Republic of the Philippines : 7" Judicial Region MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES Branch 4 Dumaguete City PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ~ Plaintiff, CRIM. CASE NO. M-52 -versus- FOR: FAILURE OF ACCOUNTABLE, OFFICER TO RENDER VIRGINIA LACUESTA (SG 20) ACCOUNTS (Article 218 of Associate Professor Il the Revised Penal Code) Negros Oriental State University Dumaguete City, Accused. JUDGMENT This case stems from an Information for Failure of Accountable Officer to Render Accounts (Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code) against accused VIRGINIA E. LACUESTA which was filed on May 26, 2017 and raffled to this Court on June 1, 2017. The Information is recited as follows: “That from 2008 to 2009, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in Dumaguete City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused VIRGINIA E. LACUESTA, an accountable officer being an Associate Professor |i of Negros Oriental State Univeristy (NORSU), who cornmitted an offense in relation to her office, received a number of cash advances totaling to Two Hundred Forty Two Thousand, Two Hundred Sixty-Four Pesos (P 242,264.00), which she was duly bound to liquidete and render accounts as required under Commission on Audit (COA) Circular 97-002, with deliberate intent, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously fail to render account and liquidete the following cash advances, for a period of two months efter such account should have been rendered: ~~ | Date when] Dateof | a nies Date of Cheek oe ave | iquidation tT 008 | “July 30,3018" =e July 4, 2014 ‘Annual ‘May ‘Aug. 3, 2015 Report nn Proportion | PAP85,000,00° | Research Dee, 16, 2008 Project ——} - = Not indisaied | July 30,3008 | r IJudgment - Page 2 of 14 Pp. vs. Virginia E. Lacuesta Criminal Case No. M-52 to the damage and prejudice of the goverment. CONTRARY TO LAW. Cebu City (for Dumaguete City), February 17, 2017." Accused was arraigned on July 19, 2017 where she pleaded “not guilty” to the offense charged in the Information.” Due to the resetting sought for by the prosecution, the Pre-trial was only conducted and terminated on December 4 2017,° and the parties signed the Pre-Trial Order on December 14, 2017.4 The reception of prosecution evidence then commenced on March 21 2018,° and the prosecution rested its case on 19 June 2018.5 On 4 July 2018, the prosecution submitted its Formal Offer of Evidence’, and accused filed her Comments/Objections on @ July 2018." The Court admitted the prosecution's Exhibits “A” to “S” in an Order dated 9 July 2018.2 The defense then presented its evidence starting on 10 July 2018, and it rested its case on October 17, 2018."° On 7 November 2018, accused filed her Formal Offer of Exhibits,'' while the prosecution. filed its Comment on Accused’s Formal Offer of Exhibit on 16 November 2018.'? In the Court's Order dated 25 November 2018, it admitted accused's Exhibits “1” to “12°, and the instant case was then submitted for decision. FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS Version of the Prosecution From the year 2008 to 2009, accused: Virginia E, Lacuesta, being an accountable officer employed at the Negros Oriental State University, received a number of cash advances totalling to P 242,264.00 which she was duty bound to liquidate and render accounts as required under the Commission of Audit Circular No. 97-002. With intent, she feloniously failed to render account and liquidate the cash advances for a period of two months after such account should have been rendered.'* Accused’s Version Accused is innocent of the crime charged. Dr. Virginia E. Lacuesta, in her capacity as an accountable officer, exerted all efforts amounting to good faith in * Foll, pp. 45 * Order dated July 19, 2017, folio, p. 104 ° Order dated December 4, 2017, fll, p. 212 1 Pre-tiial Oider dated 22 December 2017, foo, p. 219.222 ° Folio, 227 7 folio, pp. 250-252 fo * Folio, p. 286 * follo,p.287 ¥ brestcal Onder, supraJudgment - Page 3 of 14 Pp. vs. Virginia E. Lacuesta Criminal Case No. M-52 exercising her duties. Finally, the funds entrusted to her by reason of her office have already been duly liquidated."® EVIDENCE PRESENTED EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION Documentary evidence: Exhibit “A” to “A-3" Exhibit "B” Exhibit *C” Exhibit “D” Exhibit “E” Exhibit “F” Exhibit "G” to"G-3" Exhibit “H” and “H-1" Exhibit “I” to “l-2” Exhibit “J” and “J-1” Exhibit “kK” "Ker" Exhibit “L” Le Exhibit "WM" “Mer” wid * folio, pall * folio, pp. 12-16 > Folio, p. 28 Folio, p. 29 * Folio, p. 30, * Folio, p. 32 Folio, p. 32 2 Folio, p. 47-48 Folio, ip. 4951 2 Folio, pp. 5253, * Folio, p34 2 Folio, p38 3 Folio, pp. 36-27 ® Folio, p. 38 * Foto, p. 39 Filed Investigation Report dated November 27, 2016" Complaint of Alejandro P. Borden dated March 11, 2016"7 Certification from the Human Resource Management Office dated July 21, 2015" Appointment of Virginia E. Lacuesta dated June 1, 2006" Panunumpa sa Katungkulan dated August 15, 1995%° Service Record of Virginia E. Lacuesta”* Personal Data Sheet of Virginia E. Lacuesta”® List of Accountable Officers with Unliquidated Cash Advances as of June 3, 20147 Certification from the Accounting Office dated July 29, 2015” List of check Disbursemerit Vouchers and the related Obligation Requests issued by the Accounting Office of NORSU* Disbursement Voucher dated October 30, 20087 Allotment and Obligation Slip (ALOBS) dated October 30, 2008 DBP Check No. DUM 2839442 dated November 3, 2008 dorsal side’ Disbursement Voucher dated November 27, 2008%° Allotment and Obiigation Slip (ALOBS) dated May 19, 2009Judgment - Page 4 of 14 Pp. vs. Virginia . Lacuesta Criminal Case No. M-52 Exhibit ‘N" DBP Check No. DUM 28394483 dated November 28, 2008 “Net” dorsal side™ Exhibit *O” Disbursement Voucher dated May 19, 2009° *O-1" Allotment and Obligation Slip (ALOBS) dated May 19, 2009%° Extibit"P” - DBP Check No. DUM 28394741 dated May 25, 2009 "P-1"- dorsal side* Exhibit *Q” - Disbursement Voucher dated December 10, 2008 ExhibitR" - LBP Check, No. 0000174906 dated December 16, 2008 “R-1”- dorsal side* Exhibit"S"- DBP Check No. DUM 12939152 dated July 30, 2008 “S-1"- dorsal side” Testimonial Evidence: Merlyn A. Romano Direct and cross examinations: April 4, 2018°° EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE Documentary evidence: Exhibit *1" Liquidation Report dated July 29, 2015°° Exhibit 2" Accountable Form No. 51 0.R. No. 0312135 dated July 29, 2015” Exhibit "3" Liquidation Report dated July 4, 201447 Exhibit "4" Liquidation Report dated July 30, 2015% “4a” Liquidation Report dated July 1, 2015" "4b" Accountable Form No. §1 0.R. No, 0312133 dated July 29, 2015 Exhibit "6" Liquidation Report dated July 30, 2015 in the amount of P 18,700.00" “S-a’ Liquidation Report dated July 1, 2015" “5b” Accountable Form No. 51 O.R. No. 0312131 dated July 29, 2015 alo, pp. 5556 2 Folio, pp. 5758 {2 Testimony of Merlyn A. Romano, Transcript of Stenographic Notes dated April, 2018, folio, pp.291-308 2 Folio, p. 152 Folio, p. 183, “Folio, p. 154 Folio, p. 158, * Folio, p. 156 “FolJudgment - Page 5 of 14 Pp. vs. Virginia E. Lacuesta Criminal Case No. M-52 Exhibit "6” Certification of Clearance dated July 6, 2015°° Exhibit ‘7” PRISM cover page” to‘7-m’ Exhibit "8" Affidavit of Dr. Evelyn Lazalita dated July 12, 2017°° Exhibit “9° Affidavit of Dindo R. Dela Peta dated July 12, 2017" Exhibit “10° Affidavit of Dr. Merivic G. Catada dated July 12, 2017 Exhibit "11" Affidavit of Kathyrence P. Academia dated July 12, 2017° Exhibit"12" - afi of Dr. Maria Elsa llona A. Bulado dated July 12, Witnesses for the defense: 1. Maria Elsa llona A. Bulado Direct, cross and redirect examinations: July 10, 2018 ny Dindo Dela Petia . Direct and cross examinations: July 31, 2018 3. Evelyn Lazalita . Direct, cross and redirect examinations: July 31, 20187 4, Kathyrence P. Academia 7 Direct and cross examinations: July 31, 2018°° 5. Merivic Catada Direct and cross examinations: July 31, 2016 6. Virginia E. Lacuesta Direct and cross examinations: October 17, 2018°° STIPULATIONS During the Pre-trial of the case, the parties stipulated on the following matters: atin. 160 Et a a “Folio, p. 161, * Folio, pp. 51-63 2 Folio, pp. 376-377 Folio, pp. 184-185 Folio, pp. 191-192 Folio, pp. 199-200 Folio, pp. 206-207 idicial Affidavit of Marla Elsa ona A. Qulado dated 12 September 2017, fllo, p. 201-208; Testimony of Maria Elsa llona ‘A Bulado, Transcript of Stenogranhic Notes dated July 10,2018, fola, pp.307-315 56 Judicial Affidavit of Dindo Delo Pata dated September 12, 2017, follo, pp. 178-1 anscript of Stenographic Notes dated July 31, 2018, follo, pp. 318-328 judicial Affidavit of Evelyn Mi, Lizalta dated September 12, 2017, fall, pp. 169-175; Testimony of Evelyn M. Lazalta, ‘Transcript of Stenographic Notes dated July 31, 2018, oll, pp. 328-336 Judicial Affidavit of Kathyrence P. Academia dated September 12, 2017, folio, pp. 193-198; Testimony of Kathyrence P, ‘Academia, Transcript of Stenographiec Notes dated October 8, 2018, folio, p. 338-343 Iudiial affidavit of Merivic G. Catada dated September 12, 2017, folio, pp. 186-190; Testimony of Mervic G. Catada, ‘Transcript of Stonographic Notes dated October &, 2018, folio, pp. 344-350 © Judicial Aifidavit of Virginia E. Lacuesta dated September 12, 2017, fllo, p. 122-137; Testimony of Virginia E, Lacuesta, “Transcript of Stenographic Notes dated October 17, 2018, follo, pp. 353-367 Testimony of Dindo Dela Peis,’ aa Judgment - Page 6 of 14 Pp. vs. Virginia E. Lacuesta Criminal Case No. M-52, Ae 2. a 4. The identity of the accused as the one who was duly arraigned in this case. Accused is a public officer. Accused is an accountable officer. The funds entrusted to the accused in the total amount of P 242,264.00 was duly liquidated prior to the filing of this case. ISSUE Whether or not accused committed the acts constituting the crime of Failure of Accountable Officer to Render Accounts, as charged in the Information. RULING Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code consists of the following elements: . that the offender is a public officer, whether in the service or separated therefrom; that he must be an accountable officer for public funds or property, that he is required by law or regulation to render accounts to the Commission on Audit, or to a provincial auditor; and that he fails to do so for a period of two months after such accounts should be rendered.*" eR - With the stipulations made by the parties above, it is of record that the first three elements of the crime charged are present. The crux of the controversy now lies in the determination of the attendance of the fourth element. The fourth element of the offense charged against the accused speaks of two (2) periods, i.e., the period when the account should be rendered and a two-month period following the first period. COA Circular No. 97-4 .002,° provides for the period for liquidation of cash advances: ° aloysius Dat turnauig “dated February 10, 1997 5 LIQUIDATION OF CASH ADVANCES 5.1. The accountable officer shall liquidate his cash advance as follows: XXX XXK XXX 5.1.2. Petty Operating Expenses and Field Operating Expenses— within twenty (20) days after the end of the year, subject to replenishment as frequently as necessary during the year. 5.1.3. Official Travel ~ within sixty (60) days after retum to the Philippines in case of foreign travel or within thirty (30) days after return to his permanent official station in cases of local travel, as provided for in EO 248 and COA Circular No. 96-004. vs Peopl le of re Pillppines, G.R. No.166680, uly 7,2014ow Judgment - Page 7 of 14 Pp. vs. Virginia E. Lacuesta Criminal Case No. M-52 Failure of the AO to liquidate his cash advances within the prescribed period shall constitute a valid cause for the withholding of his salary. XXX XXX XN 5.8. All cash advances shall be fully liquidated at the end of each year. Except for petty cash funds, the accountable officer shall refund any unexpended balance to the Cashier/Collecting Officer who will issue the necessary official recei, A review of the documents submitted into evidence and the testimonies of the witnesses reveal the following details: 1. P 85,000.00 Covered by Disbursement Voucher No. 1-08121269 dated December 1, 2008 (Exhibit “Q’) and represented by Check No. 174906 dated December 16, 2008 (Exhibit “R") Date of completion of activity: July 2013 Date liquidated: July 29, 2014 (Exhibit "1) In her Judicial Affidavit, accused stated that this amount was allotted to her in her capacity as IGP (Income Generating Program) Director and was used for research on the socio-economic status of the income generating projects in_the NORSU system.” She was able to publish her research on July 2013. On cross-examination, however, she revealed that this amount was released to her in her capacity as an associate professor since the research project was part of her mandate as such. The research was made not in relation to her being a coordinator or director, but in relation to her being a professor.®° Reason for the delay in liquidation: She alleged that she was not informed by the former accounting officer of NORSU, Mrs. Liwayway Aba, that there was a manner and time that said cash advances were to be liquidated. She was not aware that an. expense of more than P 1,000.00 needs canvass papers to make the proper liquidation of the amount, She only acquired the necessary information when she was about to complete her report. Since the purchases were already made and the activity for which the cash advances were drawn had already transpired, she had difficulty in going about the liquidation procedure. HP 6,400.00 Covered by Disbursement Voucher No. 163-08-10407 dated October 30, 2008 (Exhibit "K") and represented by Check No. 28394442 dated November 3, 2008 (Exhibit “L’) for travel to Makati City © Q8A21, folio, p. 127 TT 9831, folio, p. 128 © Testimony of Virginia E. Lacuesta, supra, folio, p. 359 08.034, folio, p. 128Judgment - Page 8 of 14 Pp. vs. Virginia E. Lacuesta Criminal Case No. M-52 Date of travel: November 6-8, 2008 Date liquidatedirefunded: July 29, 2015 (Exhibit *2’) Besed on accused's Judicial Affidavit, this amount was allotted to her in relation to her position as Coordinator for RACO-CVCIRRD (Regional Applied Communication Office ~ Central Visayas Consortium for Integrated Regional Research and Development). It covered expenses for herself and Dr. Evelyn Lazalita when they travelled to Makati City for the PCCARD Anniversary last November 6-8, 2008. Justification given: She claims that she already liquidated the amount right after the travel to Makati, but she was shocked upon learning that the travel remained unliquidated, However, she does not have a copy of the documents submitted.” Ml. P 80,000.000 Covered by Disbursement Voucher No. 163-2008-12 dated Nov. 27, 2008 (Exhibit “M’) and represented by Check No. 28394483 dated November 28, 2008 (Exhibit “N’) for IEC Training held on December 18-19, 2008 and covers expenses for guest accommodation, food, expenses for resource persons from Manila. Date of completion of activity: December 19, 2008 Date liquidated/refunded: July 4, 2014 (Exhibit “3") Reason for the delay in liquidation: As stated in accused's Judicial Affidavit, she was not informed by Mrs. Liwayway Aba about the relevant rules, most especially the application of Reimbursement Expense Receipts (RERs) and the use of Engagement Forms for liquidation purposes. Because of the tedious procedure and lack of manpower, the reconstruction of the needed documents for liquidation took more than the required period of time.” The RERs given to the speakers needed to have an engagement form signed by the facilitators and speakers. Sho did not expect that she was requireci to submit the Engagement Form of the resource persons who received the honoraria.’ When she drew the cash advance for the training seminar, She was not given official notice or advice for the requirement of an engagement form. Getting the signsture of the resource speakers who hail from provinces or cities after the activity transpired took time. They exerted tremendous effort to get the signatures on the engagement forms, but they did not get any response from the resource speakers,’ The van rentals and supply receipts also needed documents that passed the procurement Procedure, and it took them a jong time to have the documents signed by ° Q&A39, folio, p. 129 ® 2.44, folio, p. 130 ® QRASt, folio, p.121 7 QRAS2, folio, p. 131 *QRAS3 & 54, folo, p13)ow Judgment - Page 9 of 14 Pp. vs. Virginia E. Lacuesta Criminal Case No. M-52 the BAC members.” She was able to liquidate the expenses after a tedious process.” IV. P 16,864.00 - Covered by Disbursement Voucher No. 163-09- 05206 (Exhibit “O") and represented by Check No, 28394742 dated May 25, 2009 (Exhibit *P") for the, production of the CVCIRRD Annual Report.” Date of completion of activity: end of 2009 Date liquidated: August 3, 2015 (Exhibit “4”) Reason for the delay: Accused claimed that she had to reconstruct the liquidation documents. It took her some time for the BAC Chairman to sign the abstract of bids and other canvass papers.” The liquidation was only made on August 3, 2015. V.P 54,000.00 - — Represented by Check No. 12939152 dated duly 30, 2008 (Exhibit “S") for the production and dissemination of IEC materials Date of completion of activity: July 30, 2008 Date of liquidation/refund: August 3, 2015. (Exhibit “S") Accused stated in her Judicial Affidavit that this amount was allotted to her in relation to her position as RACO CVCIRRD Coordinator for two purposes: P 30,000.00 for the IEC materials in documenting the best practices for Magsasaka Siyentista for Region Vii, and P 24,000.00 for travel expenses for purposes of monitoring FITS Centers in Region VIl.’” Hence, her accountability is only for the P 30,000.00 ’° which she has already promptly liquidated.” But since the disbursement was under her name, she was obliged to account for the said amount® which she paid with her own money.”* DISCUSSION The records of the case bear that accused admitted the following matters: ” QRASS, folio, p. 132 * QBAnsi, folio, p. 132 Qaa6e, folio, p.132 © Q&As, fll, p. 133Judgment - Page 10 of 14 Pp. vs. Virginia E, Lacuesta Criminal Case No. M-52 Accused’s research project was finished and published in 2013, but she did not liquidate the cash advance of P 85,000.00 until a demand was. made because she had to reconstruct. *? > As for the P 80,000.00, accused admitted that she ‘only started liquidating the said cash advance in 2013 when the new accountant told her to liquidate despite the fact that training was conducted on December 18-19, 2008 or five years back. She submitied the receipts required, but the accounting office would not accept her receipts because they needed to attach canvass of the receipts which is more than P 1,000.00. For an activity that was done in 2008, she claims it was tedious for her to reconstruct the documents. It took her 2 years to reconstruct after she received the demand letter from the new accountant. ** > For the cash advance of P 16,864.00, accused aiso acmmitted on cross- examination that she liquidated the same in 2013, but she was also asked to reconstruct the documents for canvassing and to secure the signatures of the members of the BAC. Some of the members haci already retired and some were on study leave. She had to reach out to them and look for their houses so that she could have their signatures.™* Despite her admission that she failed to liquidate the first four cash advances, within the period allowed by law, accused asserted that she could not be considered in delay since she only learned of the Commission on Audit's policy for the liquidation of cash advances in two months sometime in October 2013 when she received a demand letter. Prior to the said year, she did not have any knowledge regarding the manner in which the advances should be liquidated." She further justified the delay in her liquidations with the fact that she was holding two additional positions as IGP Director and RACO Coordinator on top of her teaching load. She claims that she is not a businesswoman or an educational manager, and it was very challenging for her.°° She was not oriented with the specific procedures specifically for the liquidation of funds since the former Accounting Officer of NORSU, Ms. Liwayway Aba, did not inform her about the procedure. Since she did not have any accounting background, the circumstances forced her to leam everything from scratch."” She could have liquidated the amount after she received the demand to liquidate in 2013, but since she had to reconstruct the documents, it took her a long time to do the same.®° Further, she contended that she was not given a staff to assist her®? and she had to do the liquidation by herself. The Court, however, finds that the foregoing explanations are not sufficient justification for accused's inordinate delay in her liquidation. In a number of cases, the Supreme Court had ruled that a pri ‘ice or demand foy liquidation cash advances is not a condition sine gua non to hoid an accountable ® Testimony of Virginia E, Lacuesta, supra, fll, p. 364 {iL Testimony of Virginia E, Lacuesta, supra, fll, p, 359; p. 364 “ibid * thd, foo, p. 362 Ibid, folio, p. 362 (i Audiial Affidavit of Virgina E Lacuesta, supra, QBA20, folio, p. 126 "Testimony of Virgina E. Lacuest, supra folio, p. 362 “udical affidavit of Virgina , Lacuesta, supra, QHIALA - 18, follo, pp. 125-126Judgment - Page 11 of 14 Pp. vs. Virginia E. Lacuesta Criminal Case No. M-52 officer liable for violation of Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code.” The igh C ‘ourt emphasized that nowhere in vision it require that there first be a demand before an accountable officer is held liable for a violation of the crime. The law is very clear. Where none is provided, the court may not introduce exceptions or conditions, neither may it engraft into the law. qualifications not contemplated. Where the law is clear and unambiguous, it must be taken to mean exactly what it says and the court has no choice but to see to if that its mandate is obeyed. There is no room for interpretation, but only application.°* The Court cannot also countenance accused’s excuse that she failed to promptly liquidate the subject cash advances since she was not informed of the deadline and manner of liquidation. It is a basic tenet that ignorance of the law excuses no one. And for a person with a doctorate degree such as the accused, it is hard to believe that she would not have any modicum of expectation or idea that government funds disbursed to public officers must be liquidated. This excuse is also contradicted by the fact thet she actually had tutorials for accounting procedures with the Chief Administrative Officer of Finance, Dr. Salas, because Dr. Maria Elsa llona A. Bulado, Vice President for Administration and Special Concerns requested her to do so.° The Court notes with importance that she is not the only coordinator under the CVCIRRD. There is a coordinator for Management Information System in the person of Evelyn M. Lazalita and a coordinator for the Techno Gabay Program in the person of Merivic G. Catada. Despite the fact that they hold parallel positions, the other two coordinators do not have any unliquidated cash advances as shown in the List of Accountable Officers with Unliquidated Cash Advances as of June 30, 2014 (Exhibit “H"). Hence, it is highly unbelievable that for a period of five years she could have not known of the requirement to liquidate her cash advances until she received a demand from the University Chief Accountant to liquidate. Due to this long delay, the difficulty which accused experienced in reconstructing her documents for liquidation can only be attributable to her. Had she processed promptly her liquidation, it would not have been that difficult to secure the necessary documents since the persons concerned would still have been readily available then. Accused further reasoned that she was overwhelmed with work since she was holding two administrative positions on top of her teaching load, i.e., as IGP Director and as RACO Coordinator. As the first IGP Director, she had to come up with projects to headstart NORSU's engagement in corporate activities.* She also claims that she has no staff to assist her in her administrative functions.®* However, the testimonies of accused's own witnesses show that her work is not that heavy as she made it appear. Merivic G. Catada testified that her work in the CVCIRRD was actually heavier than that of the accused's because the latter's work is usually conducted in the office for IEC production, making of brochures, and the like.”* Further, she clarified that they have 2 staffs in the program and they share the time of these personnel to the other coordinators, although neither © Aloysius Dat Lurauig vs. Pp, .R. No.1666R0, July 7, 2044 cting Manlangltv. Sandiganbayan, 558 Phil, 166,278 (2007) and United States v.Sabernn, GA. No, LEU, August 4, 1911 ° Aloysius Dait Luma "ualial afidavit of Vi folio, p. 322 sudo affiavit of Virginia €. tacueste, supra, Q8A21, folio, p. 125 * tbid, QRA13-29, folie, pp. 125-126 Testimony of Miativic G, Catada, supe, folio, p. 350 Lacuesta, supre, Q8A12, obo, p. 125; Testimony of Dr. Maria Elsa lloras A. Bulado,supre,Judgment - Page 12 of 14 Pp. vs. Virginia E. Lacuesta Criminal Case No, M-52 staff is under the direct control and supervision of the accused.® In fact, defense witness Kathyrence P. Academia stated in her Judicial Affidavit that she helped the accused in the lay-outing and editing of brochures during the production and dissemination of various IEC materials.” She added during her cross- examination that she is also involved in the documentation of farm practices and in the conduct of a seminar which the accused did back to back with another coordinator.” It must also be stressed that the brochure that accused and Ms. ‘Academia were working on did not materialize, which necessarily means @ reduction of her work. Accused also had a very minimal teaching load of only 6 units precisely because of her additional designations as IGP Director and RACO Coordinator." Moreover, since accused already resigned as director ancl coordinator in 2011, she could no longer use the excuse that she was overwhelmed with work. From her resignation in 2011, she had ample time to liquidate her cash advances before the university accountant demanded from her to liquidate. Furthermore, accused’s assertion that she already liquidated the 6,400.00 cash advance for her travel to Makati City on November 6-8, 2008 is unsupported by clear evidence proving the same. Although defense witness Dr. Merivic G. Catada claimed that they could not travel again if they could not liquidate their previous cash advance," it is clear from the evidence on record that the said policy was not observed and that the existence of the said policy does not preclude non-liquidation. This is demonstrated by the List of Accountable Officers with Unliquidated Cash Advances 2s of June 30, 2014 (Exhibit “H") which shows that after accused’s November 6-8, 2008 travel to Makati City, she was still able to make several cash advances for travel even without having liquidated the previous ones, viz: January 25-28, 2009 Tagbilaran City Liquidated on Nov. 15, 2014 May 26-28, 2009 Tagbilaran City Liquidated on Nov. 15, 2014 June 14-18, 2011 Baybay, Leyte Liquidated on Nov. 15, 2014 July-Aug., 2010 Extemai Campuses _Liquidated on Nov. 26, 2014 As for the P 54,000.00, accused asserted that in her Judicial Affidavit that this amount was allotted to her for two purposes: P 30,000.00 for the IEC materials in documenting the best practices and P 24,000.00 for iravel expenses. The Court, however, finds this contention untenable on several grounds. in her Liquidation Reports for this amount dated August 3, 2015 (Exhibit “5") and July 4, 2015 (Exhibit "5-a") she indicated therein that the said cash advance was for the production and dissemination of various forms of IEC materials. Nowhere is it indicated that itis also for travel. COA rules specifically prohibit the transfer of cash advances from one Accountable Officer fo another,'"' hance, the transfer alone of a portion of the P 54,000.00 to another officer is already violative of COA tules, Further, since the Accountable Officer for the said disbursement is Dr. Lacuesta as evidenced by DBP Check No. 12939152 dated July 30, 2008 (Exhibit “S'), only the accused can legally effect the liquidation. "Judicial affidavit of Kathyrence P, Academia, supra, QBA9, folio, p. 194 “Testimony of Kathyrence P. Academia, supa, folio, p. 341 % Testimony of Dr. Maria Esa llona A. Bulado, supra, fli, 312, * big, fll, p. 348 * COA Grrr No, 97-002, No, 4.1.6Judgment - Page 13 of 14 Pp. vs. Virginia E. Lacuesta Criminal Case No. M-52 ‘The Court is not also convinced with accused's assertion that she allegedly promptly liquidated the P $4,000.00. Except for the very curt statement in No. 73 of her Judicial Affidavit that she promptly liquidated her share of P 30,000.00, she did not state when she made such liquidation or offered any other detail, But what gave way to the truth that she simply failed to liquidate until such time that a demand was made upon her is accused's admission as reflected in the following testimony: ‘Q The training on November 28, 2008 you never did a liquidation until you were given a demand letter? The annual report preparation on May 25, 2009, you did not ‘submit a liquidation until you receive the demand letter? Yah, because it took me long to finish The research project on December 16, 2008 was finished on 2013, no liquidation until demand? Yah, because / had to reconstruct. So, no? No, Your Honor. The P 54,000 the purpose of which is not indicated on July 30, 2008, no liquidation until the demand fetter QrO> OF also? Yes.” (emphasis added) > The mere failure to timely liquidate the cash advance is the gravamen of the offense against Sections 89 and 128 of P.D. No. 1445. Actual damage to the government arising from the non-liquication of the cash advance is not an essential element of the offense punished under the second sentence of Section 89 of P.D. No. 1445 as implemented by then COA Circular No. 90-231 (the predecessor of COA Circular No. 97-002). Verily, the law seeks to compel the accountable officer, by penal provision, to promptly render an account of the funds which he received by reason of his office.” Thus, with the above evaluation, the Court holds that the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime charged in the Information. Since accused surrendered voluntarily to the Court and posted bail, as borne by the records, the Court shall consider the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender" in favor of the accused. Further, the Supreme Court had tuled that the payment, indemnification, or reimbursement of the funds misappropriated may be considered a mitigating circumstance for failure to render an account under Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code.’ The Information in this case indicates that accused failed to liquidate her cash advances in 2008, 2009 and 2013. R.A. 10951, which took effect on September 16, 2017, operates retroactively only when its provisions are favourable to the accused. A retroactive application thereof is not ‘warranted in the instant case since the renge of fine for violation of Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code under R.A. 10951 is prision correccional in its minimum period and/or a fine ranging from P 49,000.00 to P 1,200,000.00, while the penalty before the amendment of R.A. 10951 is prision correccional in its minimum period or a fine ‘G.R_ No. 174504; March 24, 2012, Pp., G.R. No. 165680, July 7, 2014: Judgment - Page 14 of 14 Pp. vs. Virginia E, Lacuesta Criminal Case No. M-52 ranging from P 200.00 to P 6,000.00. Hence, it is the penalty imposed during the commission of the crime charged which must be imposed by the Court. Taking into account the above-mentioned mitigating circumstances and the fact that accused exerted eamest effort to reconstruct her documents for liquidation purposes, albeit belatedly, the Court believes that the imposition of fine is commensurate to the infraction committed WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused VIRGINIA ELONA LACUESTA “GUILTY” beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Failure of an Accountable Officer to Render Accounts as defined and penalized under Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code and hereby sentences her to pay a fine of Six Thousand Pesos (P 6,000.00), with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. Accused is absolved of any civil liability since she had already liquideted and/or reimbursed the full amount of the subject cash advances. Considering thet the penalty imposed is only fine, the cash bail posted by the accused for her temporary liberty in the amount of Six Thousand Pesos (P6,000.00) as represented by Official Receipt No. 0692557 dated June 5, 2017 is hereby ordered released to the accused. SO ORDERED. 8 May 2019. Dumaguete City, Philippines. DINAH B. TABADA-CHU Presiding Judge Copy furnished ht, _- Pros. Ryan S. Buenavista = CPO, Dumaguete city v7" ©: leit ht, Gesta Riva Gamo - Dumaguete City or, ble _Aiginia E, Lacuesta - Upper Motong, Durhaguét sh 9 _ Fi ivesigation fee (FIO) - Office of the Ombudsman for the Visayas, M. Velez St., Cebu City _/7he Clerk of Court = OCC, MTCC, Dumaguete City — °C ne. Manila