G.R. No. 98000-02 - Penanueva, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan

Case Summary (G.R. No. 98000-02)

Charges and Material Allegations

In Criminal Case No. 12238, petitioner was accused of malversation of public property for allegedly misappropriating, taking, misapplying, embezzling, and converting to his personal use various medicines valued at P5,502.95, taken from the Hospital Supply and Stocks Room through vale (good for) receipts. The information alleged that the act occurred on or about April 19, 1985, within Hinatuan, Surigao del Sur.

In Criminal Cases Nos. 12239 and 12240, petitioner was accused of malversation involving medicines allegedly taken from supplies delivered by Zuellig Pharma Corporation, valued at P9,525.30 (allegedly delivered and taken on or about July 27, 1985) and P10,620.00 (allegedly committed on or about August 18, 1985), each described in the informations as having been taken in the form of vale (good for).

Procedural History and Trial Outcome

At arraignment, petitioner pleaded “not guilty” to each information. After a joint trial, the Sandiganbayan acquitted petitioner in Criminal Case No. 12314 for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019, but found him guilty in the three malversation cases. The Sandiganbayan found the existence of the mitigating circumstance of restitution and imposed penalties and fines as follows: in Criminal Case No. 12238, an indeterminate imprisonment of 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, plus perpetual disqualification, and a fine of P5,502.95; in Criminal Case No. 12239, an indeterminate imprisonment from six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum, plus perpetual disqualification, and a fine of P9,525.30; and in Criminal Case No. 12240, an indeterminate imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day as minimum to ten (10) years and one (1) day as maximum, plus perpetual disqualification, and a fine of P10,620.00. The Sandiganbayan ruled without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and taxed costs against petitioner.

Petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court, maintaining that there was insufficient evidence, particularly regarding Criminal Case No. 12239.

Petitioner’s Theory and Claims on Appeal

Petitioner argued first that there was no evidence to support the charge in Criminal Case No. 12239. He also advanced a broader defense for the malversation cases involving medicines withdrawn through vale receipts. He claimed that borrowing medicines through the “vale” method had been an established practice at the Hinatuan Hospital and other government hospitals. He asserted that the issuance of such receipts showed good faith and indicated his intention to return or replace the medicines.

In addition, petitioner stated that the reason he withdrew the medicines was that their potency had either expired or was about to expire, and he intended to have them replaced. He also suggested that the charges were motivated by an attempt by hospital employees to oust him because of his strictness, and he referenced a petition for his ouster.

Evidence Supporting Criminal Case No. 12239

The Court noted that the prosecution presented evidence sufficient to establish petitioner’s liability in Criminal Case No. 12239. The prosecution presented Juanito Pagalan, the acting supply officer of the Hinatuan District Hospital. Pagalan testified that on July 27, 1985, petitioner directed him to obtain various drugs from the hospital stock. Pagalan delivered the drugs to petitioner and completed a “requisition and issue voucher” identifying the drugs received and their total value of P9,525.30. Pagalan said he then requested petitioner’s signature on the voucher.

Pagalan further executed an affidavit confirming that on July 27, 1985, petitioner received drugs valued at P9,525.30, which were among the medicines previously delivered to the hospital by Zuellig Pharma Corporation. In support, the prosecution submitted multiple exhibits tying the medicines to hospital procurement and the corresponding withdrawal documentation, including Zuellig Pharma Corporation invoices and the requisition and issue vouchers dated July 27, 1985, which reflected the withdrawals attributed to petitioner.

The Court’s Treatment of the “Vale” Defense

The Court rejected petitioner’s contention that the “vale” arrangement proved good faith or reflected a long-standing practice that excused his conduct. It held that the evidence did not support the claim that the practice was established at the Hinatuan Hospital. It emphasized that when Nathaniel Majam, the Administrative Officer, learned that petitioner had taken medicines from hospital stock, he instructed Audiepaz L. Daga-as, the hospital pharmacist, to explain why vouchers signed by petitioner contained the words “vale” or “good for.” Daga-as stated that those words were placed on the vouchers on petitioner’s orders. Majam told her that the method of withdrawing medicines in that manner was against hospital rules and regulations.

The Court further explained that the legality of a “vale” practice could not be invoked to protect accountable public officers. It reasoned that otherwise malversation liability under Art. 217 would be rendered nugatory by the simple expedient of issuing vales, effectively converting what should be penal accountability into a civil matter.

Expiration-or-Replacement Explanation and Rejection of Factual Claims

Petitioner’s claim that he withdrew medicines because they had expired or were about to expire was also denied. The Court pointed out that the Sandiganbayan rejected that explanation after examining the testimony and evidence. It quoted the Sandiganbayan’s reasoning that if the medicines had already expired or were about to expire, that fact should have been indicated in the receipts signed by petitioner for his protection. Instead, the receipts did not mention any expiration. The Court also noted the Sandiganbayan’s inference that there would have been no sense for petitioner to sign vouchers under a “good for” arrangement for medicines that were already expired or about to expire.

The Court treated the Sandiganbayan’s conclusion—that the medicines taken by petitioner had not lost their potency and that petitioner withdrew them for his own benefit—as findings of fact supported by the record. Applying the rule that factual findings supported by evidence cannot be disturbed on appeal, the Court cited Rodriguez v. Sandiganbayan, 177 SCRA 220 (1989).

Petitioner also asserted that upon taking office he found a stock of expired medicines, and he claimed that replacement occurred. To establish replacement, he presented certificates from drug salesmen. The Court held that the prosecution’s rebuttal evidence cast doubt on these certificates. In particular, the prosecution presented a certificate from the Branch Administrator of Zuellig Pharma Corporation attesting that no expired or expiring stocks were returned to Zuellig Pharma Corporation by anyone from the Hinatuan District Hospital for the period April 1985 to December 1985. It also presented a letter from the main office of Metro Drug Inc. instructing an office to investigate why a salesman had issued a replacement-related certificate even though the company had not replaced expired stocks but had only credited customers.

The Court further observed that the certificates petitioner relied upon were dated April 26, 1985 and August 5, 1985. It found it implausible that petitioner, if he possessed these certificates at the time they purportedly were issued, did not submit them to the auditor immediately after the discovery of missing medicines. It also noted that the total value allegedly replaced under the four certificates was substantially less than the value of medicines petitioner obtained, thereby weakening petitioner’s narrative of replacement.

Alleged Motive to Oust and Credibility of the Defense

Petitioner argued that hospital employees had an “ax to grind” against him due to his strictness. The Court did not accept this explanation. It noted that even if the subordinates had a motive to oust him, petitioner did not explain why the petition for his ouster contained signatures of “the members of the almost (sic) entire community of Hinatuan.” The Court added that the Sandiganbayan grounded its verdict on evidence presented during trial, not on the unsubstantiated claim regarding petitioner’s ouster.

Elements of Malversation and Application of Art. 217

The Court affirmed that the prosecution establ

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 98000-02)

The case involved a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court and Section 7, Par. 3, of P.D. No. 1606, assailing a Sandiganbayan decision that found petitioner guilty of malversation under Art. 217 of the Revised Penal Code in Criminal Cases Nos. 12238, 12239, and 12240.
The Sandiganbayan acquitted petitioner in a separate charge for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 in Criminal Case No. 12314.
The Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan decision in toto.

Parties and Procedural Posture

Dr. Inocencio Penanueva, Jr. filed the petition as petitioner.
The adverse parties were the Sandiganbayan and the People of the Philippines as respondents.
The Sandiganbayan imposed distinct penalties in three separate malversation cases, reflecting different monetary values of the public property involved.
The appeal was anchored on petitioner’s claim that there was no evidence supporting Criminal Case No. 12239, and on defenses raised regarding the alleged “vale” practice and the potency and replacement of the medicines.

Key Factual Allegations

Criminal Case No. 12238 charged that on or about April 19, 1985, in Hinatuan, Surigao del Sur, petitioner as Chief of Hospital and an accountable officer misappropriated medicines valued at P5,502.95 in the form of a “vale (Good for)” from the hospital supply and stocks room.
Criminal Case No. 12239 alleged malversation of public property valued at P9,525.30, taken from medicines delivered by Zuellig Pharma Corporation, committed on or about July 27, 1985, also in the form of “vale (Good for)”.
Criminal Case No. 12240 alleged malversation of public property valued at P10,620.00 in the form of “vale (Good for)” committed on or about August 18, 1985.
The informations shared the theme that petitioner, by reason of his position, obtained and handled government medicines through signed vouchers labeled “vale” or “good for.”
The prosecution theory, as accepted by the Sandiganbayan, was that the medicines disappeared from the hospital stock and were not properly accounted for when audited.

Prosecution Evidence Summary

For Criminal Case No. 12239, the prosecution presented Juanito Pagalan, the acting supply officer of the Hinatuan District Hospital.
Pagalan testified that on July 27, 1985, petitioner directed him to get various drugs from hospital stock and that Pagalan delivered the drugs to petitioner.
Pagalan stated that after delivery, he filled up a “requisition and issue voucher” listing the drugs received and asked petitioner to sign it.
Pagalan testified that the voucher reflected prices totaling P9,525.30, and that petitioner signed it.
Pagalan executed an affidavit confirming that on July 27, 1985, petitioner got drugs valued at P9,525.30, which were among medicines earlier delivered to the hospital by Zuellig Pharma Corporation.
The prosecution corroborated the testimony through documents including Exhibit J (Zuellig Pharma Corporation Invoice No. 711747 dated March 23, 1985), Exhibit K (Invoice No. 976365-A dated July 20, 1985), Exhibit L (Requisition and Issue Voucher dated July 27, 1985), Exhibit M (Invoice No. 1151985 dated July 19, 1985), and Exhibit O (Requisition and Issue Voucher dated July 27, 1985).
For the other malversation cases, the evidence established that petitioner had obtained possession of public property in his capacity as chief of a government hospital, and that he could not account for the property when audited.

Defense Contentions

Petitioner claimed that there was no evidence to support the charge in Criminal Case No. 12239.
In Criminal Case No. 12239, petitioner disputed the sufficiency of the evidentiary basis for the alleged value and misappropriation.
For Criminal Cases Nos. 12238 and 12240, petitioner argued that borrowing of medicines by hospital staff and employees through a “vale” receipt was an established practice in the Hinatuan Hospital and in other government hospitals.
Petitioner maintained that the issuance of the vale form evidenced good faith and reflected his promise to return or replace the medicine.
Petitioner further claimed that he withdrew medicines because their potency had either expired or was about to expire.
Petitioner presented certificates from drug salesmen to support that some drugs had been replaced.

Sandiganbayan’s Findings

The Sandiganbayan rejected petitioner’s theory that the “vale” method was established practice justifying his withdrawals as an accountable officer.
The Sandiganbayan found that the vouchers bearing “vale” or “good for” words were placed on the vouchers upon petitioner’s orders.
The Sandiganbayan found that the medicines taken by petitioner had not lost their potency and were still potent and valid at the time of withdrawal.
The Sandiganbayan anchored its conclusion on the lack of any indication in the receipts that the medicines had expired or were about to expire, despite petitioner’s claim to the contrary.
The Sandiganbayan rejected petitioner’s replacement evidence for insufficiency and for the presence of rebuttal evidence creating doubt about the defense.
The Sandiganbayan considered the replacement of some medicines as restitution, and it appreciated restitution as a mitigating circumstance.
The Sandiganbayan concluded that the elements of malversation under Art. 217 were complete.

Ratio and Reasoning

The Court held that petitioner’s clai