New Concept of an Accountable

Officer
MB CAMPANILLA·SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2017

For purpose of malversation, national officer shall be considered as an

accountable officer if he has custody or control of public property by reason of the
duties of his office (Government Auditing Code of the Philippines) such as a
principal of a public high school entrusted with public funds (Torres vs. People,
GR No. 175074, August 31, 2011).

However, the Section 340 of the Local Government Code expanded the concept of
an accountable local officer. The local accountable officers under this Code are:

1. Local officer, who has possession or custody of local government funds because
of the nature of their functions (Zoleta vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 185224, July
29, 2015) such as cashier, treasurer, collector, property officer or any other officer
or employee who is tasked with the taking of money or property from the public
which they are duty-bound to keep temporarily until such money or property are
properly deposited in official depository banks or similar entities; or until they
shall have endorsed such money or property to other accountable officers or
concerned offices (Panganiban vs. People, G.R. No. 211543, December 09, 2015).

2. Local officer, who has participated in the use or application of thereof (Zoleta
vs. Sandiganbayan, supra). Vice-Governor and treasurer have duty to participate
in the release of funds. Their signatures are needed to disburse municipal funds.
No payment can be effected without their signatures. They had control and
responsibility over the funds; hence, they are accountable officer (Manuel vs.
Hon. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 158413, February 08, 2012).

In Panganiban vs. People, G.R. No. 211543, December 09, 2015, the Supreme
Court ruled that a mayor with respect to cash advance for an official travel that he
did not undertake is not an accountable officer since his duty is not to collect
money or property from the public.

However, the application of the Panganiban case must be confined to cash

advance received by a mayor. A public officer with respect to cash advance for
livelihood (People vs. Icdang, G.R. No. 185960, January 25, 2012) or cash
advance to buy property (People vs. Devalos, G.R. No. 145229, April 20, 2006) is
treated by the Supreme Court as an accountable officer. Moreover, a mayor with
respect to funds in the local treasury is an accountable officer if he has a duty to
participate in the release thereof applying the Manuel principle.

Same as in malversation, the offender in failure to render accounting under

Article 218 of RPC is also an accountable officer (People vs. Lumauig, G.R.
No.166680, July 7, 2014). If an accountable officer misappropriated cash advance
that he received, the crime committed is malversation (People vs. Icdang, supra;
People vs. Devalos, supra). However, if an accountable officer did not
misappropriate a cash advance, but the liquidation thereof was delayed for more
than two months after such accounts should be rendered, the crime committed is
failure to render an accounting (People vs. Lumauig, supra).

However, in Panganiban vs. People, the Supreme Court ruled that a mayor with
respect to travel cash advance is not an accountable officer since his duty is not to
collect money or property from the public. The proper charged should have been
failure to render an accounting. In sum, a mayor is not an accountable officer for
purpose of malversation. But he is an accountable officer for purpose of failure to
render accounting.