G.R. No. 210603 - Saguin vs. People

Petitioners Editha B. Saguin and Lani D. Grado, together with Ruby C. Dalman, were charged for violation of Section 23 of Presidential Decree No. 1752, as amended by Republic Act No. 7742, which was also covered by Executive Order No. 35.
The allegations arose out of deductions made from the salaries of hospital and rural health unit employees at Rizal Memorial District Hospital (RMDH), Dapitan City, for Pag-IBIG contributions and Pag-IBIG loan repayments in March 1993.

The Information charged the accused with, while performing their official duties, causing the deductions amounting to P7,965.58 for contributions and P15,818.81 for loan repayments without remitting such collections to the Pag-IBIG Fund.
It was alleged that the non-remittance led to penalties, surcharges, and prejudice against the employees and government officials who were responsible for such payments.

The prosecution established that the payroll of RMDH included deductions for various items – including Pag-IBIG contributions and loan repayments – prepared in the Accountant’s Office and approved by the Chief of Hospital.
Evidence showed that although the deductions were correctly reflected on the payroll, the remittances for Pag-IBIG contributions and loan repayments for March 1993 were never made, leading to employee complaints.
The prosecution emphasized that, notwithstanding the later devolution of the hospital to the provincial government, the normal payroll procedures and remittance practices did not cease immediately.

Petitioner Grado testified that one of her responsibilities as cashier was to collect hospital fees and remit payroll deductions; however, for March 1993, she could not issue checks because the hospital had been devolved to the provincial government.
Saguin asserted that her role was limited to certifying fund availability and preparing financial statements, and that with the devolution, the responsibility for remittances had been transferred to the provincial government.
Dalman corroborated that all accused were aware of the non-payment issue and that a meeting involving the Chief of Hospital had been convened, where it was explained that the financial control had shifted to the local government due to devolution.

The Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (MTCC) in Dapitan City rendered a decision on May 14, 2009, convicting all accused of the offense, imposing fines and subsidiary imprisonment measures.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MTCC decision on appeal with modifications regarding the sentence imposed, emphasizing that the hospital should have functioned normally despite devolution.
The Sandiganbayan further affirmed the conviction in its April 4, 2013 decision and later denied a motion for reconsideration in its December 4, 2013 resolution.

The petitioners contended that as ordinary employees, they could not be held criminally liable since the provision in Section 23 of P.D. No. 1752 was intended to penalize employers or higher-level officials responsible for remittance.
They argued that the enactment of R.A. No. 9679 in 2009, which integrated HDMF laws and provided penal sanctions for "other officials and employees," did not extend criminal liability to them in view of their now-transferred responsibilities following devolution.
The accused further maintained that the hospital’s devolution to the Provincial Government of Zamboanga del Norte legally shifted the duty to remit funds, and that the non-remittance in March 1993 was due to this administrative change.

Documentary evidence indicated that remittances for deductions in March 1993 were customarily made in the following month and that by April 1, 1993, all financial operations had been transferred to the provincial government.
Testimonies confirmed that after devolution, the petitioners were reassigned or their functions adjusted such that the remittance duties were assumed by provincial authorities, thereby relieving them of the responsibility.

The petitioners sought review on the ground that the Sandiganbayan committed reversible errors by overlooking the lawful cause (i.e., devolution) for non-remittance and by misapprehending the evidence.
The petition focused on the proper interpretation and application of Section 23 of P.D. No. 1752 as amended, particularly regarding the requisite element of “without lawful cause or with fraudulent intent.”

Whether the petitioners can be held criminally liable under Section 23 of P.D. No. 1752, as amended, given that the non-remittance of deducted funds was allegedly caused by the devolution of the hospital’s functions to the provincial government.
Whether the Sandiganbayan’s reliance on the evidence and factual findings of the lower courts, which asserted that the petitioners continued to perform their functions post-devolution, amounts to a misapprehension of the facts.
Whether the imposed penal sanctions were appropriate, considering that the petitioners argued they acted under a lawful cause and had honestly presumed that the remittance duties had been transferred.