Case Summary (G.R. No. 237246)
Facts of Non-Remittance
From January 1997 to January 2004, the Municipal Government of Sto. Tomas failed to remit mandatory GSIS premium contributions totaling ₱22,436,546.10. Despite billing statements and demand notices issued by GSIS, no full remittance occurred within thirty days of becoming due. The municipal treasurer and accountant oversaw payroll deductions, but payments were not forwarded to GSIS.
Procedural History
Criminal Case No. SB-11-CRM-0120 was tried before the Sandiganbayan. Co-accused Guiyab’s case was dismissed upon his death; Galasinao was acquitted on reasonable doubt. On March 15, 2019, the Sandiganbayan convicted Talaue of violating Section 52(g) in relation to Section 6(b) of Republic Act No. 8291, imposing an indeterminate sentence of three to five years’ imprisonment, a ₱20,000 fine, and perpetual absolute disqualification from public office. Talaue appealed to the Supreme Court.
Appellant’s Defense
Talaue acknowledged mayoral terms only during parts of the period and cited a ₱5 million budget reduction by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), allegedly due to computation errors. He claimed to have orally instructed the treasurer to inquire with DBM, reconcile accounts with GSIS, and arrange payments. He relied on a 2008 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) treating the obligation as a civil loan rather than unpaid contributions and noted partial payments made during civil litigation.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article VIII, Section 5(5) (rule-making power of the Supreme Court)
• Republic Act No. 8291 (GSIS Act of 1997):
– Section 6(b): Employer must remit both employer and employee contributions to GSIS within ten days of the following month.
– Section 52(g): Penalizes heads of offices and personnel who fail, refuse, or delay such remittance within thirty days, with imprisonment of one to five years, a ₱10,000–₱20,000 fine, and perpetual disqualification.
Issues on Appeal
- Whether the Supreme Court’s 2018 Revised Internal Rules correctly govern the mode of appeal.
- Whether Talaue incurred criminal liability as head of office under RA 8291.
- Whether the offense required proof of criminal intent.
- Whether the appellant’s efforts and the MOA negated criminal liability.
- Whether the reliance-on-subordinates doctrine (Arias) applied.
Mode of Appeal Under 2018 Rules
The Court held that for criminal cases decided by the Sandiganbayan in its original jurisdiction, appeal to the Supreme Court lies by notice of appeal filed with the Sandiganbayan under the 2018 Revised Internal Rules, superseding P.D. 1606 and its amendments. Talaue’s appeal via notice of appeal was therefore proper.
Liability as Head of Office
As Municipal Mayor, Talaue was the “head of office” responsible for remitting GSIS contributions. By including heads of offices in Section 52(g), Congress intended to ensure accountability and preserve GSIS solvency. His failure to remit within thirty days constituted a willful omission of a statutory duty.
Intent Requirement for Malum Prohibitum Offense
Violation of Section 52(g) is malum prohibitum; the State need only prove that the act of failure, refusal, or delay was done intentionally and without lawful cause. Criminal intent to harm is not required, but the prohibited act must be committed freely and consciously.
Assessment of Appellant’s Conduct
Talaue’s testimony revealed oral instructions and reliance on the treasurer despite repeated non-remittance spanning years. He offered no written directives, no evidence of follow-up, and no administrative action against the treasurer. The alleged DBM budget reduction did not excuse failure to remit, nor did it prevent allocation of remaining funds. His conduct demonstrated nonchalance and an absence of justifiable cause.
Inapplicability of the MOA to Criminal Liability
The 2008 MOA restructured the municipality’s civil obligation but did
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 237246)
Procedural History
- The Sandiganbayan, First Division, in Criminal Case No. SB-11-CRM-0120, found accused-appellant Antonio M. Talaue guilty of violation of Section 52(g) in relation to Section 6(b) of R.A. No. 8291.
- Co-accused Guiyab’s case was dismissed upon his death. Accused Galasinao was acquitted on reasonable doubt.
- Talaue was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 3 to 5 years imprisonment, a ₱20,000 fine, and absolute perpetual disqualification from public office.
- Talaue filed a notice of appeal with the Sandiganbayan, challenging the conviction on issues of mens rea, intent, head-of-office liability, and constitutional validity of the accessory penalty.
- The People argued incorrect mode of appeal and lapse of the appeal period; alternatively, they defended the conviction on its merits.
- The Supreme Court resolved the appeal in G.R. No. 248652, promulgated January 12, 2021.
Facts and Charge
- Talaue served as Municipal Mayor of Sto. Tomas, Isabela (Jan 1997–Jun 1998; Jun 2001–Jan 2004).
- Together with Municipal Treasurer Guiyab and Accountant Galasinao, he was charged for willful failure to remit ₱22,436,546.10 in GSIS contributions for municipal employees (Jan 1997–Jan 2004) within 30 days from demand.
- The charge cited violation of Section 52(g) (penalty provision) in relation to Section 6(b) (remittance requirement) of R.A. 8291 (GSIS Act of 1997).
Prosecution Evidence
- Araceli A. Santos, GSIS Branch Manager, testified via judicial affidavit and at trial:
- Obtained municipality’s Statement of Account and past-due notices (2005–2016) under subpoena.
- Confirmed arrearage of ₱22,436,546.10 inclusive of interest, based on documents and a 2008 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with Sto. Tomas.
- Identified legal obligation of head of office, treasurer, and accountant to remit contributions.
- Noted that demand letters and notices were addressed to the municipality through the Mayor.
Defense Evidence – Galasinao
- Florante A. Galasinao (Municipal Accountant and Acting Treasurer, 1993–2017) testified:
- His duties limited to computing deductions, preparing disbursement vouchers, and endorsing to Treasurer; no duty to effect payment.
- Records of remittance documents lost in Typhoon Jack (Oct 2010).
- Referred to MOA provisions: Article 5.1 restructured obligation as “loan,” not unpaid contribution; Article 6.4 superseded prior communications.
- Admitted deductions were not remitted but claimed lack of mandate to remit and absence of documentation.
- He was acquitted for reasonable doubt.
Defense Evidence – Talaue
- In his June 27, 2018 judicial affidavit and trial testimony, Talaue claimed:
- Budget for 1997 decreased by ₱5M, allegedly due to DBM withholding errors; he instructed inquiries with DBM and follow-up to correct irregularities.
- Ordered Municipal Treasurer to arrange payment of GSIS contributions from 1997 onward and to reconcile records.
- Upon reelection (2001–2004), found no arrangements; reiterated instructions to treasurer to settle and reconcile obligations.
- GSIS sued the municipality in 2006; he then instructed partial payments, producing Official Receipts (₱1M on Aug 28, 2007; ₱1M on Oct 11, 2007; ₱850K on Nov 1