Title
Navallo vs. Sandiganbayan
Case
G.R. No. 97214
Decision Date
Jul 18, 1994
Navallo, a school officer, was convicted of malversing P16,483.62 in public funds. Despite claims of duress and predecessor's liability, the Sandiganbayan upheld jurisdiction, dismissed double jeopardy, and affirmed guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 97214)

Key Dates and Procedural Milestones

Information filed with the Court of First Instance of Surigao del Norte: 11 May 1978 (alleged acts on or before 27 January 1978). Presidential Decree No. 1606 took effect: 10 December 1978. Arrest of petitioner: 15 November 1984; release on provisional liberty on bond. Arraignment before the Regional Trial Court (RTC): 18 July 1985. Case transferred to Sandiganbayan: 22 May 1986 (docketed with Sandiganbayan as Criminal Case No. 13696). Arraignment before Sandiganbayan: 20 October 1989. Sandiganbayan conviction and judgment: 8 November 1990. Motion for reconsideration denied: 5 February 1991. Supreme Court disposition: petition dismissed and Sandiganbayan decision affirmed.

Procedural History and Primary Contentions

An information charging malversation was filed in 1978. Warrant(s) of arrest issued; petitioner was not immediately apprehended and was later arrested in 1984. After arraignment at the RTC in 1985, the prosecution sought transfer of the case to the Sandiganbayan pursuant to PD No. 1606. Petitioner moved to quash before the Sandiganbayan, arguing lack of jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan and invoking double jeopardy given his earlier arraignment by the RTC. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion; trial followed and resulted in conviction. Petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court raising four issues: (1) whether the Sandiganbayan acquired jurisdiction despite an earlier information filed with the CFI/RTC; (2) whether double jeopardy attached because of the earlier arraignment by the RTC; (3) whether petitioner was under custodial investigation when he signed the audit certification; and (4) whether the prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Applicable Law on Jurisdiction and Case Transfer

PD No. 1606, Section 4, vests the Sandiganbayan with jurisdiction over crimes committed by public officers embraced in Title VII of the Revised Penal Code, including malversation; Section 8 provides that, as of the decree’s effectivity, any case cognizable by the Sandiganbayan where none of the accused has been arraigned shall be transferred to the Sandiganbayan. Because malversation under Article 217, paragraph 4, is within Title VII, the case fell squarely within the Sandiganbayan’s cognizance. The decisive temporal point under PD No. 1606 is whether any accused had been arraigned as of the decree’s effectivity (10 December 1978); if not, transfer to the Sandiganbayan is mandatory.

Court’s Jurisdictional Ruling

The Supreme Court concluded that the Sandiganbayan properly acquired jurisdiction. PD No. 1606 had been in effect long before petitioner’s arraignment before the RTC in July 1985; therefore the RTC lacked jurisdiction to try offenses falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. The statutory scheme required transfer of cases not yet arraigned as of PD 1606’s effectivity to the Sandiganbayan; petitioner’s subsequent arraignment before the RTC did not validly vest the RTC with jurisdiction over the offense.

Double Jeopardy Analysis

Double jeopardy under Rule 117, Section 7, requires: (1) a prior formal charge sufficient in form and substance; (2) before a court that has jurisdiction; (3) arraignment and plea; and (4) termination of the case by conviction, acquittal, or dismissal without the accused’s consent. The Court found the double jeopardy claim unsustainable because the RTC did not have jurisdiction when it conducted the 1985 arraignment — jurisdiction over the offense had already been conferred on the Sandiganbayan by PD No. 1606 — and because the prior proceedings before the RTC did not terminate in conviction, acquittal, or dismissal. Consequently, the requisites for double jeopardy were not met and the prosecution before the Sandiganbayan did not constitute double jeopardy.

Constitutional Right Against Self-Incrimination and Custodial Investigation

Petitioner invoked Section 12, Article III of the 1987 Constitution (right to remain silent and to counsel) and asserted he was under custodial investigation when he signed the audit certification. The Court applied established principles: rights under Section 12(1) are invoked only when a person is under custodial investigation — defined as questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of freedom of action in any significant way. A routine audit examination, and questioning by an auditor, does not amount to custodial investigation; an audit examiner is not the law enforcement official contemplated by the custodial-investigation standard. The Court further examined petitioner’s testimony and found that any signing was the product of persuasion by a superior (Macasemo) rather than coercion by the auditor; petitioner’s own statements belied a claim of custodial compulsion. Thus constitutional protections against compelled confessions were not triggered in the circumstances of the audit and the certification.

Evidentiary Presumption under Article 217 and Sufficiency of Proof

Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code contains a statutory presumption: the failure of an accountable public officer to produce public funds or property upon demand is prima facie evidence that such funds or property were put to personal use. The prosecution’s evidence consisted of a preliminary and final audit showing a shortage of P16,483.62 for the period July 1976 to January 1978, a demand letter for restitution that went unanswered, and the loss or damage of some original records due to a typhoon. The trial court (Sandiganbayan) found petitioner’s de

...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.

About Privacy Terms