justice Kevin Narce B. Vivero (with two concurring justices), found all elements of Article 218 proven and convicted accused‑appellant, sentencing him to four months and one day of arresto mayor (with accessory penalties). The Sandiganbayan gave weight to mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and restitution.
Accused‑appellant moved for reconsideration (denied 29 October 2019) and appealed to the Supreme Court pursuant to Rule XI, Section 1(a) of A.M. No. 13‑7‑05‑SB. His Supreme Court ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was accused‑appellant proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)