G.R. No. 176317 - Zafra vs. People

Manolito Gil Z. Zafra served as the only Revenue Collection Agent of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) in San Fernando, La Union from 1993 to 1995.
His duties included receiving tax payments, issuing revenue official receipts (RORs) using BIR Form 25.24, and submitting monthly reports (BIR Form 12.31) on tax collections to the Commission on Audit (COA).
The Accountability Forms (Monthly Reports of Accountability or BIR Form 16(A)) contained the serial numbers of blank and issued RORs.

On July 6, 1995, an audit team composed of Revenue Officers from the central office of the BIR reviewed several documents such as the Certificate Authorizing Registration (CAR), triplicate copies of RORs submitted with the Monthly Report of Collections (MRC), and copies furnished by the Philippine National Bank (PNB).
A comparison of the CARs, the MRCs, and the PNB’s copies revealed discrepancies in the data of 18 RORs:

Variances were noted in the taxpayer’s name, kind of tax paid, amounts, and dates of payment.
Specifically, the CARs and PNB copies showed considerably higher tax amounts than what was reported in the MRCs and the copies submitted by Zafra.

For some RORs, the discrepancy amounted to more than ₱114,000 for documentary stamp tax and capital gains tax.
For others, a similar disparity was observed where the actual tax payments far exceeded the amounts reported by Zafra, culminating in a total discrepancy of approximately ₱614,151.93.

A demand letter was sent to Zafra, requiring him to restitute the shortfall, but he ignored the letter.

Based on the discrepancies and the demand letter, 18 counts of malversation of public funds through falsification of public documents were instituted against Zafra.
Zafra’s Defense:

He denied directly accepting payments or issuing the RORs.
He contended that his subordinates, namely Andrew Aberin and Rebecca Supsupin, were responsible for collecting taxes and issuing receipts.
Testimonies from witnesses (Manuel Meris and Arturo Suyat) were presented to support his claim that a female BIR employee and another unidentified officer had handled the transactions during the period in question.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) in San Fernando, La Union consolidated the cases and, on February 17, 2004, rendered a decision convicting Zafra on the 18 counts and imposing penalties including indeterminate sentences and fines for each count.
The RTC findings were supported by documentary evidence showing:

The existence of signed and typewritten discrepancies within pages of the Monthly Reports and accountability forms.
Testimonies that linked the questionable receipts to Zafra’s official duties despite the absence of his signature on certain individual pages.

Whether the conviction for the complex crime of malversation of public funds through falsification of public documents was rightly based on an inference of negligence in the performance of official duties.
Whether convicting Zafra for negligence, when he claimed that his subordinates were responsible for the collection of taxes and issuance of receipts, was erroneous under the rule of command responsibility.

Whether the trial court and the Court of Appeals (CA) erred in applying the penal rules, specifically the imposition of penalties under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) for complex crimes.
Whether the courts properly determined that all essential elements of the crimes charged were established beyond reasonable doubt based on the available evidence.

Whether the penalties imposed – which involved indeterminate sentences combining prision mayor, reclusion temporal, or reclusion perpetua – were properly computed in light of the maximum period requirement.
Whether the failure to include an order for the return of the misappropriated funds as part of the civil liability constitutes a significant omission in the judgment.

Whether convicting Zafra both for intentional malversation and for malversation through negligence violates the principle that double jeopardy should not attach when alleged acts overlap.