209 Phil. 283
Petitioners Penaflor Penaverde and Melecio Hermita seek to set aside the decision of respondent Sandiganbayan, convicting them of the crimes of falsification of public documents and malversation of public funds on three (3) counts. The informations filed against them read, as follows:
"Criminal Case No. 2135For
Falsification of Public
Document
________________________
"Criminal Case No. 2136 For
Malversation of Public Funds
"Criminal Case No. 2137 For
Malversation of Public Funds
"Criminal Case No. 2138 For
Malversation of Public Funds
After trial, respondent Sandiganbayan promulgated a decision in the four (4) cases, the dispositive portion of which reads:
"WHEREFORE, finding the two accused Penaflor V. Penaverde and Melecio C. Hermita, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of Falsification of Public Document, in Criminal Case No. 2135, and in three counts of Malversation of Public Funds in Criminal Cases Nos. 2136, 2137, and 2138, without migrating nor aggravating circumstances and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court hereby sentences each of them to suffer the following penalties. "1. In Criminal Case No. 2135 for Falsification of Public Document, each of them shall suffer an indeterminate penalty of from TWO (2) YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of prision correctional, as minimum, to EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor, as maximum, and to pay a fine in the amount of FIVE HUNDRED PESOS (P500.00); "2. In Criminal Case No. 2136 for Malversation of Public Funds involving the amount of P300.00, each of them shall suffer an indeterminate penalty of from TWO (2) YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of prision correccional, as minimum, to SIX (6) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor, as maximum, and to indemnify jointly and severally the Barangay of Manapao, Minalabac, Camarines Sur, the amount of P300.00 representing the amount malversed and not restituted; "3. Criminal Case No. 2137, for Malversation of Public Funds involving the amount of P500.00, each of the two accused is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of from TWO (2) YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of prision correctional, as minimum, to SIX (6) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor, as maximum, and to indemnify jointly and severally the Barangay of Manapao, Minalabac, Camarines Sur, the amount of P500.00 which is the amount embezzled and not restituted; "4. In Criminal Case No. 2138, for Malversation of Public Funds involving the amount of P1,897.00, each of the two accused is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of from FOUR (4) YEARS, TWO (2) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of prision correctional, as minimum, to SEVEN (7) YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor, as maximum, and to indemnify jointly and severally the Barangay of Manapao, Minalabac, Camarines Sur, the sum of P1,891.00 which is the amount malversed and not restituted; and "5. With accessory penalties provided by law. "The accused are entitled to full credit of the preventive imprisonment they have undergone, if any, in accordance with Art. 29, as amended by Republic Act No. 6127, of the Revised Penal Code. "With costs against the two accused in all cases. "SO ORDERED." (pp. 10-11, Rollo)Petitioners filed separate motions for reconsideration which, however, were denied. Hence, the present petitions alleging that respondent Sandiganbayan committed reversible errors in convicting petitioners Penaverde and Hermita of the crimes charged and presenting for resolution the following issues:
(1) Whether or not serious doubts exist as to the probability of the commission of the offenses imputed to herein petitioners. (2) Whether or not there is conspiracy between petitioner Penaflor Penaverde and his co-accused Melecio C. Hermita to commit the offenses.Anent the first issue, petitioners contend that Penaflor V. Penaverde, as Barangay Captain of Manapao, Minalabac, Camarines Sur, is not an accountable officer; that the BIDA funds in the amount of P5,000.00 to which Barangay Manapao is entitled was not entrusted to his custody but to the custody and control of Provincial Development Officer Adolfo Badiola, who issued the checks for the purchase of construction materials and for the cost of labor; and that since Badiola is the accountable officer and not petitioner Penaverde, he (Penaverde) cannot therefore be guilty of the crime of malversation of public funds. Further, they argue that assuming, without admitting, that there was malversation of public funds, the taking of the amount from the P5,000.00 in three (3) different occasions constitutes one (1) crime only.
In his comment to instant petitions the Solicitor General admits that petitioners may not be convicted of malversation because they were not accountable officers. Adolfo Badiola, the Provincial Development Officer, admitted that he has been the accountable officer for the BIDA funds.
"Q Do I understand Mr. Badiola that you were the one who issued these Exhibits A and A-1, these checks? A Yes sir. Q You were the one who issued these checks because you were the one in charge of disbursing this amount of P5,000.00 BIDA funds in your capacity as Provincial Development Officer? A Yes, sir. Q And you are the accountable officer insofar as that fund is concerned? A Yes, sir. (tsn. p. 28,However, the Solicitor General alleged that in Criminal Cases Nos. 2136 and 2138 petitioners conspired to induce Rito Sultan, the owner of the Sulu Hardware which was granted the award for materials, to part with the remaining balance of P4,500.00, in the amount of P300.00 and P1,897.00, on two (2) different occasions on the pretext that the said amount was for the repair of the school. After receiving the balance, they misappropriated it. Thus, they were properly charged in two separate informations of Malversation of Public Funds, although they were only guilty of Estafa, a lesser offense (Delfin vs. Court of Appeals, 13 SCRA 366).
Again, in Criminal Case No. 2137, petitioners conspired to induce Municipal Development Officer Filomeno Olano to give them a check for P500.00, the amount allegedly awarded for labor, by misrepresenting through a picture that the footpath project was already completed. They eventually encashed the check and misappropriated it, for the third occasion, to the damage of the government.
With respect to the allegation that there was error on the part of respondent Sandiganbayan in concluding that petitioners conspired in the commission of the offense, suffice it to say that the basis of its finding was the credibility of witnesses. Pursuant to Section 7 of Presidential Decree No. 1606, in relation to Section 2, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the findings of fact of the Sandiganbayan are entitled to great respect and only questions of laws may be raised to the Supreme Court. Besides, well settled is the rule that the findings of trial court on credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed unless such findings overlook certain facts of substance and value which, if considered, might affect results of case.
In Criminal Cases Nos. 2136, 2137 and 2138, We find that the crimes committed by the herein petitioners are estafa, not malversation as charged in the information.
WHEREFORE, the conviction of petitioners by respondent Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 2135 is hereby AFFIRMED. However, in Criminal Cases Nos. 2136, 2137 and 2138, petitioners Penaflor Penaverde and Melecio C. Hermita are guilty of estafa and each is sentenced as follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. 2136 - one (1) month and one (1) day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to one (1) year and one (1) day of prision correccional, as maximum; 2. In Criminal Case No. 2137 - one (1) month and one (1) day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to one (1) year and one (1) day of prision correccional, as maximum; and 3. In Criminal Case No. 2138 - one (1) month and one (1) day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to one (1) year and one (1) day of prision correccional, as maximum.SO ORDERED.
Fernando, C.J., Teehankee, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin, Vasquez, and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.