G.R. No. 166680 - Lumauig vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 166680)

Procedural History

Two consolidated criminal prosecutions followed the same set of facts: (1) Criminal Case No. 26527 for alleged misuse of the cash advance under Section 3 of RA 3019 (anti-graft), and (2) Criminal Case No. 26528 for violation of Article 218, RPC (failure to render accounts). After a joint trial, the Sandiganbayan acquitted petitioner in the anti-graft case (No. 26527) but convicted him under Article 218 (No. 26528), sentencing him to six months and one day prision correccional and a P1,000 fine. Reconsideration was denied, and petitioner sought review.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether petitioner’s acquittal for the anti-graft charge bars his conviction under Article 218 for failure to render accounts.
Whether prior demand or notice to liquidate is a required element of the offense under Article 218.
Application of COA liquidation rules (COA Circular No. 90-331) to determine the due date for liquidation and whether petitioner’s late settlement constituted the offense.
Proper penalty considering mitigating circumstances (voluntary surrender and restitution).

Court’s Analysis on Separate Offenses and Effect of Acquittal

The Court confirmed that a single act may give rise to distinct criminal offenses when the elements differ. It set out the elements of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 and Article 218, RPC, and emphasized the material differences: RA 3019 requires proof of undue injury, unwarranted benefits, manifest partiality, bad faith, or gross negligence; Article 218 requires only that the accused be an accountable public officer required by law/regulation to render accounts and fail to do so for two months after such accounts should be rendered. Because the elements and requisite proof differ, petitioner’s acquittal under RA 3019 did not preclude conviction under Article 218.

Elements of Article 218 and Requirement of Demand

The Court reiterated Article 218’s elements: (1) public officer, (2) accountable officer for public funds or property, (3) required by law/regulation to render accounts to COA or provincial auditor, and (4) failure to render such accounts for two months after they should be rendered. The Court held that Article 218 contains no express requirement of prior demand for liquidation; where the statute is clear and unambiguous, courts must apply it as written and must not engraft additional conditions. The Court relied on Manlangit v. Sandiganbayan in holding that prior demand is not a prerequisite to conviction under Article 218. The distinction from United States v. Saberon (Act No. 1740) was noted: Saberon involved a different statute that required demand; Article 218 does not.

Application of COA Circular No. 90-331 and Liquidation Timeline

COA Circular No. 90-331 governed liquidation of cash advances at the time. Under Section 5.1.2, petty and field operating expenses were to be liquidated within 20 days after the end of the year, subject to replenishment during the year. Because petitioner received the advance in 1994, liquidations were due on or before January 20, 1995; allowing the two-month period specified in Article 218, liability would attach if not liquidated by March 20, 1995. Petitioner’s actual liquidation occurred on June 4, 2001 — over six years later — thereby satisfying the temporal element of Article 218.

Sentencing, Mitigating Circumstances, and Modification

The Court found two mitigating circumstances: (1) voluntary surrender (petitioner voluntarily surrendered and posted cash bail on June 1, 2001), and (2) return or full restitution of the unliquidated funds (the payment on June 4, 2001). The Court treated restitution as analogous to voluntary surrender and thus as a mitigating circumstance. Under Article 64(5) of the Revised Penal Code, two or mo

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 166680)

Court and Citation

Decision of the Supreme Court, Second Division, published at 738 Phil. 405, G.R. No. 166680, dated July 07, 2014.
Opinion penned by Justice Del Castillo; concurrence by Carpio (Chairperson), Brion, Perez, and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ.
Petition for Review on Certiorari filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court from the Sandiganbayan Decision of September 10, 2004 in Criminal Case No. 26528 and the Sandiganbayan Resolution of January 11, 2005 denying reconsideration.

Parties and Role

Petitioner: Aloysius Dait Lumauig, former Municipal Mayor of Alfonso Lista, Ifugao.
Respondent: People of the Philippines.
Related proceedings: A separate Information for violation of Section 3 of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) docketed as Criminal Case No. 26527 was tried jointly with Criminal Case No. 26528; petitioner was acquitted in the anti-graft case (Crim. Case No. 26527) and convicted in Crim. Case No. 26528.

Accusation / Information (Criminal Case No. 26528)

Accusatory portion alleges that in or about August 1994 or immediately prior or subsequent thereto, in Alfonso Lista, Ifugao, petitioner as Municipal Mayor and accountable public officer received by way of cash advance P101,736.00 for payment of insurance coverage of twelve (12) motorcycles purchased by the Municipality and willfully and feloniously failed to liquidate and account for the same, to the damage and prejudice of the Government.
Information dated January 25, 2001.

Undisputed and Stipulated Facts

Petitioner admitted obtaining a cash advance of P101,736.00 during his incumbency as municipal mayor for payment of freight and insurance of 12 motorcycles donated by the City of Manila (Joint Stipulation of Facts).
Instead of 12 motorcycles, petitioner received two buses and five patrol cars for the municipality.
Petitioner admitted he did not settle or liquidate the cash advance until June 4, 2001, when he paid the P101,736.00 to the municipal treasurer while claiming separation pay.
Commission on Audit (COA) Auditor Florence L. Paguirigan, during a year-end examination in January 1998, discovered a disbursement voucher for P101,736.00 prepared for petitioner, covered by Land Bank Check No. 11894200 dated August 29, 1994, payee petitioner.
COA examination revealed no payment to Royal Cargo Agencies for August 1994; COA issued a certification to this effect on November 29, 2001.
COA auditor prepared two letters to inform petitioner of unliquidated cash advance but did not send them because she could not get petitioner’s exact address despite efforts.
On June 4, 2001 petitioner paid the subject cash advance before the municipal treasurer; incumbent Mayor Glenn D. Prudenciano executed an Affidavit of Desistance.
Petitioner voluntarily surrendered and posted his cash bail bond on June 1, 2001.

Evidence and Record Exhibits

Disbursement voucher for P101,736.00 (Exhibit “A”, Sandiganbayan records, p.171).
Land Bank Check No. 11894200 dated August 29, 1994, payee petitioner (Exhibit “D”, id. at 174).
COA certification dated November 29, 2001 regarding non-payment to Royal Cargo Agencies (Exhibit “B”, id. at 172).
Affidavit of Desistance executed by incumbent Mayor Glenn D. Prudenciano (Sandiganbayan records, p.65).
Joint Stipulation of Facts (Sandiganbayan records, p.115-A).

Procedural History and Lower Court Disposition

Joint trial of Criminal Case Nos. 26527 (RA 3019) and 26528 (Article 218).
Sandiganbayan Decision dated September 10, 2004: In Crim. Case No. 26527, petitioner ACQUITTED; in Crim. Case No. 26528, petitioner CONVICTED of Failure of Accountable Officer to Render Accounts under Article 218, sentenced to straight penalty of six months and one (1) day and a fine of P1,000.00; cash bond ordered returned in Crim. Case No. 26527.
Sandiganbayan Resolution dated January 11, 2005 denied petitioner’s Urgent Motion for Reconsideration.
Petition for Review on Certiorari filed before the Supreme Court challenging conviction and sentence in Crim. Case No. 26528.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

Whether prior demand or notice to liquidate is a condition sine qua non before an accountable public officer may be held liable under Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code.
Whether petitioner’s acquittal in the anti-graft case (RA 3019) bars his conviction under Article 218 for failure to render accounts, given both cases involve the same subject cash advance.
Whether petitioner’s late payment and asserted lack of prior notice mitigate the penalty or otherwise absolve liability under Article 218.

Applicable Law and Legal Elements

Article 218, Revised Penal Code: Elements summarized by the Court:
- (1) The offender is a public officer (in service or separated therefrom);
- (2) He must be an accountable officer for public funds or property;
- (3) He is required by law or regulation to render accounts to the Commission on Audit or to a provincial auditor; and
- (4) He fails to render such accounts for a period of two months after such accounts should be rendered.
- Punishment under Article 218: prision correccional in its minimum period, or a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both.
Elements of Section 3(e), RA 3019 (Anti-Graft): As summarized by the Court:
- (1) Accused is a public officer or a private person in conspiracy;
- (2) The prohibited acts are committed during performance of official duties or in relation to public position;
- (3) Undue injury caused to any party (government or private);
- (4) Injury caused by giving unwarranted benefits, advantages, or preference;
- (5) Public officer acted with manifest partiali