Title
Candao vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 186659-710
Decision Date
Oct 19, 2011
Petitioners were convicted of malversation for withdrawing public funds without disbursement vouchers. The court affirmed the Sandiganbayan's ruling on the illegal withdrawals, emphasizing accountability of public officers.

Case Summary (A.M. No. SB-24-003-P)

The Facts of the Case

An Expanded Special Audit of the Office of the Regional Governor was conducted by a team from the Commission on Audit (COA) between August 24 and September 1, 1993, revealing illegal disbursements totaling over Php 21 million. The audit found that checks were issued and encashed without the required disbursement vouchers. The audit report highlighted significant discrepancies involving 52 checks payable to Haron and authorized by Candao and Abas Candao, raising serious concerns about the handling of public funds.

Criminal Charges and Proceedings

On April 17, 1998, the Office of the Special Prosecutor filed multiple criminal cases against the petitioners for malversation, encompassing several counts related to illegally withdrawn public funds. During trial, all accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution relied on the testimony of Heidi L. Mendoza, a COA auditor, who affirmed that the illegal funds were withdrawn without the necessary documentation, indicating a clear pattern of misappropriation.

Defense Arguments and Evidence

The defense presented various witnesses, including finance officials from the ORG-ARMM, asserting that proper disbursement vouchers had allegedly been submitted but not recognized by the COA. They contended that the petitioners followed the prescribed processes in issuing the checks, based on their prior experience and advice from COA auditors.

The Sandiganbayan Ruling

On October 29, 2008, the Sandiganbayan found the petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of malversation, citing a lack of credible evidence supporting the defense's contention that disbursement vouchers existed. The court emphasized that the failure of the petitioners to produce adequate documentation to account for the funds constituted prima facie evidence of misappropriation.

Legal Framework and Elements of Malversation

According to Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, a conviction for malversation requires proof that the offender was a public officer, had custody of public funds, those funds were public property, and the offender misappropriated or took those funds unlawfully. The Sandiganbayan concluded that all necessary elements for the offense were sufficiently established by the prosecution.

Rejection of Defense Claims

The Sandiganbayan rejected claims of procedural errors during the audit, asserting that the COA had appropriately conducted its audit and had notified the ORG-ARMM of its requirements accordingly. The court found that the petitioners failed to respond adequately to the audit demands and thus could not claim a lack of due process.

Sentenc

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.