G.R. No. 149613 - Chan vs. Sandiganbayan

Petitioner Pamela Chan was employed as Accounting Clerk II and acted as Cashier or Collection Officer at the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in Cebu City.
She went on leave from December 7 to 27, 1995, during which time Delza Bas was designated as the acting Collection Officer.
An audit conducted on December 27, 1995, found that all collections during Chan's leave were accounted for.
A subsequent audit on January 24, 1996, revealed a cash shortage of P290,228.00 attributed to Chan.
A third audit on March 1, 1996, showed a cumulative shortage of P333,360.00, leading to a complaint filed against Chan for Malversation of Public Funds.

The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman found probable cause against Chan and recommended filing charges.
Chan filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that part of the shortage should be attributed to Bas, who had acted as Collection Officer during her absence.
The Deputy Ombudsman denied Chan's motion, stating that the audits were complete and thorough.
Chan was indicted for Malversation of Public Funds, with the prosecution alleging she unlawfully appropriated public funds.

Chan filed an Urgent Motion for Reinvestigation, which was denied by the trial court.
During the trial, Chan and Bas made partial remittances, but Chan claimed the remaining balance was Bas's responsibility.
The trial court found Chan guilty of Malversation, sentencing her to imprisonment and ordering her to pay a fine.

Chan appealed the trial court's decision, which was affirmed by the Sandiganbayan.
The Sandiganbayan modified the penalty and found Chan liable for an unremitted balance of P182,812.18.

Chan contended that her right to due process was violated by the denial of a re-audit of her accountabilities.
She cited the case of Tinga v. People, arguing that the denial of a re-audit prevented her from fully defending herself.
Chan also claimed that the audit reports were contrary to law and that she should not be held liable for the collections made by Bas.

The court noted that the burden of proof lies with Chan to demonstrate errors in the audit reports that would warrant a re-audit.
It emphasized that the COA's audit findings are presumed complete and thorough unless proven otherwise.
The court found that the discrepancies cited by Chan were minimal and did not justify a re-audit.

The court held that Chan could still be held liable for the amounts unremitted by Bas, as she had a duty to supervise Bas.
The principle of command responsibility applies, meaning Chan was accountable for the actions of her subordinate.
Chan's failure to report shortages and her involvement in lending public funds to Bas further established her liability.

The court concluded that Chan's actions constituted malversation, as she failed to saf...continue reading