FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 198119, September 27, 2017
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. SANDIGANBAYAN AND JUAN1 ROBERTO L. ABLING, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
This Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court,2 as amended, assails the Decision3 dated June 16, 2011 of public respondent Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 22987, entitled "People of the Philippines v. Juan Roberto Abling y Loyola," acquitting herein private respondent Juan Roberto L. Abling (Abling) of the crime of malversation of public funds defined and penalized under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code.
In an Information dated August 4, 1995, private respondent Abling was charged as follows:
That for the period from January 22, 1986 to February 4, 1986 or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in Pasig, Metro-Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, J. Roberto L. Abling, a public officer, being then the Executive Director of the Economic Support Fund Secretariat, Office of the President of the Philippines and as such accountable for public funds received and/or entrusted to him by reason of his office, acting in relation to his office and taking advantage of the same, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, misappropriate and convert to his personal use and benefit the amount of P22,000,000.00 from such public funds received by him by reason of his office to the damage of the government in the amount aforestated.4The facts leading to the filing of the Information are:
1. The proceeds of the Economic Support Fund (ESF) made available to the Philippine Government under the Military Bases Agreement, as amended, shall be allocated and utilized for priority development programs and projects of the government particularly the Bagong Lipunan Sites and Services Program, subject to the approval of the President pursuant to Section 14, General Provisions of the General Appropriations Act of 1980.Subsequent thereto, through LOI No. 1434 dated October 26, 1984 entitled "Amending Letter of Instructions No. 1030 and Providing for the Reconstitution of the Management Advisory Committee," President Marcos reorganized5 and renamed the Management Advisory Committee into the "Economic Support Fund (ESF) Council" and placed the same directly under his office. Further, the ESF Secretariat (ESFS) was constituted, to be headed by an Executive Director. Under LOI No. 1434, the Executive Director had the following powers and responsibilities, viz.:
2. The ESF proceeds shall be treated as a Special Account on the Treasury of the Philippines provided that pertinent provisions of P.D. No. 1177 (Sections 40, 50 and 51) and LOI 981 shall not apply.
3. There is hereby created a Management Advisory Committee (MAC) with the Minister of Human Settlements, as Chairperson, and with the Minister of Defense, Minister of Industry, Minister of Budget, Minister of Public Works, Minister of Education and Culture, Minister of Economic Planning and Minister of Agriculture as members, to advise the President on the allocation and utilization of the ESF. For this purpose the MHS shall serve as the Secretariat to the MAC.
4. The Management Advisory Committee shall(a) determine the eligible development programs and projects of the Government that may avail of the ESF;
(b) program the allocation of the ESF among the priority programs and projects;
(c) represent the Philippine Government in dealing with USAID or any instrumentalities of the USA dutifully authorized to handle ESF issues;
(d) submit to the President of the Philippines for final approval the utilization plan of the ESF;
(e) prepare and submit to the Minister of the Budget the Philippine Government counterpart requirements .to implement the programs/projects for approval by the President; and
(f) submit regular accomplishment reports to the President of the Philippines.
a) Upon clearance with the President and the Council, issue rules and regulations as may be necessary to implement the provisions of this LOI.In 1983, President Marcos appointed private respondent Abling as Executive Director of the ESFS.6
b) Reorganize the Secretariat directly under the ESF Council as a critical technical support staff of the Council and establish such working relationships with the National Economic and Development Authority and the Office of the Philippine Ambassador to the United States for purposes of coordinating and integrating U.S. foreign assistance program.
c) Approved the organizational and staffing structure and appoint the personnel of the Secretariat subject to confirmation of the Council.
d) Submit for the review and approval of the ESF Council program plans for the utilization of ESF allocations.
e) Undertake and conduct economic and financial studies for the effective and expanded utilization of the ESF to support priority basic needs programs and projects of the government.
f) Report directly to the Chairman of the Council and/or the President on all ESF matters requiring immediate action.
a) Joint Circular No. 1-85 dated September 19, 1985 of the Commission on Audit and the ESF Secretariat, prescribing procedures on the release and utilization of the funds as administered by the ESF Council and the ESF Secretariat, including the accounting treatment thereof, pursuant to Letter of Instructions No. 1379 dated February 5, 1984, including subsequent amendments or issuances related thereto, shall be strictly complied with.In Joint Circular No. 1-85,7 the Commission on Audit (COA) and ESFS established the guidelines and procedures on the release and utilization of amounts from the Fund, e.g., all disbursements must be covered by duly approved vouchers in accordance with existing auditing and accounting regulations and supported by the required documents.8 In turn, COA Circular No. 76-179 required all disbursements of national security, intelligence, and confidential funds to be supported by duly accomplished disbursement vouchers and receipts, bills, or commercial invoices of creditors.
b) The interest earnings of ESF proceeds in a Special Account of the Bureau of Treasury shall be utilized as follows: (1) Sixty (60%) percent of the total interest earnings to additionally fund the implementation of ESF projects, including newly identified projects, variation orders and price escalations, in accordance with such criteria as may be approved by the ESF Council, provided that such projects shall be approved by the President prior to their implementation; (2) Forty (40%) percent to support the operations of the ESF Secretariat, including personnel maintenance and operating expenditures insurance premiums and other contingency requirements of completed ESF projects.
c) The National Treasurer of the Philippines shall submit to the President, through the ESF Secretariat, a periodic report on all ESF remittances, including the total amount representing the actual interest earnings of ESF proceeds.
Private respondent Abling testified that President Marcos signed the memoranda. When the documents were shown to him, he identified the signatures appearing with the word "Approved" as those belonging to President Marcos.23
ATTY. MAURICIO: Q Mr. Witness, the last time you testified in this Honorable Court, specifically on July 8, 2004, you said that you delivered to then President Ferdinand Marcos the amount of twenty-two million pesos (P22,000,000.00) pesos. WITNESS: A Yes, Sir. ATTY. MAURICIO: Q My question is: Do you have any proof that you delivered such amount to then President Ferdinand Marcos? WITNESS: A Yes, Sir. ATTY. MAURICIO: Q What proof do you have? WITNESS: A The... the amounts we delivered in separate... in three separate occasions, Your Honor, are total twenty million. And (each] time I delivered, I draft a memorandum showing that or for the President accepting the payment. This draft memorandum [was] left [on] the President's table. And after the... after I have delivered to him the twenty million, I was wondering why the memorandum is not... is not... signed. In other words, it's not been signed. x x x x ATTY. MAURICIO: We will ask another question. Q Witness... Mr. Witness, you said that you wrote a memorandum to the... to then President Ferdinand Marcos. WITNESS: A Yes, Sir. ATTY. MAURICIO: Q If shown to you a copy of that memorandum, would you be able to identify the same? WITNESS: A Yes, Sir. ATTY. MAURICIO: Q I have here three (3) memorand(a] written (on] the stationery of the Economic Support... Support Fund Council, the Secretariat, ["]Memorandum for the President, Subject: Confidential Fund from one Jose Roberto L. Abling["] Would you go over (these] memorand[a] and tell the Honorable Court if those are the memorand[a] you said you wrote the President? WITNESS: A Yes, Sir.22
WHEREFORE, for failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the accused, Juan Roberto Abling, is hereby ACQUITTED of the offense charged.Public respondent Sandiganbayan held that the first three elements of the crime of malversation as defined under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code were present, viz.: (a) private respondent Abling, as the ESFS Executive Director, was a public officer at the time of the commission of the crime; (b) by reason of his position, he was in custody and control of ESFS's principal fund and interest earnings; and (c) these funds were public funds and private respondent Abling was accountable for it.25 As such, only the presence of the last element-that private respondent Abling converted the funds to personal use-was at issue.
The cash bond posted by the accused to secure his provisional liberty is hereby ordered returned to him, subject to the usual accounting and auditing procedures.
The Hold Departure Order issued by this Court against the accused dated 10 October 1995 is lifted and set aside.24
PUBLIC RESPONDENTS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN THEY ACCEPTED THE DEFENSE OF ABLING THAT HE FORWARDED THE FUNDS TO PRESIDENT MARCOS AS BEING SUFFICIENT TO OVERTURN THE LEGAL PRESUMPTION OF MALVERSATION
SECTION 1. Petition for certiorari. - x x x.Considering that petitioner People impugned the veracity of the three memoranda supposedly signed by President Marcos, without copies of Exhibits "15," "16" and "17," the Court has no opportunity to examine its contents and verify the same as against petitioner People's averments. In fact, the Court has no factual basis upon which it could actually and completely dispose of the issue raised by petitioner People. Therefore, all that is left before the Court are bare and unsubstantiated allegations that do not warrant the Court's consideration.47
The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of section 3, Rule 46. (Emphases supplied.)
SEC. 3. Contents and filing of petition; effect of non-compliance with requirements. - x x x.That petitioner People failed to comply with this mandatory procedural requirement likewise justifies the dismissal of the present petition.
x x x x
[A]nd shall be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the judgment, order, resolution, or ruling subject thereof, such material portions of the record as are referred to therein, and other documents relevant or pertinent thereto. x x x.
x x x x
The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition. (Emphases supplied.)
Endnotes:
1 Also referred to as "Jose" in some of the pleadings/documents/court processes.
* Per Raffle dated September 20, 2017.
2 Section 5, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides: "When the petition filed relates to the acts or omissions of a judge, court, quasi-judicial agency, tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person, the petitioner shall join, as private respondent or respondents with such public respondent or respondents, the person or persons interested in sustaining the proceedings in the court[.]"
3Rollo, pp. 51-78; penned by Associate Justice Samuel R. Martires (now a member of this Court) with Presiding Justice Edilberto G. Sandoval and Associate Justice Teresita V. Diaz-Baldos concurring.
4 Id. at 51; as reproduced in the Sandiganbayan Decision.
5 As part of the reorganization of the MAC into the ESF Council, the head of the NEDA was appointed as Vice-Chairperson thereof; and the Ministers of Finance and Local Government, as well as the Presidential Assistant for Legal Affairs, were added as members of the ESF Council.
6Rollo, p. 140.
7 Entitled "Procedures for Implementing Letter of Instructions No. 1379 entitled 'Establishing Fund Disbursement Guidelines to Govern the Efficient Utilization of the Development Projects Fund (Economic Support Fund).'"
8 Id., Section 5.2.3.
9 Dated February 16, 1976, with the subject "Audit of national security, intelligence and confidential funds."
10Rollo, p. 28.
11Quintos v. Development Bank of the Philippines, 766 Phil. 601, 610 (2015).
12Rollo, pp. 53-54.
13 Id. at 96.
14 Letter-Reply dated March 18, 1986; rollo, p. 103.
15 COA Circular No. 76-17 requires that "[d]isbursement vouchers (General Form No. 5[A]) should be properly accomplished and adequately supported by receipts, bills, or commercial invoices of creditors. A summary of the nature of the expenses incurred may also be submitted as supporting paper to the voucher." It further provides that, "[c]redits to the accounts of the accountable officers are to be recorded in the books of accounts only on the basis of a credit memorandum issued by the Acting Chairman, Commission on Audit, or his authorized representative. This memorandum shall be based on audited disbursement vouchers."
16 Dated May 7, 1986; rollo, pp. 109-115.
17 Letter dated March 31, 1986; id. at 106-107.
18 Letter dated May 7, 1986; id. at 108.
19Rollo, pp. 61-66.
20 Id. at 186-197.
21 Marked as Exhibits "15," "16" and "17" during his direct examination; TSN, September 24, 2004, pp. 11-12.
22 TSN, September 24, 2004, pp. 8-11.
23 Id. at 14-15.
24Rollo, p. 77.
25 Id. at 71.
26 289 Phil. 137, 142 (1992).
27 286 Phil. 384, 388 (1992).
28 284 Phil. 146, 155 (1992).
29Zambrano v. Sandiganbayan, id., citing De Guzman v. People, 204 Phil. 663, 673-674 (1982); Bacasnot v. Sandiganbayan, 239 Phil. 362, 366 (1987).
30Rollo, p. 73.
31 Id. at 76, citing Agullo v. Sandiganbayan, 414 Phil. 86, 98 (2001).
32 Id. at 77.
33 Art. 217. Malversation of public funds or property. - Presumption ofmalversation. - Any public officer who, by reason of the duties of his office, is accountable for public funds or property, shall appropriate the same or shall take or misappropriate or shall consent, or through abandonment or negligence, shall permit any other person to take such public funds or property, wholly or partially, or shall otherwise be guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property, shall suffer: 1. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the amount involved in the misappropriation or malversation does not exceed two hundred pesos. 2. The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if the amount involved is more than two hundred pesos but does not exceed six thousand pesos. 3. The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period, if the amount involved is more than six thousand pesos but is less than twelve thousand pesos. 4. The penalty of reclusion temporal, in its medium and maximum periods, if the amount involved is more than twelve thousand pesos but is less than twenty-two thousand pesos. If the amount exceeds the latter, the penalty shall be reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua.
In all cases, persons guilty of malversation shall also suffer the penalty of perpetual special disqualification and a fine equal to the amount of the funds malversed or equal to the total value of the property embezzled.
The failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property with which he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly authorized officer, shall be prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or property to personal use. (As amended by R.A. No. 1060).
34Rollo, p. 42-45.
35 Id. at 797.
36People v. Sandiganbayan, 681 Phil. 90, 110 (2012).
37See People v. Nazareno, 612 Phil. 753, 766 (2009); People v. Tria-Tirona, 502 Phil. 31, 37 (2005); People v. Velasco, 394 Phil. 517 (2000).
38Ysidoro v. De Castro, 681 Phil. 1, 16 (2012).
39 Id.; People v. Nazareno, supra note 37.
40People v. Sandiganbayan, 524 Phil. 496, 523 (2006).
41People v. Court of Appeals, 691 Phil. 783, 787-788 (2012), citing People v. Sandiganbayan, 661 Phil. 350, 355 (2011).
42Rollo, p. 43.
43Ysidoro v. De Castro, supra note 38.
44People v. Sandiganbayan, supra note 40.
45People v. Sandiganbayan, 642 Phil. 640, 657 (2010).
46Ysidoro v. De Castro, supra note 38.
47See LNS International Manpower Services v. Padua, Jr., 628 Phil. 223 (2010).
48 The provisions of Rule 46 is made applicable to original actions of certiorari pursuant to Section 2 of Rule 56, which provides:
SEC. 2. Rules applicable. - The procedure in original cases for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto and habeas corpus shall be in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Constitution, laws, and Rules 46, 48, 49, 51, 52 and this Rule, subject to the following provisions:
a) All references in said Rules to the Court of Appeals shall be understood to also apply to the Supreme Court[.]