Case Summary (G.R. No. 103584)
Facts of the Case
In February 1982, Tanggote received cash advances totaling P32,424.00 from Hadji Abad Sangbaan, the Municipal Treasurer. These funds were earmarked for the repair of the town's municipal building and public market, as well as the construction of a municipal stage. Tanggote was charged with malversation under Article 217(4) of the Revised Penal Code, alleged to have misappropriated these funds for personal use.
Judicial Proceedings
Tanggote was arraigned on August 7, 1990, and he pleaded not guilty. Following a trial, the Sandiganbayan found him guilty on November 27, 1991. The court imposed an indeterminate sentence ranging from twelve years and five months to eighteen years and eight months of reclusion temporal, along with perpetual special disqualification, a fine equal to the amount of misappropriated funds, and an order for restitution to the government.
Motion for Reconsideration
The motion for reconsideration filed by Tanggote was denied by the Sandiganbayan on January 22, 1992. In his petition for review, Tanggote contended that the judgment was inconsistent with the evidence presented and was based on mere inferences.
Legal Framework of Malversation
The Revised Penal Code defines malversation as the act of a public officer misappropriating funds or property for personal use. Importantly, the failure of an officer to account for missing funds upon demand is considered prima facie evidence of their personal use. Tanggote's receipt of the cash advances was undisputed, focusing the legal inquiry on whether the funds were appropriately utilized for the intended municipal projects.
Evidence and Evaluation
During the trial, conflicting testimonies were presented regarding the execution of the projects funded by the cash advances. Prosecution witnesses testified that no work was done, while the defense claimed otherwise. The Sandiganbayan, tasked with assessing the credibility of the witnesses, ultimately favored the prosecution's evidence.
Findings of the Sandiganbayan
The Sandiganbayan noted inconsistencies in the defense's account regarding the expenses incurred and the receipts provided. Key documentary evidence was deemed inadmissible, as the dates on the receipts were found to be fabricated. The lack of corroborating evidence from material suppliers further undermined Tanggote's defense.
Conclusion on Credibility
The Supreme Court reiterated that the trial court is best positioned to determine the credibility of witnesses, stressing the importance of evaluating firsthand testimonies. Since substantial evidence supported the trial court's verdict, the Supreme Court found no valid basis to overturn the Sandiganbayan's decision.
Accoun
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 103584)
Case Overview
- This case involves a petition for review on certiorari filed by Subo Tanggote against the Sandiganbayan's decision dated 27 November 1991, which convicted him of malversation of public funds under Article 217(4) of the Revised Penal Code.
- The conviction arises from cash advances totaling P32,424.00 that Tanggote received as the Municipal Mayor of Poonapiagapo, Lanao del Norte, for municipal building repairs and construction projects.
- The case highlights issues of credibility of witnesses, evidentiary conflicts, and the definition and parameters of malversation under Philippine law.
Background of the Case
- On 23 and 28 February 1982, Tanggote received cash advances of P17,424.00 and P15,000.00 from the Municipal Treasurer, Hadji Abad Sangbaan.
- The funds were intended for the repair of the municipal building, the public market, and the construction of a municipal stage.
- Tanggote was accused of misappropriating these funds for personal use, leading to the filing of a criminal information charging him with malversation of public funds.
Proceedings and Judgment
- Tanggote was arraigned on 07 August 1990, where he pleaded not guilty to the charges.
- The Sandiganbayan rendered its judgment on 27 November 1991, finding Tanggote guilty beyond reasonable doubt and imposing an indeterminate sentence ranging from twelve years and five months to eighteen years and eight months of reclusion temporal, perpetual special disqualification, and a fine equal to the amount misappropriated.
- Tanggote's motion for reconsideration wa