G.R. No. L-54288 December 15, 1982 ARTURO DE GUZMAN, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and THE SANDIGANBAYAN, Respondents. Augusto S.

Jimenez for petitioner.
chanrobles vir tual law libr ary

Solicitor General for respondents. -->


chanrobles virtual law library

An appeal by certiorari from the Decision of respondent Sandiganbayan 1 in Criminal Case No. 190 convicting petitioner, Arturo de Guzman, of Malversation of Public Funds.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

We resolved to "(a) give due course to the petition and (b) require the parties to file their respective Memoranda on the constitutional questions raised."
chanrobles virtual law library

1. Petitioner assails the rule-making power of the Sandiganbayan as violative of Article X, section 5(5) of the Constitution, which vests on the Supreme Court the power to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure in all Courts.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

It is true that Section 9 of Presidential Decree No. 1606, the law creating the Sandiganbayan vests it with rule-making power, thus:
chanrobles virtual law library

Sec. 9. Rule-making Power. - The Sandiganbayan shall have the power to promulgate its own rules of procedure and, pending such promulgation, the Rules of Court shall govern its proceedings. However, since the Sandiganbayan is a Court, its rule-making power must be construed, out of "constitutional necessity" as being subject to the approval of the Rules by the Supreme Court. Mr. Justice Antonio Barredo had expressed this view in his Concurring Opinion in "Nuñez vs. Sandiganbayan 111 SCRA 433, 455 (January 30, 1982), when he said:
chanrobles virtual law library

... the rule-making power granted to it (the Sandiganbayan) by P.D. 1606 must of constitutional necessity be understood as signifying that any rule it may promulgate cannot have force and effect unless approved by the Supreme Court, as if they have originated therefrom. The "Rules of the Sandiganbayan" were promulgated on January 10, 1979, and Rule XVIII thereof expressly provides that they "shall take effect upon approval." The approval referred to can only refer to approval by the Supreme Court. The Sandiganbayan has submitted its Rules to this Court. In the absence of any action of approval or disapprobation from this Court the Sandiganbayan has to be guided by the Rules of Court. 2We have reviewed the proceedings

consequently.. his innocence or guilt is passed upon by the three-judge court of a division of respondent Court. As long as a Division has been duly constituted it is a judicial body whose pronouncements are binding as judgments of the Sandiganbayan. the Sandiganbayan functions in Divisions of three Justices each and each Division functions independently of the other. there is no recourse to the Court of Appeals." chanrobles v irtual law library Thus. Petitioner makes much. speaking through Chief Justice Enrique M. he was placed in a "precarious predicament". chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library 2. On this point. is neither meritorious. consequently. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library We find no substance to the argument that no member could be expected to dissent because no special Division of five Justices could then be formed. failing which 'the Presiding Justice shall designate two other justices from among the members of the Court to sit temporarily with them. a unanimous vote is required. it cannot be successfully argued that there is a dilution of the right to appeal. Moreover. this Court. Admittedly. Fernando. . 1486. In the first place. this Court has the duty if he seeks a review to see whether any error of law was committed to justify a reversal of the judgment. Section 3 of PD 1606 provides that "the Sandiganbayan shall sit in three divisions of three Justices each". Petitioner also impugns the authority of the First Division of the Sandiganbayan to hear and decide his case contending that inasmuch as it was the only division which had been constituted. under Presidential Decree No. What cannot be sufficiently stressed is that this Court in determining whether or not to . perhaps excessively so as to the wont of advocates. It thus met the requirement for the pronouncement of a judgment as required by Section 5 of PD 1606 supra. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library 3. While Section 5 thereof provides that "the unanimous vote of the three justices in a division shall be necessary for the pronouncement of a judgment. it could not legally function as a judicial body and. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library The judgment convicting petitioner was a unanimous Decision of the First Division duly constituted. he is deprived of his right to appeal on questions of fact. chanroblesv irtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library This argument must also fail. Although the Sandiganbayan is composed of a Presiding Justice and eight Associate Justices 3. Then if convicted. stressed in the Nuñez case: chanrobles v irtual law library Even from the standpoint then of the American decisions relied upon.. forming a division of five justices and the concurrence of a majority of such division shall be necessary for rendering judgment. it does not mean that it cannot validly function without all of the Divisions constituted. Would the omission of the Court of Appeals as an intermediate tribunal deprive petitioner of a right vital to the protection of his liberty? The answer must be in the negative. considering that the Decision was a unanimous one and there was no indication that any one of the three Justices had intended to dissent. the review coming from this Court. Petitioner's contention that there is a dilution of his right to appeal inasmuch as Decisions of the Sandiganbayan are subject to review by this Court only by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court 4 and.before the Sandiganbayan and we have not found any indication therein of contravention of the Rules of Court. of the fact that there is no review of the facts.

. It should also be recalled that the statutory right to a preliminary investigation may be waived expressly or impliedly. 5 chanrobles virtual law library Justice Barredo. Finally. 6 chanrobles virtual law library 4. The standard as to when there is proof of such weight to justify a conviction is set forth in People vs. With more reason should this rule apply to the review of the decision of a collegiate trial court.. The judgment against petitioner sentenced him as follows: chanrobles virtual law library WHEREFORE. Dramayo. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library 5.. Moreover. Petitioner's argument that he was deprived of his right to a preliminary investigation as the same was conducted ex parte has much less to recommend it.D. In that sense. with only the usual exceptions already known to all lawyers and judges.. as defined and .. it has only the records to rely on. in the same way that the formal administrative investigation against him for dishonesty. I strongly believe that the review of the decisions of the Sandiganbayan whose three justices have actually seen and observed the witnesses as provided for in P. and yet the Supreme Court has no power to reverse its findings of fact. It is Our constant jurisprudence that the cases where pivotal points are shown to have been overlooked by them. it cannot be said that on the appellate level there is no way of scrutinizing whether the quantum of evidence required for a finding of guilt has been satisfied. when the Court of Appeals passes on an appeal in a criminal case. an ex parte preliminary investigation is authorized under section 11 of PD 911. or if subpoenaed he does not appear before the investigating fiscal or state prosecutor. Petitioner waived it when he failed to appear for such investigation despite notice. in his Concurring Opinion also observed: chanrobles vir tual law library .. judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Arturo de Guzman guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the crime of Malversation of Public Funds. I believe that the accused has a better guarantee of a real and full consideration of the evidence and the determination of the facts where there are three judges actually seeing and observing the demeanor and conduct of the witnesses. Petitioner failed to appear at said investigation despite notice thereof received by a member of his family. reading: chanrobles virtual law library . with pay (Exhibit "C").. If respondent cannot be subpoenaed.give due course to the petition for review must be convinced that the constitutional presumption of innocence has been overcome. The denial of his petition for reinvestigation by the Tanodbayan was a matter of discretion with the latter. the preliminary investigation shall proceed without him. and for violation of civil service rules and regulations was similarly conducted ex parte because of petitioner's failure to appear despite due notice served upon and received by his wife. conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. chanrob lesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Besides. where he was found guilty as charged and dismissed from the service effect following his last day of service. 1606 is a more iron-clad guarantee that no person accused before such special court will ever be finally convicted without his guilt appearing beyond reasonable doubt as mandated by the Constitution. petitioner's contention that his conviction is not in accord with the law and jurisprudence is unmeritorious.

37. 1978 an examination would be forthcoming. But.32 from various agencies (Veterinary Inspection Board. as Travelling Collector and an accountable officer. because of this assurance from the accused. thus making said procedure irregular. As uncontradictedly explained by Pielago. paragraph 4. Pielago may have thought that the projected examination would be merely proforma and could not possibly result in anything but a zero-zero balance as far as the accounts of the accused were concerned. a . is neither persuasive. both of reclusion temporaral. as maximum. and in default of any modifying circumstance in attendance. to indemnify the City of Manila. in the same amount of Seventy Six Thousand Five Hundred Twenty One and 37/100 Pesos (P76.37). Said shortgage pertained to collections of petitioner from the Veterinary Inspection Board (Exhibits "H-1-i" to "H-1-n").95. We find that the Sandiganbayan has not committed any error of law in convicting petitioner. collected the total amounhat his conviction is not in accord with law and jurisprudence is unmeritorious.797. The judgmt of P 204.for work anymore beginning June 9. to Eighteen (18) Years. to pay a fine in the amount of Seventy Six Thousand Five Hundred Twenty One and 37/100 Pesos P 76. he made the accused sign the Report of Examination (Exhibit H) in blank even before any examination could be conducted.521. to pay the costs. On this point. as amended by Republic Act 6127. the latter already told him that he had nothing to account for anymore because he had since ceased making collection in anticipation of his then supposed pending promotion. this rather irregular procedure is not altogether without any reasonable explanation. Upon petitioner's assurance that he had no more existing accountabilities as he had ceased to make collections due to his expected promotion. Public Health Laboratory. Evidently. 1978. If he was not present during the audit examination. 7 chanrobles virtual law library It must be emphasized that petitioner did not report . For the period from May 22. petitioner. only P 127. Pielago presented said Report of Examination to petitioner for signature. Gerardo Verder now retired). to suffer perpetual special disqualification. North Cemetery.521.37) representing the amount malversed and. It is true that as candidly admitted by Auditing Examiner Pielago himself. in accordance with the provision of Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code. as minimum. petitioner himself was to blame for he should have known that when he received a demand letter from Pielago to produce his accountabilities (Exhibit "G") on June 5. and his promise to produce his accountabilities on June 7 or 8. 1978. with the accessories provided by law and with credit for preventive imprisonment undergone. we are in full agreement with the findings of respondent Court: chanrobles virtual law library Neither is there any merit in the accused's asseverations that his accountability has not been proved. Republic of the Philippines. of the Revised Penal Code. Eight (8) Months and One (1) Day.521. among others) but remitted to the General Teller (Mr. he resorted to that course of action because. despite a demand from Pielago for the production of his accountabilities (Exhibit "M"). City of Manila. chanrobles virtual law library chanroblesv irtualawlibrary Petitioner's contention that his accountability was not proven considering that the audit examination was conducted in his absence and after he had signed the Report of Examination (Exhibit "H") in blank presented to him by Auditing Examiner Maximo Pielago.319. sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty ranging from Twelve (12) Years and one (1) Day. Cash Division Department of Finance. upon his first demand to the accused for the production of his cash and cash items.penalized in Article 217. if any. 1978 to June 7. 1978. thus resulting in a shortage of P 76.

K-I-a K-2-a. K-1. Official Receipts issued by him to collection agents from whom he received public funds (Exhibits H-1-a to H-1-n). shall be prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds to personal use. 10 chanrobles virtual law library Neither do we find tenable petitioner's contention that his accountability was not established as the Report of Examination was denominated by Pielago as "preliminary". the amount of shortage established could not but be considered final. Daily Statements of Collections Exhibits I. 9 chanrobles virtual law library In the face of the evidence presented. Gerardo Verder the General Teller then. it was only because collections of the accused under official receipts known to be still in his possession and the stubs of which had not yet been submitted. Q-1. because of petitioner's own pending request for transfer of accountability. the only meaning that the term 'preliminary' had in the premises was that the amount of shortage could still be increased if all said receipts are eventually found and taken into account. L-1 to L-8) covering remittances made by him of his collection to the General Teller. As held by respondent Court: chanrobles virtual law library True.. and the Cashbooks also recording his remittances of his collections to the General Teller (Exhibits J. but under the accountability of Gregorio Sano a travelling collector. with serial nos. Q-2-a to Q-2-e). 155901 to 155990. the Ledger reflecting entries of collections made by him from the Veterinary Inspection Board (Exhibits Q.reminder of his criminal liability. But. Q-2. is lame. this does not imply that the same may not be taken as basis for determining the extent of the accountability of the accused as of the date of said audit. the report of the audit aforesaid was denominated as 'preliminary'. petitioner's posture that he had turned over his collections everyday to Mr. 217 of the Revised Penal Code that the failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property with which he is chargeable. J-1. J-2. Pielago thus proceeded with the audit examination of petitioner's accountability from the official records available namely: chanrobles v irtual law library . upon demand by any public officer. In Malversation. he could not but admit his accountability for receipts. I-1 to I-7) and Official Receipts (Exhibits L. Q-1-a to Q-1-f. If there was anything tentative about the finding made. But. An accountable public officer may be convicted of Malversation even if there is no direct evidence of misappropriation and the only evidence is that there is a shortage in his accounts which he has not been able to explain satisfactorily. .. on the basis of the records available to the auditor. J-2-a. Besides. and K-2-b) 8 chanrobles virtual law library As against the above documentary evidence. who had assured him that he would do the explaining. issued by him. all that is necessary to prove is that the defendant received in his possession public funds. petitioner failed to overcome the presumption under Art. indeed. K. were not yet accounted for. Hence. J-1-a. that he could not account for them and did not have them in his possession and that he could not give a reasonable excuse for the disappearance of the same. and the fact that administrative charges had been filed against him for violation of civil service rules and regulations and conduct prejudicial to the best interests of the service (Exhibit "F").

convicting petitioner of the crime of Malversation of Public Funds. 1982.. 1978 of P. 1606..J.. Plana. Nos. 1978 of P. because the crime was committed several days before the promulgation on June 11. Fernando. J. 50581 and 50617.D. C. J. concurring and dissenting: I reiterate my concurring and dissenting opinion in the Nuñez case. R. concurring and dissenting: chanrobles v irtual law library I reiterate my concurring and dissenting opinion in the Nuñez case. 1486 and eleven (11) months before the promulgation on December 10. MAKASIAR. Jan.D. 1978 of P.. is hereby affirmed. MAKASIAR.All told. 1606.. 30. Aquino. G. J. Jr. No. 30. 1486 and eleven (11) months before the promulgation on December 10. Costs against petitioner. Nos. Abad Santos. Relova and Gutierrez. Sandiganbayan. the judgment appealed from. Sandiganbayan.. because the crime was committed several days before the promulgation on June 11.D. Jan. concurring: chanrobles virtual law library Reiterates his concurrence with the grounds of Justice Makasiar's dissent in Nunez vs. G. No. Guerrero. . chanrobles virtual law library Separate Opinions TEEHANKEE. we are convinced that the constitutional presumption of innocence in petitioner's favor has been overcome and his guilt established beyond reasonable doubt. De Castro. concur. R.D. concurring: Reiterates his concurrence with the grounds of Justice Makasiar's dissent in Nunez vs. J. 1978 of P. 1982. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library WHEREFORE. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Separate Opinions TEEHANKEE. 50581 and 50617. Arturo de Guzman. Escolin Vasquez. JJ. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library SO ORDERED..

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

902....7 8/880393:30.. 7  70907..078.43./.943 41!:-. 7 .0.099074:3/841:89.374-08 .0.7 .3/.943430.:773.7 9:.93509943074190..422990/80.3/4   6:34 :077074 -.3//88039345343390:N0.07. ..43.843.-7.43..:773.03. 7   $05.7 8/880393:30...3   ..:773...94343:30 41!  4 .3/.3  # 48  .-7..:8090..07..0/1742 .3/  .43.79:.90 53438  %  .7    $05./$.38950994307 79:74/0:2..3-.-80/-043/70.8  $.79:.-7..3/8:9089.94343:30 41!  4 .72041.7.0350994307 81..02-07 41!     .374-08 .550. 79:.3/00.79:.80-0.7 .79:...11720/ 4898.43.5708:2594341334.43899:943.:7703.3948 0.8.-7.943430.8974 !.3//88039345343390:N0.902.3/  .43.374-08 .374-08 .8  $.90 53438 %  .-7...-0/4:-9   .3    $#  . 8.3//880393 70907.43..8-01470905742:. 7 # # 90:/2039..422990/80.720.990..3-.03  24398-01470905742:.:773.7 $  ##  073.-7.43'. #04. -7.03  24398-01470905742:./. .-7..0/9.3/ :90770 7  .9088.374-08 .3/00.8-0034.3.:8090..:7   .8.3.79:.3  # 48  .:773 .3//880393 .:3/8 8070-.8 .8-01470905742:.3    $#  .02-07 41!      .420.8 .:7703.7.47 .374-08 ..374-08 .70.7 9:.:773 #0907.7..9088.7  #0907.099074:3/841:89.374-08 .94/ 0.374-08 .80-0.43..720.07.79:.