OPHELIA HERNAN vs.

THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN

Facts
● Petitioner Ophelia Hernan, in her capacity as cashier, disbursement and collection officer at DOTC, CAR, Baguio City,
received cash and collections from customers and clients, which she deposited at the DOTC bank accoung at Land Bank
of the Philippines (LBP) Baguio City branch.
● On December 17, 1996, COA auditor Maria Imelda Lopez, under instruction of supervisor Sherelyn Narag, conducted a
cash examination of the accounts handled by Hernan. It was found out that deposit slips dated September 19, 1996
(amount Php 11,300) and November 29, 1996 (amount Php 81,348.20) did not bear a stamp of receipt by LBP and were
not machine validated. Confirmation of the remittances made by Hernan yielded that no deposits were made for the
account of DOTC on September 19, 1996 and November 29, 1996 for the amounts Php 11,300.00 and Php 81,340.20,
respectively.
● Hernan duly accounted for the Php 81,340.20 remittance but not for the Php 11,300.
● The matter was reported to COA Regional Director who confirmed that LBP did not receive Php 11,300 deposit from
Hernan on September 19, 1996 for the account of DOTC. Hernan was made to pay for the amount, but she refused.
● COA filed a complaint for malversation of public funds against Hernan.
● The Office of the Ombudsman for Luzon recommended indictment for the loss of Php 11,300.
● Hernan was charged before the RTC of Baguio City, where Hernan pleaded not guilty.
● Hernan’s main argument: On September 19, 1996, Hernan went to the bank with her supervisor to deposit Php 11,300
with accomplished deposit slips in 6 copies. Due to the many clients who came ahead of her, Hernan left the money
with teller Catalina Ngaosi, telling her she would come back to retrieve the deposit slip. When she came back in the
afternoon, she retrieved 4 copies of the deposit slip which had no acknowledgement marks, and only had initials of the
teller. She kept the deposit slips in her vault and was only made aware of the non-remittance of the funds during the
audit. Hernan filed an estafa complaint against Ngaosi, but the complaint was dismissed.
● RTC found Hernan guilty and convicted her of the crime of Malversation.
● Hernan erroneously appealed to the Court of Appeals, but it had no appellate jurisdiction over the case. Instead, it was
Sandiganbayan who had exclusive appellate jurisdiction over Hernan who occupied a position lower than Salary Grade
27.
● Case was appealed to the Sandiganbayan, which affirmed the decision of the RTC, but modified the penalty imposed.
● Hernan filed for a Motion for Reconsideration, on grounds of her counsel failing to preset witnesses and documents
that would supposedly acquit her. Motion was denied because evidence not formally offered before the court below
cannot be considered on appeal.
● Hernan’s new counsel filed an Urgent Motion to Reopen the Case with Leave of Court and with Prayer to Stay the
Execution. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion and directed the execution of the judgment of conviction.
● Hernan filed a Petition for Reconsideration with Prayer for Recall of Entry of Judgment in lieu of the Prayer for Stay of
Execution of Judgment, which was denied for lack of merit.
● Hernan filed the instant petition to the Court.

Ratio Decidendi

W/N the case may be reopened for further reception of evidence.

No, because the claim of petitioner that that the Sandiganbayan’s denial of her motion to reopen the case is capricious,
despotic, and whimsical since the admission of her additional evidence will prevent a miscarriage has no legal nor factual
leg to stand on. Section 24, Rule 119 and existing jurisprudence provide for the following requirements for the reopening
of a case: (1) the reopening must be before the finality of a judgment of conviction; (2) the order is issued by the judge on
his own initiative or upon motion; (3) the order is issued only after a hearing is conducted; (4) the order intends to prevent
a miscarriage of justice; and (5) the presentation of additional and/or further evidence should be terminated within thirty
days from the issuance of the order.

Nevertheless, case was reopened to modify the penalty imposed by the Sandiganbayan due to the recent passage of RA
10951 which accordingly reduced the penalty applicable to the crime of malversation.

Retroactivity of laws – For as long as it is favorable to the accused, said recent legislation shall find application regardless
of whether its effectivity comes after the time when the judgment of conviction is rendered and even if service of sentence
has already begun.

[Secondary only] W/N Hernan is guilty of the crime of Malversation.

Yes.

Article 217: Elements of malversation of public funds are (1) that the offender is a public officer; (2) that he had custody
or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his office; (3) that those funds or property were public funds or
property for which he was accountable; and (4) that he appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented or, through
abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take them. This article establishes a presumption that when a
public officer fails to have duly forthcoming any public funds with which he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly
authorized officer, it shall be prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds to personal uses.

All that is necessary for conviction in the crime of malversation is sufficient proof that the accountable officer had received
public funds, that she did not have them in her possession when demand therefor was made, and that she could not
satisfactorily explain her failure to do so.

Hence, Hernan is guilty of the crime.

Ruling
Wherefore, premises considered, the instant petition is DENIED. The Resolution dated February 2, 2015 and Decision
dated November 13, 2009 of the Sandiganbayan 2nd Division are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioner is hereby
sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum term, to three (3) years,
six (6) months, and twenty (20) days prisión correccional, as maximum term.