Title
People vs. Suba
Case
G.R. No. 249945
Decision Date
Jun 23, 2021
Public officer Antonio Suba convicted for failing to liquidate P132,978.68 in cash advances within 60 days, fined P6,000.00 after appeal.
failure to render accounts
public funds
fine
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 169193)

Factual Background

The Information alleged that in or around March 2007, in or around Pasay City, Suba, described as a high-ranking public officer and accountable for public funds received by reason of office, failed to render accounts totaling P132,978.68. The amount represented cash advances received in connection with his travel from October 10 to 14, 2006 to Beijing, China, broken down as plane fare and hotel accommodation (P108,500.00), per diems and allowances (US$ 458.40 or P22,978.68), and pre-travel expenses (P1,500.00).

The prosecution explained that in September 2006, PADC President Col. Roberto R. Navida informed Suba that they would attend the 4th Biennial International Aircraft Conversion & Maintenance Conference in Beijing, China from October 11 to 14, 2006. Navida instructed Suba to secure cash advances. Suba prepared the Request for Cash Advance and related forms. A total cash advance of P241,478.68 was approved by Navida as reflected in Disbursement Vouchers Nos. 01-06-10-017, 01-06-10-024, and 01-06-10-018, all dated October 6, 2006.

The cash advances were released despite the absence of the Comptroller’s signature on Box A. The breakdown showed that Suba received cash advances for per diems and allowances (US$ 458.40 or approximately P22,970.68), and pre-travel expenses (approximately P1,500.00), while the larger portion for plane fare and hotel accommodation was in Navida’s and Suba’s names. The P217,000.00 cash advance portion was issued in Suba’s name by instruction of Navida, and a check issued in Suba’s name was encashed by Corazon T. Aguinaldo, who paid Tour Spectrum Inc. for airline tickets and hotel accommodations.

Tour Spectrum Inc. later issued a Statement of Account and Official Receipt reflecting the purchase of tickets and hotel accommodation for Navida and Suba, with a documented breakdown for hotel accommodation and airfare, including taxes and travel tax. Navida, through a letter dated September 15, 2006, requested approval from the DOTC Secretary, but the request was not acted upon. Despite the absence of the required Travel Authority, Navida approved the cash advances and Navida and Suba proceeded with the conference.

Subsequently, on June 29, 2007, COA through State Auditor IV Arsenio S. Rayos, Jr. issued Notice of Suspension (NS) No. 2007-001-(2006) suspending the cash advances for lack of requirements necessary for proper liquidation. On August 22, 2007, Suba submitted a Memorandum indicating liquidation of the cash advances and explaining that the delay resulted from the absence of the Travel Authority from the DOTC Secretary. He claimed that he submitted the required documents except the Travel Authority and itinerary, and he alleged that Navida and Aguinaldo informed him that the DOTC Secretary gave verbal approval before departure, later followed by disapproval.

On March 17, 2008, PADC received Notice of Disallowance (ND) No. 2008-001-(2006) disallowing expenses for the Beijing trip due to lack of approved authority to travel and itinerary. Suba was directed to settle the cash advance made in his name, totaling P241,478.68. After denial of his motion for reconsideration, COA issued a Notice of Finality of Decision and an Order of Execution directing withholding of salaries to satisfy the liability under the disallowance.

On November 2, 2011, the Office of the Ombudsman lodged a complaint against Navida, Suba, Lazaro, Aguinaldo, and Broas. It recommended, among others, that Suba and Broas be administratively charged for Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. On July 24, 2014, the Ombudsman found probable cause to charge Navida and Suba for violation of Article 218. Informations were filed before the Sandiganbayan, and both pleaded not guilty. Trial proceeded only as to Suba after Navida died in 2016, causing dismissal of the case against him.

Trial and Sandiganbayan Proceedings

The Sandiganbayan conducted trial on the merits and, on July 31, 2019, convicted Suba of violation of Article 218 of the RPC. The conviction rested on the Sandiganbayan’s finding that all elements of the offense were established. The Sandiganbayan held that Suba, as Treasurer and recipient of a cash advance for official foreign travel, was an accountable officer, and that Executive Order No. 298 and COA Circular No. 96-004 required liquidation within the prescribed period. It emphasized that for foreign travel, liquidation must be done within sixty (60) days after return.

The Sandiganbayan rejected the defense that settlement of the disallowed cash advances later—evidenced by COA’s Notice of Settlement—automatically negated criminal liability. It distinguished between liquidation and payment, explaining that liquidation involves ascertaining the balance and determining the appropriate disposition of the account, not merely paying the disallowed amount.

As to Suba’s defenses of presumption of regularity and good faith, the Sandiganbayan found them unavailing. It concluded that Suba’s gross negligence, amounting to bad faith, resulted in illegal disbursement of public funds because Suba knew of the absence of the Travel Authority yet still requested for and obtained the cash advance. The Sandiganbayan found shifting blame to Navida futile.

The Sandiganbayan appreciated voluntary surrender and return or full restitution as mitigating circumstances and, absent aggravating circumstances, imposed imprisonment of four (4) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor, with accessory penalties under Article 44 of the RPC.

The Parties' Contentions on Appeal

On appeal, Suba argued that the Sandiganbayan erred in denying admission of certain documentary exhibits while admitting the prosecution’s evidence. He also contended that the prosecution failed to prove the second, third, and fourth elements of Article 218.

First, Suba maintained he was not an accountable officer because Navida, as head of the agency, approved the transactions through disbursement vouchers and related documents, and because the comptroller or disbursing officer, Josephina Cabangangan, should be treated as an accountable officer given her role in preparing disbursement documents and allowing the release of cash advances despite the absence of the Travel Authority.

Second, Suba argued that the element of failure to render accounts was lacking because the foreign travel was not a “ghost” transaction. He asserted that the expenses were officially undertaken and supported by evidence. He claimed that he submitted all required documents except the Travel Authority, and he further argued that travel was authorized through approvals and inclusion of the foreign trip in the agency budget.

Third, he argued that the Sandiganbayan’s decision was void for failing to make a clear and concise pronouncement regarding his extent of participation and civil liability. He further argued that the Information failed to state the exact date of the offense, violating his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.

The Office of the Solicitor General manifested that it would no longer file a supplemental brief.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Supreme Court reiterated that conviction under Article 218 requires proof beyond reasonable doubt of four elements: (one) the offender is a public officer; (two) the offender is an accountable officer for public funds or property; (three) the offender is required by law or regulation to render accounts to the COA or a provincial auditor; and (four) the offender fails to do so for a period of two months after such account should have been rendered.

On the first element, the Court found it undisputed that Suba was a public officer as Treasurer/acting vice-president for operations of PADC, which operated as a GOCC under the relevant government supervision.

On the second and third elements, the Court held that Suba was an accountable officer and that law and regulation required him to render accounts. The decision observed that Article 218 did not provide a definition of “accountable officer,” but the Court relied on jurisprudence and COA rules. It cited Manlangit v. Sandiganbayan and Lumauig v. People to support the principle that officials who receive public funds through cash advances are accountable officers for purposes of Article 218, even when their liability involves failure to liquidate as required by COA circulars.

The Court anchored its analysis on COA Circular No. 90-331, as amended by COA Circular No. 97-002, which governed the granting, utilization, and liquidation of cash advances. It quoted the rule that accountable officers must liquidate cash advances, and it highlighted that official travel required liquidation within sixty (60) days after return to the Philippines in the case of foreign travel. It further referenced a later COA circular definition of accountable officer as the public officer or employee who receives government money which he is bound to later account for, with transfer or retirement not discharging coverage for unliquidated advances.

Applying these rules, the Court found that Suba received public funds through cash advances for the Beijing trip and was bound to later account for them. It treated Suba’s status as an accountable officer as established not only by his position but also by his receipt and handling of the cash advance intended for official travel.

On the fourth element, the Court held that the prosecution proved failure to render accounts within the legally required period. The decision referred to Executive Order No. 298, particularly Section 16, which required that within sixty (60) days after return in case of official travel abroad, every official or employee must render an account of the cash advance received, with suspension of salary payment for noncompliance. The Court also cited COA Circular No. 96-004, specifically provisions on liquidation, requiring liquidation strictly within sixty days an

...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