Candao Vs People

.R. Nos. 186659-710. October 19, 2011.
ZACARIA A. CANDAO, ABAS A. CANDAO AND ISRAEL B. HARON, petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES AND SANDIGANBAYAN, respondents.
Criminal Law; Malversation; Essential Elements for Conviction in Malversation Cases.—The following
elements are essential for conviction in malversation cases: 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.
Same; Same; In the crime of malversation, all that is necessary for conviction is sufficient proof that the
accountable officer had received public funds, that he did not have them in his possession when
demand therefor was made, and that he could not satisfactorily explain his failure to do so.—In the
crime of malversation, all that is necessary for conviction is sufficient proof that the accountable officer
had received public funds, that he did not have them in his possession when demand therefor was
made, and that he could not satisfactorily explain his failure to do so. Direct evidence of personal
misappropriation by the accused is hardly necessary in malversation cases.
Same; Evidence; Equipoise Rule; The equipoise rule finds application if the inculpatory facts and
circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of
the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, for then the evidence does not fulfill the test of
moral certainty, and does not suffice to produce a conviction.—Under the equipoise rule, where the
evidence on an issue of fact is in equipoise or there is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates,
the party having the burden of proof loses. The equipoise rule finds application if the inculpatory facts
and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the
innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, for then the evidence does not fulfill
the test of moral certainty, and does not suffice to produce a conviction.
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
697
Same; Same; Conspiracy is present when one concurs with the criminal design of another, indicated by
the performance of an overt act leading to the crime committed; It may be deduced from the mode and
manner in which the offense was perpetrated.—Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to
an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy need not be
proved by direct evidence and may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during and after
the commission of the crime, which are indicative of a joint purpose, concerted action and concurrence
of sentiments. In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. Conspiracy is present when one concurs with
the criminal design of another, indicated by the performance of an overt act leading to the crime
committed. It may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Dante F. Vargas for petitioners.
Office of the Special Prosecutor for respondents.
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is the Decision1 dated October 29, 2008
and Resolution2 dated February 20, 2009 of the Sandiganbayan (First Division) finding the petitioners
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of malversation of public funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended.
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 74-124. Penned by Associate Justice Rodolfo A. Ponferrada with Presiding Justice Diosdado
M. Peralta (now a Member of this Court) and Associate Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo, concurring.
2 Id., at pp. 125-131. Penned by Associate Justice Rodolfo A. Ponferrada with Associate Justices
Norberto Y. Geraldez and Alexander G. Gesmundo, concurring.
698
The Facts
On August 5, 1993, Chairman Pascasio S. Banaria of the Commission on Audit (COA) constituted a team
of auditors from the central office to conduct an Expanded Special Audit of the Office of the Regional
Governor, Autonomous Region for Muslim Mindanao (ORG-ARMM). State Auditors Heidi L. Mendoza
(Team Leader) and Jaime Roxas (Member) were directed to conduct the said audit under the supervision
of Jaime P. Naranjo (State Auditor V). From August 24 to September 1, 1993, the expanded audit was
thus conducted on the financial transactions and operations of ORG-ARMM for the period July 1992 to
March 1993.
As stated in Special Audit Office (SAO) Report No. 93-25 submitted by the audit team, it was found that
illegal withdrawals were made from the depository accounts of the agency through the issuance of
checks payable to the order of petitioner Israel B. Haron (Disbursing Officer II) without the required
disbursement vouchers. The following are the details of the government accounts and the fifty-two (52)
checks3 issued and encashed without proper supporting documents:
PNB Account No. 370-3208

DATE
ISSUED
CHECK
NO.
SIGNATORIES AMOUNT
December 29, 1992 414431 Israel Haron & Abas Candao 500,000.00
January 26, 1993 414487 Israel Haron & Abas Candao 500,000.00
_______________
3 Exhibits “A” to “ZZ,” Sandiganbayan Records.
699
February 2, 1993 414493Israel Haron & Abas Candao 500,000.00
February 5, 1993 461801 Israel Haron & Abas Candao 500,000.00
February 18, 1993 461803 Israel Haron & Zacaria Candao 500,000.00
February 24, 1993 461888 Israel Haron & Abas Candao 64,000.00
March 18, 1993 461932 Israel Haron & Abas Candao 500,000.00
TOTAL P11,118,570.64
700
Account No. 844061 (Treasurer of the Philippines)
DATE
ISSUED CHECK
NO. SIGNATORIES AMOUNT
January 13, 1993 968751 Pandical Santiago & Abas Candao 120,000.00
March 2, 1993 974192 Israel Haron & Zacaria Candao 250,000.00

701
March 18, 1993 974328Israel Haron & Abas Candao 500,000.00
TOTAL P9,927,000.00
GRAND TOTAL = P21,045,570.64
In a letter dated September 10, 1993, Chairman Banaria demanded from petitioner Haron to produce
and restitute to the ARMM-Regional Treasurer immediately the full amount of P21,045,570.64 and
submit his explanation within seventy-two (72) hours together with the official receipt issued by the
ARMM Regional Treasurer in acknowledgment of such restitution.
On April 17, 1998, the Office of the Special Prosecutor, Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao, filed in the
Sandiganbayan criminal cases for malversation of public funds against the following ORG-ARMM
officials/employees: Zacaria A. Candao (Regional Governor), Israel B. Haron (Disbursing Officer II), Abas
A. Candao (Executive Secretary) and Pandical M. Santiago (Cashier). They were charged with violation of
Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, under the following informations with identical
allegations except for the varying date, number and amount of the check involved in each case:
702
Criminal Case Nos. 24569-24574,
24576-24584, 24593, 24595-246204
(42 counts involving checks in the
total amount of P17,190,585.00)
“That on or about 29 December 1992, in Cotabato City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, accused Israel B. Haron, a low-ranking public officer being the Disbursing Officer of the
Office of the Regional Governor, and as such is responsible and accountable for the funds of the said
office in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, in connivance and in conspiracy with [Abas]
Candao, Executive Secretary of the same office, who is a high ranking officer, while in the performance
of their respective official functions, taking advantage of their official positions, and committing the
offense in relation to their respective functions, with gross abuse of confidence, did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously withdraw the amount of P500,000.00 from the depository account of
the Office of the Regional Governor thru the issuance of Check No. 414431 dated 29 December 1992,
payable to the order of accused Israel B. Haron, without the required disbursement voucher and once in
possession of the said amount withdrawn, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, misappropriate,
embezzle and convert to their own personal use and benefit the amount of P500,000.00, to the damage
and prejudice of the government in the aforesaid sum as abovestated.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”
Criminal Case Nos. 24585- 24592
and 245945
(9 counts involving checks in the
total amount of P3,854,985.64)
“That on or about 18 February 1993, in Cotabato City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
office in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, in connivance and in conspiracy with Zacaria
Candao, Regional Governor of the same office, who is a high ranking officer, while in the performance of
their respective official functions, taking advantage of their official positions, and
_______________
4 SB Records, Vols. 1, 5-10, 12-20, 29, 31-56.
5 Id., Vols. 21-28 and 30.
703
committing the offense in relation to their respective functions, with gross abuse of confidence, did then
and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously withdraw the amount of P500,000.00 from the depository
account of the Office of the Regional Governor thru the issuance of Check No. 461803 dated 18 February
1993, payable to the order of accused Israel B. Haron, without the required disbursement voucher and
once in possession of the said amount withdrawn, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously take,
misappropriate, embezzle and convert to their own personal use and benefit the amount of
P500,000.00, to the damage and prejudice of the government in the aforesaid sum as abovestated.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”
Criminal Case No. 245756
“That on or about 13 January 1993, in Cotabato City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
office in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, in connivance and in conspiracy with Pandical
Santiago and [Abas] Candao, Cashier and Executive Secretary, respectively, of the same office, while in
the performance of their respective official functions, taking advantage of their official positions, and
committing the offense in relation to their respective functions, with gross abuse of confidence, did then
and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously withdraw the amount of P120,000.00 from the depository
account of the Office of the Regional Governor thru the issuance of Check No. 968751 dated 13 January
1993, payable to the order of accused Israel B. Haron, without the required disbursement voucher and
once in possession of the said amount withdrawn, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously take,
misappropriate, embezzle and convert to their own personal use and benefit the amount of
P120,000.00, to the damage and prejudice of the government in the aforesaid sum as abovestated.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”
At their arraignment, all accused pleaded not guilty to the charge of malversation. In the meantime,
accused Santiago died and consequently the case against him in Criminal Case No. 24575 was dismissed.
_______________
6 Id., Vol. 11.

704
The prosecution’s lone witness was Heidi L. Mendoza,7 COA State Auditor IV. She testified that their
expanded audit, conducted from August 24 to September 1, 1993, disclosed the illegal withdrawals of
funds from the PNB and Treasury accounts of ORG-ARMM involving 52 checks issued without the
required disbursement vouchers. Specifically, their attention was caught by the fact that the Report of
Checks Issued by the Deputized Disbursing Officer (RCIDDO) showed that the subject 52 checks have no
assigned voucher numbers. The audit team demanded for the original of said RCIDDO for the months of
December 1992, February and March 1993, which were supposed to be prepared and submitted by the
disbursing officer, but the ORG-ARMM did not submit the same. In a letter dated August 24, 1993, the
COA likewise made a demand from the Regional Governor through the resident auditor for the
production of the original disbursement vouchers and complete supporting documents of the subject
checks.8
In response, the Finance and Budget Management Services of ORG-ARMM informed the audit team that
the vouchers were already submitted to COA Resident Auditor, Supervising State Auditor IV Rosalinda
Gagwis, purportedly under transmittal letters dated March 4 and March 30, 1993. Mendoza then
personally verified from Gagwis who denied having received the subject vouchers and issued a
certification to that effect. In a letter dated September 10, 1993, Chairman Banaria finally demanded for
the restitution of the funds illegally withdrawn through the issued 52 checks and to comply with such
demand within 72 hours from receipt of said letter. As to the absence of her signature in the audit
report, she explained that she was already on maternity leave when the interim report (SAO Report No.
93-25) was submitted. However, she, together with audit team member Jaime B. Roxas executed a Joint
Affidavit dated May 17, 1996 regarding their conduct of the expanded audit and their findings and
recommendation. Although Haron submitted copies of disbursement
_______________
7 Recently appointed Commissioner of the Commission on Audit.
8 TSN, October 13, 1998, pp. 3, 7-26.
705
vouchers to the COA receiving clerk, this was made beyond the 72-hour deadline given to them.9
On cross-examination, witness Mendoza was asked if the audit team had informed the office or parties
concerned that they are going to be audited (entry conference). She replied that this was a sensitive
assignment, recalling that they were threatened after their identities were established during the earlier
audit of the same office such that she had to be brought back to Manila. At that time, the Regional
Governor was accused Candao. Hence, during the expanded audit, the team was unable to proceed as in
ordinary situations. While they did an entry conference during the previous main audit, they were
unable to do so at the time of the expanded audit. Again for security reasons, the team also did not
conduct an exit conference after field work; they would be risking their lives if they discuss there and
then their findings. Due to threat to her life, it was her team supervisor (Naranjo) and member (Roxas)
who personally retrieved the documents in Cotabato City. She admitted the belated submission of
original vouchers (October 29, 1993) to the COA central office but these are without supporting
documents.10
For the accused, the first witness was Nick Luz Aduana who was the Director of Finance of ORG-ARMM
from July 1991 until his resignation in March 1993. He testified that his functions then include the
supervision and overseeing of the three divisions: Budget, Accounting and Management. When report of
the audit team came out, he was surprised because they were not informed of the audit. He was
familiar with the 52 checks because the disbursement vouchers passed through his office. He explained
the procedure with respect to the processing of cash advances as follows: generally, there were cash
advances made in ARMM which cover travels, salaries, etc. but particularly for “peace and order
campaign,” it emanates from the ORG when the Regional Governor issues an authority for cash advance,
and then they process the voucher (Finance and Budget Management Services); once their division have
performed their accounting func-
_______________
9 Id., at pp. 27-34, 40-41.
10 Id., at pp. 41-52, 73-74.
706
tions relative to the vouchers, the same are forwarded to the Regional Governor for approval or in his
absence to his Executive Secretary; after the approval of the voucher, it will be forwarded to the Cash
Division for the issuance of check; the person who will liquidate the cash advance is usually the
employee mentioned in the voucher; and after they have prepared all the liquidation papers, these are
submitted to the Budget and Management Division before forwarding them to the COA Auditor. He
maintained that the original disbursement vouchers have already been submitted to the COA Special
Audit Office. Since 1991, they have never received any notice of disallowance of their disbursements,
including those intended for “peace and order campaign.” Being the first ARMM set of officials, they had
sought the advice of their Auditor as to proper accounting procedures; they followed the advice of
Auditor Gagwis who said that there should be authority to cash advance coming from the Regional
Governor which should be given to the Disbursing Officer. He identified the vouchers presented by the
defense as the ones processed by their division with the corresponding amounts reflected therein.
Insofar as the expanded audit is concerned, they were not given the opportunity to defend the case as
they were not given the so-called exit conference.11
On cross-examination, witness Aduana hinted on political reasons why an expanded audit was
conducted when Regional Governor Pagdanganan assumed office despite the fact that an earlier audit
was already made during the administration of Governor Candao. He claimed that he did not receive any
copy of the demand letter dated August 24, 1993; he was no longer connected with ARMM at the time.
He also maintained that the disbursement vouchers were processed by their office and entered into
their books of account. However, when asked what happened to these books of account, Aduana said
these are with the Office of the Regional Governor. He admitted that the only supporting document for
the checks and vouchers were the authority to cash advance; the “peace and order campaign”
disbursement is peculiar to ARMM and hence they did not know what supporting documents to attach.
When queried about the particular ac-
_______________
11 TSN, May 20, 2004, pp. 15-24.
707
tivities covered by this “peace and order campaign” disbursement, Aduana admitted that he really does
not know the breakdown of expenses or for what items in particular were the disbursed amounts spent.
Their division merely processed the disbursement vouchers that were prepared by the ORG, and while
his signature appears in said vouchers his role was limited to certifying the availability of funds.12
The next witness, Rosalinda G. Gagwis, former COA Resident Auditor of ORG-ARMM, testified that in
1991 she was the Chief of the Operation and Review Division (ORD), COA Region XII which at the time
has jurisdiction over ORG-ARMM; she was Auditor-in-Charge of ORG-ARMM only up to March 8, 1993
when the separation of COA Region XII personnel and COA-ARMM was implemented. Among her duties
as such Auditor-in-Charge was to conduct a post-audit of the financial transactions of ORG-ARMM. In
the course of the expanded audit of ORG-ARMM, she was requested to issue the Certification dated
August 27, 1993 stating that she has not received the January to March 1993 vouchers as stated in the
letter of Haron. Subsequently, on July 22, 1998 she executed a two-page Affidavit because she has been
hearing that her previous Certification was misinterpreted to mean that the subject vouchers were “not
existing.” She then clarified that actually, ORG-ARMM tried to submit bundles of vouchers to her office
but she refused to accept them because she was no longer Auditor-in-Charge of that office as there was
already an order separating COA-Regional Office XII from the COA-ARMM. She confirmed that when
ARMM was a newly created agency, its officers (Aduana, Brigida Fontanilla and Bartolome Corpus)
sought her advice regarding accounting procedures. Prior to submission to her office for post-audit, the
accountable officers like the Cashier and Disbursement Officer prepares and submits a Monthly Report
of Disbursements to the Accounting Division which, within ten days from receipt and recording in the
Books of Accounts, shall submit the same to the auditor for post-audit custody. Based on her
experience, however, this deadline was not strictly observed as 25% to 50% of the
_______________
12 Id., at pp. 25-42.
708
national agencies are delayed in the submission of such reports. The usual reasons given were the
geographical locations of the offices in Region XII and ARMM, lack of manpower due to budgetary
constraints and lack of know-how of personnel regarding accounting and auditing procedures, especially
if there is a change in administration. As far as she can recall, their office had not issued a notice of
disallowance to ORG-ARMM although notices of suspension have been issued for minor deficiencies
noted during post-audit; these notices of suspension were usually complied with by the agency.13
On cross-examination, witness Gagwis said that upon seeing the bundles of vouchers being submitted to
her office, she immediately refused to accept, and sort of “washed her hands” by telling her staff that
they were no longer incharge of ORG-ARMM. She did not actually scan those documents and examine
their contents. She also did not receive the Monthly Report of Disbursements from said office. As to the
execution of the July 22, 1998 Affidavit, she insisted that she did it voluntarily five years later in order to
clarify herself after hearing about the case filed in the Sandiganbayan and her name was being dragged
because of the Certification she made in August 1993. As to the earlier Certification, she maintained that
she did not receive the subject vouchers and she does not know where these documents are at
present.14
Another witness, Brigida C. Fontanilla, Chief Accountant, ORG-ARMM, testified that her duties and
responsibilities include the processing, updating and recording of transactions of ORG-ARMM in the
books of accounts while vouchers are recorded in the Journal of Analysis and Obligations (JAO). They
also prepared financial reports. As to cash advances, she explained that the procedure starts with the
preparation of the voucher at ORG which also issues the authority to withdraw cash advance which is
attached to the disbursement voucher and supporting documents, afterwhich it is forwarded to the
Finance and Budget Management Services for processing: there, it is first submitted to the Budget
Division for the request for allotment of
_______________
13 TSN, April 26, 2005, pp. 6-22.
14 Id., at pp. 24-40.
709
obligation, and next forwarded to the Accounting Division for the journal entry of obligation and
recording in the books of account, and then the documents are forwarded to the Office of the Finance
Director for his approval, and thereafter returned back to the ORG for final approval for the issuance of
the check. Presently, their office is more systematic and organized than it was during the administration
of Governor Candao. Sometime in 1994 during the investigation by the Office of the Ombudsman
relative to the subject illegal withdrawals, she was summoned to produce the Cash Receipts Book and
Cash Disbursement Book of the 1991 ARMM seed money for regional, provincial and district Impact
Infrastructure Projects. However, she was not able to comply with the said directive because such books
are not among those required by the COA for their office; what the COA directed them to maintain was
the JAO, a book of original entry for allotments received and disbursements for the transactions of ORG-
ARMM. She wrote a letter-reply to the Ombudsman Investigator and transmitted the original 1992 JAO
which was never returned to their office.15
Explaining the contents of the JAO, witness Fontanilla said that the entries in the voucher are recorded
therein: an obligation number is placed in the request of allotment (ROA) which also appears in the
voucher. Before such recording in the JAO, the disbursement vouchers are presented to their office.
Actually, she does not know whether the 1992 JAO still exists or with the Ombudsman Investigator
because at the time, they were holding office temporarily at the office of ORG Auditor which
unfortunately got burned sometime in 1996.16
As for witness Bartolome M. Corpus, his deposition upon oral examination was taken on August 27,
2004 before Atty. Edipolo Sarabia, Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court of Davao City. He testified that in
1991 he was appointed Chief of the Management Division of the Finance and Budget Management
Services (FBMS), ORG-ARMM. He was placed on floating status for three years by the new Chief of Staff
of ORG-ARMM (Nasser Pangandaman) upon the election of a
_______________
15 TSN, June 8, 2006, pp. 5-12.
16 Id., at pp. 13-15.
710
new Regional Governor, Lininding Pangandaman who defeated Governor Candao. As Finance Director, it
was his responsibility to review all transactions of the ORG-ARMM and see to it that COA regulations are
in place and supporting documents are complete. After reviewing documents, which include
disbursement vouchers, his office submits the same to the COA Regional Officer or to the COA Resident
Auditor. Being the internal control unit of ORG-ARMM, all transactions and supporting documents must
pass through his office. As to the transactions covered by the subject 52 checks, he confirmed that these
passed through his office, including the disbursement vouchers, afterwhich these were forwarded to the
Accounting Office and then to the Cash Division for issuance of checks. He claimed that his subordinates
tried to submit the disbursement vouchers to the Resident Auditor, as shown by the transmittal letters
dated March 4 and March 30, 1993. However, Ms. Gagwis refused to accept the vouchers because she
was no longer the Resident Auditor at the time. During the time of Governor Candao, he does not recall
having received any notice of disallowance from the COA although there were times they received a
notice of suspension which had been settled. During the time he was on floating status, he discovered
that some vouchers including those original vouchers covered by the subject 52 checks were still in his
filing cabinet. He then handed them over to Haron. In 1996, he was reinstated by Governor Nur
Misuari.17
On cross-examination, witness Corpus said that they tried to submit the vouchers to Gagwis sometime
in late March or early April 1993. He was not aware of the August 27, 1993 Certification issued by
Gagwis. When asked about the stated purpose “peace and order campaign” in the cash advance
vouchers, he confirmed that this was the practice at that time and it was only during liquidation that
ORG will have the list of expenses; the supporting documents will come only after the issuance of the
check.18 On re-direct examination, he maintained that there were previous similar vouchers for “peace
and
_______________
17 TSN, August 27, 2004, pp. 3-17; SB Records (Vol. II), pp. 467-481.
18 Id., at pp. 17-21; id., at pp. 481-485.
711
order campaign” which have not been disallowed but only suspended by the COA.19
Sandiganbayan Ruling
By Decision dated October 29, 2008, the Sandiganbayan found petitioner Haron guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of malversation of public funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, committed in conspiracy with petitioners Zacaria A. Candao and Abas A. Candao who were
likewise sentenced to imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine equivalent to the amount of the check in
each case, as follows:
Criminal Case Nos. 24569-24584, 24593, 24595-24620
Israel B. Haron and Abas A. Candao—convicted of 43 counts of Malversation of Public Funds and each
was sentenced to indeterminate prison term in each case of ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision
mayor, as minimum, to eighteen (18) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as
maximum, and ordered to pay a fine in each case equivalent to the particular check involved, without
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and the penalty of perpetual special disqualification to
hold public office and other accessory penalties provided by law. In the service of their respective
sentences, they shall be entitled to the benefit of the three-fold rule as provided in Art. 70 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended.
Criminal Case Nos. 24585-24592 & 24594
Israel B. Haron and Zacaria A. Candao—convicted of 9 counts of Malversation of Public Funds and each
was sentenced to indeterminate prison term in each case of ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision
mayor as minimum, to eighteen (18) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as
maximum, and ordered to pay a fine in each case equivalent to the particular check involved, without
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and the penalty of perpetual special disqualification to
hold public office and other accessory penalties provided by law. In the service of their respective
sentences, they
_______________
19 Id., at pp. 21-22; id., at pp. 485-486.

712
shall be entitled to the benefit of the three-fold rule as provided in Art. 70 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended.20
The Sandiganbayan found no merit in petitioners’ claim that the subject checks were covered by existing
disbursement vouchers which were belatedly submitted and received by the COA Central Office on
October 29, 1993. It said that had those vouchers really existed at the time of the 52 withdrawals
petitioners made from December 29, 1992 to March 30, 1993, petitioner Haron could have readily
produced them when required to do so by the special audit team on August 24, 1993. Said court
likewise did not give credence to the testimony of Corpus in view of the August 27, 1993 Certification
issued by then COA Auditor Gagwis that she has not received the vouchers mentioned in the transmittal
letters. Gagwis’ explanation, on the other hand, contradicted the testimony of Corpus that when he
returned to his office sometime in May 1993, he found the original vouchers together with the
transmittal letters still there in his filing cabinet and have not been submitted to the COA Resident
Auditor.
The Sandiganbayan noted that petitioners presented no proof that the cash advances intended for
“peace and order campaign” were spent for public purposes, as in fact the alleged disbursement
vouchers did not indicate any detail as to the nature of the expense/s such as purchase of equipment,
services, meals, travel, etc. and there were no supporting documents such as the Request for Issuance of
Voucher, Purchase Request and Inspection Report of the items supposedly purchased. More
importantly, the vouchers were not accomplished in accordance with existing COA circulars because
they are unnumbered and undated. Hence, the belatedly submitted vouchers are of doubtful veracity or
origin, nay, a fabricated evidence or, as pointed out by the prosecution, “self-serving or an afterthought,
belatedly prepared to give the illegal disbursements amounting to the aggregate amount of more than
P21M, a semblance of regularity.”21 As to the JAO and Certification dated August 18, 1998 issued by
Chief Accountant Fontanilla, the Sandiganbayan found there is noth-
_______________
20 Rollo, pp. 104-123.
21 Id., at p. 100.
713
ing therein to indicate the particular disbursement voucher that corresponds to each of the subject 52
checks which were neither reflected in the JAO.
With respect to petitioners’ assertion that the audit conducted by the COA special audit team was
incomplete and tainted as it did not follow procedures because the person audited were not notified
thereof, the Sandiganbayan found these allegations unsubstantiated as in fact at the start of the audit
on August 24, 1993, the audit team thru their team leader State Auditor Naranjo, informed the
management of ORG-ARMM thru the COA Resident Auditor of the expanded special audit to be
conducted as they even requested for the original copies of the disbursement vouchers together with
their complete supporting documents covering the 52 checks. But despite said letter, the ORG-ARMM
failed to heed the audit team’s request. For the failure of petitioner Haron to account for the funds
involved in the illegal withdrawals when asked to do so, the presumption arose that he misappropriated
the same, which presumption was not overcome by defense evidence.
On the respective liabilities of petitioners Zacaria A. Candao and Abas A. Candao, the Sandiganbayan
held that by their act of co-signing the subject checks, petitioner Haron was able to consummate the
illegal withdrawals without the required disbursement vouchers of the amounts covered by the 43
checks (for Abas) and 9 checks (for Zacaria). Thus, by their collective acts, said court concluded that
petitioners conspired to effect the illegal withdrawals of public funds which, when required by the COA
to be properly accounted for, petitioners failed to do so.
In its Resolution dated February 20, 2009, the Sandiganbayan denied the prosecution’s motion to cancel
bail bonds and petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.
The Petition
Petitioners raised the following grounds for their acquittal:
1. …THE SANDIGANBAYAN...COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED

PETITIONERS FOR THE CRIME
714
OF MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS DESPITE PROOF POSITIVE THAT, CONTRARY TO WHAT THE
INFORMATIONS CHARGED, THERE WERE DISBURSEMENT VOUCHERS EXCEPT THAT THE COA REFUSED
TO ACCEPT MUCH LESS EXAMINE THE SAME. PETITIONERS WERE THUS DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW
WHEN THEY WERE CONVICTED FOR OFFENSES NOT COVERED BY THE INFORMATIONS AGAINST THEM.
2. … THE SANDIGANBAYAN COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR IN NOT APPLYING THE “EQUIPOISE
RULE” WHICH IF APPLIED WOULD HAVE RESULTED IN THE ACQUITTAL OF THE ACCUSED-PETITIONERS.
3. … THE SANDIGANBAYAN COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR IN CONVICTING ACCUSED PETITIONERS

ZACARIA A. CANDAO AND ABAS A. CANDAO DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE CHARGE OF CONSPIRACY
WHICH IS THEIR ONLY LINK TO THE OFFENSES HEREIN HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT.22
Our Ruling
The petition has no merit.
Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, provides:

“Art. 217. Malversation of public funds or property – Presumption of malversation.—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.
_______________
22 Id., at p. 48.
715
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 fund 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 uses.” (Emphasis supplied.)
The following elements are essential for conviction in malversation cases:
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.23
All the foregoing elements were satisfactorily established by the prosecution in this case. Petitioners
have not rebutted the legal presumption that with the Disbursing Officer’s (Haron) failure to account for
the illegally withdrawn amounts covered by the subject checks when demanded by the COA, they
misappropriated and used the said funds for their personal benefit.
_______________
23 Luis B. Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Book Two, 2008 Edition, p. 426.
716
Petitioners however assert that their convictions were based solely on the Sandiganbayan’s conclusion
that the vouchers submitted by the defense were illegal or irregular, whereas the informations simply
alleged their absence or non-existence. They contend that said court could not have validly assessed the
disbursement vouchers as to their legality because that duty pertains to the COA which refused and
failed to examine the same. Had the court allowed the COA to evaluate and make a ruling on the validity
of the vouchers, the result would have been different and most probably they would have been
acquitted of the crime charged.
We are not persuaded by petitioners’ asseveration.
The Sandiganbayan categorically ruled that the disbursement vouchers were inexistent at the time of
the issuance of the subject checks and expanded special audit based on its findings that: (1) petitioner
Haron could not produce the vouchers upon demand by the COA in August 1993; (2) Resident Auditor
Gagwis certified at about the same time that to date she has not received the vouchers mentioned in
the supposed transmittal letters of March 4 and March 30, 1993; (3) the entries in the duly certified
Report of Checks Issued by Deputized Disbursing Officer (RCIDDO) of the late Pandical M. Santiago,
Cashier of ORG-ARMM, showed that for the months of January, February and March 1993, there were
indeed entries of checks issued with Haron as payee but no disbursement voucher numbers as these
were either lacking, detached or missing, and which were verified by the audit team as corresponding to
the subject 52 checks issued and signed by petitioners and encashed by petitioner Haron who received
the money withdrawn from the government depositary accounts; (4) FBMS Chief Corpus testified that
he discovered the supposed vouchers still there at his office filing cabinet in May 1993 when these
supposedly have already been submitted to the COA Resident Auditor as reflected in the March 4 and
March 30, 1993 transmittal letters; and (5) the supposed original disbursement vouchers belatedly
submitted to the COA central office last week of October 1993, were undated and unnumbered with no
supporting documents as required by COA Circular No. 78-79 (April 5, 1978).
717
Contrary to petitioners’ claim, the special audit team could not have examined the vouchers presented
by the defense (Exhibits “1” to “1-A-43”) because the only indication of its actual receipt by the COA as
admitted by the prosecution, was on October 23, 1993 long after the expanded audit was completed
and beyond the 72-hour deadline specified in the September 10, 1993 demand letter addressed to
Haron for the restitution of the total amount of illegal withdrawals. In addition, such disbursement
vouchers have no supporting documents as required by COA Circular No. 92-389 dated November 3,
1992. On the other hand, the Certification dated August 18, 1998 issued by ARMM Chief Accountant
Fontanilla stating that the vouchers were regular because these were properly recorded in the JAO, was
not given credence by the Sandiganbayan. Upon scrutiny of the JAO covering the period January to
March 1993, said court found that it failed to indicate the particular disbursement voucher that
corresponds to each of the 52 checks, aside from the fact that it was prepared by the ARMM Chief
Accountant who is under the control and supervision of the ORG. Notably, the JAO is used to summarize
obligations incurred and to monitor the balance of unobligated allotments, which is prepared by
function, and project for each fund and allotment class.24 The JAO is thus separate and distinct from the
Report of Checks Issued (RCI) which is prepared by the Disbursing Officer to report checks issued for
payment of expenditures and/or prior accounts payable. What is clear is that the disbursement of funds
covered by the 52 checks issued by the petitioners are subject to the rule that disbursement voucher
“shall be used by all government entities for all money claims” and that the “voucher number shall be
indicated on the voucher and on every supporting document.”25 Inasmuch as the JAO for the months of
January, February and March 1993 do not at all reflect or indicate the number of each of the
disbursement vouchers supposedly attached to the 52 checks, it cannot serve as evidence of the
recording of the original vouchers, much less the existence of those disbursement vouchers at the time
of the issuance of the 52 checks and the conduct of the expanded audit.
_______________
24 Sec. 405, Government Auditing and Accounting Manual.
25 Sec. 430, Government Auditing and Accounting Manual.
718
Petitioners further raise issue on the regularity, completeness and objectivity of the expanded audit
conducted by the COA. However, records showed that the ORG-ARMM were duly notified of the
expanded audit at its commencement and was even requested thru the COA Resident Auditor to submit
the needed disbursement vouchers. It must be noted that at an earlier date, a main audit had already
been conducted for the financial transactions of ORG-ARMM during which State Auditor Mendoza
experienced threats against her own security that she had to be immediately recalled from her
assignment. Thus, by the time the expanded audit was conducted in August 1993 upon the directive of
the COA Chairman, petitioners, especially Haron, should have seen to it that the records of
disbursements and financial transactions including the period January to March 1993, were in order and
available for further audit examination. In any case, even if there was no so-called entry conference
held, there is absolutely no showing that petitioners were denied due process in the conduct of the
expanded audit as they simply refused or failed to heed COA’s request for the production of
disbursement vouchers and likewise ignored the formal demand made by COA Chairman Banaria for the
restitution of the illegally withdrawn public funds, submitting their compliance only after the special
audit team had submitted their report.
In fine, the Sandiganbayan committed no reversible error in holding that the testimonial and
documentary evidence presented by the petitioners failed to overcome the prima facie evidence of
misappropriation arising from Haron’s failure to give a satisfactory explanation for the illegal
withdrawals from the ARMM funds under his custody and control. Petitioners likewise did not
accomplish the proper liquidation of the entire amount withdrawn, during the expanded audit or any
time thereafter. There is therefore no merit in petitioners’ argument that the Sandiganbayan erred in
not applying the equipoise rule.
Under the equipoise rule, where the evidence on an issue of fact is in equipoise or there is doubt on
which side the evidence preponderates, the party having the burden of proof loses. The equipoise rule
finds application if the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capa-
719
ble of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the
other consistent with his guilt, for then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty, and does
not suffice to produce a conviction.26 Such is not the situation in this case because the prosecution was
able to prove by adequate evidence that Disbursing Officer Haron failed to account for funds under his
custody and control upon demand, specifically for the P21,045,570.64 illegally withdrawn from the said
funds. In the crime of malversation, all that is necessary for conviction is sufficient proof that the
accountable officer had received public funds, that he did not have them in his possession when
demand therefor was made, and that he could not satisfactorily explain his failure to do so. Direct
evidence of personal misappropriation by the accused is hardly necessary in malversation cases.27
As to the liability of petitioners Zacaria A. Candao and Abas A. Candao, the Sandiganbayan correctly
ruled that they acted in conspiracy with petitioner Haron to effect the illegal withdrawals and
misappropriation of ORG-ARMM funds.
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a
felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence and may be inferred
from the conduct of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime, which are
indicative of a joint purpose, concerted action and concurrence of sentiments. In conspiracy, the act of
one is the act of all. Conspiracy is present when one concurs with the criminal design of another,
indicated by the performance of an overt act
_______________
26 Bernardino v. People, G.R. Nos. 170453 and 170518, October 30, 2006, 506 SCRA 237, 252, citing
Dado v. People, 440 Phil. 521, 537; 392 SCRA 46, 58 (2002).
27 Davalos, Sr. v. People, G.R. No. 145229, April 24, 2006, 488 SCRA 85, 92, citing Sarigumba v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 154239-41, February 16, 2005, 451 SCRA 533, 554.
720
leading to the crime committed. It may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense
was perpetrated.28
In this case, petitioners Zacaria A. Candao and Abas A. Candao were co-signatories in the subject checks
issued without the required disbursement vouchers. Their signatures in the checks, as authorized
officials for the purpose, made possible the illegal withdrawals and embezzlement of public funds in the
staggering aggregate amount of P21,045,570.64.
Petitioners Zacaria A. Candao and Abas A. Candao assail their conviction as co-conspirators in the crime
of malversation contending that their only participation was in the ministerial act of signing the checks.
The checks having passed through processing by finance and accounting personnel of ORG-ARMM,
petitioners said they had to rely on the presumption of regularity in the performance of their
subordinates’ acts. Furthermore, they assert that since conspiracy requires knowledge of the purpose
for which the crime was committed, they could not have been conspirators in the design to defraud the
government.
We disagree with such postulation.
As the Regional Governor of ARMM, petitioner Zacaria A. Candao cannot exonerate himself from liability
for the illegally withdrawn funds of ORG-ARMM. Under Section 102 (1) of the Government Auditing
Code of the Philippines, he is responsible for all government funds pertaining to the agency he heads:
“Section 102. Primary and secondary responsibility.—(1) The head of any agency of the government is
immediately and primarily responsible for all government funds and property pertaining to his agency.
x x x x” (Emphasis supplied.)
Petitioners Zacaria A. Candao and his Executive Secretary Abas A. Candao are both accountable public
officers within the meaning of
_______________
28 People v. Pajaro, G.R. Nos. 167860-65, June 17, 2008, 554 SCRA 572, 586, citing People v. Garcia, Jr.,
G.R. No. 138470, April 1, 2003, 400 SCRA 229, 238-239.
721
Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. No checks can be prepared and no payment can be
effected without their signatures on a disbursement voucher and the corresponding check. In other
words, any disbursement and release of public funds require their approval,29 as in fact checks issued
and signed by petitioner Haron had to be countersigned by them. Their indispensable participation in
the issuance of the subject checks to effect illegal withdrawals of ARMM funds was therefore duly
established by the prosecution and the Sandiganbayan did not err in ruling that they acted in conspiracy
with petitioner Haron in embezzling and misappropriating such funds.
Moreover, as such accountable officers, petitioners Zacaria A. Candao and Abas A. Candao were charged
with the duty of diligently supervising their subordinates to prevent loss of government funds or
property, and are thus liable for any unlawful application of government funds resulting from
negligence, as provided in Sections 104 and 105 of the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines,
which read:
“Sec. 104. Records and reports required by primarily responsible officers.—The head of any agency or
instrumentality of the national government or any government-owned or controlled corporation and
any other self-governing board or commission of the government shall exercise the diligence of a good
father of a family in supervising accountable officers under his control to prevent the incurrence of loss
of government funds or property, otherwise he shall be jointly and solidarily liable with the person
primarily accountable therefor. x x x x
Sec. 105. Measure of liability of accountable officers.—x x x
(2) Every officer accountable for government funds shall be liable for all losses resulting from the
unlawful deposit, use, or application thereof and for all losses attributable to negligence in the keeping
of the funds.”
_______________
29 Article VII, Sec. 24 (e) of R.A. No. 6734 entitled “An Act Providing for an Organic Act for the
Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao,” provides that: “No funds or resources shall be disbursed
unless duly approved by the Regional Governor or by his duly authorized representative.” This provision
was retained under R.A. No. 9054 amending the Organic Act, Art. VII, Sec. 24 (e) thereof.
722
The fact that ARMM was still a recently established autonomous government unit at the time does not
mitigate or exempt petitioners from criminal liability for any misuse or embezzlement of public funds
allocated for their operations and projects. The Organic Act for ARMM (R.A. No. 6734) mandates that
the financial accounts of the expenditures and revenues of the ARMM are subject to audit by the
COA.30 Presently, under the Amended Organic Act (R.A. No. 9054), the ARMM remained subject to
national laws and policies relating to, among others, fiscal matters and general auditing.31 Here, the
prosecution successfully demonstrated that the illegal withdrawals were deliberately effected through
the issuance of checks without the required disbursement vouchers and supporting documents. And
even if petitioners Zacaria A. Candao and Abas A. Candao invoke lack of knowledge in the criminal
design of their subordinate, Disbursing Officer Haron, they are still liable as co-principals in the crime of
malversation assuming such misappropriation of public funds was not intentional, as alleged in the
informations, but due to their negligence in the performance of their duties. As this Court ratiocinated in
Cabello v. Sandiganbayan:32
“Besides, even on the putative assumption that the evidence against petitioner yielded a case of
malversation by negligence but the information was for intentional malversation, under the
circumstances of this case his conviction under the first mode of misappropriation would still be in
order. Malversation is committed either intentionally or by negligence. The dolo or the culpa present in
the offense is only a modality in the perpetration of the felony. Even if the mode charged differs from
the mode proved, the same offense of malversation is involved and conviction thereof is proper. A
possible exception would be when the mode of commission alleged in the particulars of the indictment
is so far removed from the ultimate categorization of the crime that it may be said due process was
denied by deluding the accused into an erroneous comprehension of the charge against him. That no
such prejudice was occasioned on petitioner nor was he beleaguered
_______________
30 Art. IX, Sec. 2.
31 Art. IV, Section 3 (d) and (j).
32 G.R. No. 93885, May 14, 1991, 197 SCRA 94.
723
in his defense is apparent from the records of this case.”33 (Emphasis supplied.)
Under Article 217, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, the penalty of reclusion
temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed if the amount involved exceeds
P22,000.00, in addition to fine equal to the funds malversed. Considering that neither aggravating nor
mitigating circumstance attended the crime charged, the maximum imposable penalty shall be within
the range of the medium period of reclusion temporal maximum to reclusion perpetua, or eighteen (18)
years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to twenty (20) years. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
the minimum penalty, which is one degree lower from the maximum imposable penalty, shall be within
the range of prision mayor maximum to reclusion temporal medium, or ten (10) years and one (1) day to
seventeen (17) years and four (4) months.34 The penalty imposed by the Sandiganbayan on petitioners
needs therefore to be modified insofar as the maximum penalty is concerned and is hereby reduced to
seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal medium, for each count.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated
October 29, 2008 in Criminal Case Nos. 24569 to 24574, 24575, 24576 to 24584, 24585 to 24592, 24593,
24594, 24595 to 24620 finding petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Malversation
of Public Funds under Article 217, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and the
Resolution dated February 20, 2009 of the Sandiganbayan (First Division), denying petitioners’ motion
for reconsideration are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS in that petitioners are instead accordingly
sentenced to suffer an indeterminate prison term of ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor
maximum, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal medium, as
maximum, in each of the above-numbered criminal cases.
_______________
33 Id., at p. 103.
34 Cabarlo v. People, G.R. No. 172274, November 16, 2006, 507 SCRA 236, 246.
724
In addition to the payment of the fine ordered by the Sandiganbayan, and by way of restitution, the
petitioners are likewise ordered to pay, jointly and severally, the Republic of the Philippines through the
ARMM-Regional Treasurer, the total amount of P21,045,570.64 malversed funds as finally determined
by the COA.
In the service of their respective sentences, the petitioners shall be entitled to the benefit of the three-
fold rule as provided in Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
With costs against the petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
Corona (C.J., Chairperson), Bersamin, Del Castillo and Sereno,** JJ., concur.
Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed with modifications.
Note.—In dubio pro reo—when moral certainly as to culpability hangs in the balance, acquittal on
reasonable doubt inevitably becomes a matter of right. (Malillin vs. People, 553 SCRA 619 [2008])
——o0o——
_______________ [Candao vs. People, 659 SCRA 696(2011)]

Candao Vs People

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Candao Vs People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

.R. Nos. 186659-710. October 19, 2011.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Dante F. Vargas for petitioners.

Office of the Special Prosecutor for respondents.

PNB Account No. 370-3208

3 Exhibits “A” to “ZZ,” Sandiganbayan Records.

February 2, 1993 414493Israel Haron & Abas Candao 500,000.00

February 2, 1993 414494Israel Haron & Abas Candao 500,000.00

February 3, 1993 414499Israel Haron & Abas Candao 450,000.00

February 5, 1993 414500Israel Haron & Abas Candao 500,000.00

February 5, 1993 461801 Israel Haron & Abas Candao 500,000.00

Account No. 844061 (Treasurer of the Philippines)

NO. SIGNATORIES AMOUNT

March 2, 1993 974192 Israel Haron & Zacaria Candao 250,000.00

March 4, 1993 974208 Israel Haron & Abas Candao 500,000.00

March 4, 1993 974209 Israel Haron & Abas Candao 500,000.00

March 4, 1993 974210 Israel Haron & Abas Candao 500,000.00

March 4, 1993 974211 Israel Haron & Abas Candao 500,000.00

March 5, 1993 974227 Israel Haron & Abas Candao 500,000.00

March 5, 1993 974228 Israel Haron & Abas Candao 500,000.00

March 18, 1993 974328Israel Haron & Abas Candao 500,000.00

March 19, 1993 974339Israel Haron & Abas Candao 200,000.00

March 19, 1993 974340Israel Haron & Abas Candao 25,000.00

March 19, 1993 974341Israel Haron & Abas Candao 172,000.00

March 29, 1993 979533Israel Haron & Abas Candao 500,000.00

March 29, 1993 979543Israel Haron & Abas Candao 500,000.00

March 29, 1993 979544Israel Haron & Abas Candao 500,000.00

March 29, 1993 979545Israel Haron & Abas Candao 300,000.00

March 30, 1993 979590Israel Haron & Abas Candao 150,000.00

GRAND TOTAL = P21,045,570.64

Criminal Case Nos. 24569-24574,

24576-24584, 24593, 24595-246204

(42 counts involving checks in the

total amount of P17,190,585.00)

Criminal Case Nos. 24585- 24592

(9 counts involving checks in the

total amount of P3,854,985.64)

4 SB Records, Vols. 1, 5-10, 12-20, 29, 31-56.

5 Id., Vols. 21-28 and 30.

Criminal Case No. 245756

6 Id., Vol. 11.

7 Recently appointed Commissioner of the Commission on Audit.

8 TSN, October 13, 1998, pp. 3, 7-26.

9 Id., at pp. 27-34, 40-41.

10 Id., at pp. 41-52, 73-74.

11 TSN, May 20, 2004, pp. 15-24.

12 Id., at pp. 25-42.

13 TSN, April 26, 2005, pp. 6-22.

14 Id., at pp. 24-40.

15 TSN, June 8, 2006, pp. 5-12.

16 Id., at pp. 13-15.

18 Id., at pp. 17-21; id., at pp. 481-485.

Criminal Case Nos. 24569-24584, 24593, 24595-24620

Criminal Case Nos. 24585-24592 & 24594

19 Id., at pp. 21-22; id., at pp. 485-486.

20 Rollo, pp. 104-123.

Petitioners raised the following grounds for their acquittal:

1. …THE SANDIGANBAYAN...COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED

3. … THE SANDIGANBAYAN COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR IN CONVICTING ACCUSED PETITIONERS

The petition has no merit.

Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, provides:

The following elements are essential for conviction in malversation cases:

1. That the offender is a public officer;