quinon vs sandiganbayan- people cs hipol

QUIÑON VS SANDIGANBAYAN

Facts:

2 Criminal charges of “malversation of public property “was filed against Pablo B. Quiñon, the Station
Commander of Calinog Iloilo PC/INP.. Both are owned and was allegedly used in abuse by Quiñon for
private interest .

1. Criminal Case No. 16279:

- two (2) pistols and their magazines and and one (1) shotgun with a total value of
P15,000.00

The proceedings of this case are summarized as follows:

i. Quiñon pleaded not guilty on arraignment

ii. proceeded with pre-trial and trial
iii. various postponements and resets of trial were made due to various reasons of
Quiñon for not appearing due to hypertension, change of counsel and withdrawal
of counsel
iv. The prosecution presented its evidence before the court.
v. Quiñon and his counsel was given an opportunity to present evidence but did not
appear on the date given by Sandiganbayan.
vi. Sandiganbayan issued an order for Quiñon to be arrested, therefore he was
declared that he waived his right to present evidence. But Sandiganbayan gave
him an opportunity to how cause in writing why judgment on the bond shall not
be rendered under the circumstances within 30 days.
vii. Quiñon responded 10 weeks after, through a motion for reconsideration, insisting
that he was denied of due process for his lawyer was not notified and that he was
sick (hypertension)
viii. Such MR was denied by Sandiganbayan

2. Criminal Case No. 19561:

- two (2) revolvers and a shotgun with a total value of P16,000.00.

This was filed by Office of the Iloilo Provincial Prosecution, which resulted in the filing by
the Office of the Ombudsman after the preliminary investigation of the Provincial
prosecution.

Quiñon filed a 2 motions to quash, both denied.

Issue:

1. Whether Sandiganbayan has Jurisdiction?

2. Whether Special Prosecutor of the Sandiganbayan, or the Iloilo Provincial Prosecutor who had
authority to file the information?
3. Whether the informations in both criminal cases charge an offense?
4. Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in denying petitioner's motion to re-
open the case and present evidence after the prosecution rested its case?

Ruling:
 1. Yes, Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction. Sandiganbayan is a regular court and is included in the
term regular courts in Section 46 of R.A. No. 6975 which states "within the exclusive jurisdiction
of the regular courts;"

“The term regular courts in Section 46 of R.A. No. 6975 means civil courts.”

2. Ombudsman Act of 1989 (RA 6770) confers on the Office of the Special Prosecutor the power to
"conduct preliminary investigation and prosecute criminal cases within the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan. It is thus completely inconsequential that the complaint by which Criminal Case
No. 16279 was instituted — charging a crime cognizable by the Sandiganbayan — might have
been originally filed with the Iloilo Prosecution Office, or the preliminary investigation therein
conducted.

3. Yes, all elements are present, to wit:

a. That the offender be a public officer.
b. That he had the custody of control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his
office.
c. That those funds or property were public funds or property for which he was accountable.
d. That he appropriated, took, misappropriated, or consented or, through abandonment or
negligence, permitted another reason to take them.

The delivery to Quiñon, by reason of the duties of his office as PNP Station Commander, of
the firearms belonging to the Government, necessarily and inescapably entailed the implicit
obligation on his part to safely keep the firearms, use them for the purposes for which they
were obviously entrusted to him, and to return them to the proper authority at termination of
his tenure as commander, or on the demand by the owner; the duty, in other words to
account for said firearms. And his act — also expressly stated in the information — of
malversing, misappropriation and converting the firearms to his own personal use and
benefit, with abuse of trust and confidence — completed the basic description of the crime of
malversation attributed to him.

4. No, In Pulido v. Lazaro (158 SCRA 107 [1988]), the Court ruled that "there was no denial of due
process where petitioner had many opportunities and had afforded adequate hearing to argue his
case." Far from being tainted by error, therefore, the Sandiganbayan's challenged resolution,
founded upon the undisputed facts on record, correctly reflected the legal principles involved, viz.:

Marasigan vs. Buena, A.M. No. 95-1-01-MTCC

Facts:

An investigation by COA was heldon the accountabilities of Lilia S. Buena, clerk of court and ex oficio
sheriff of Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (MTCC), Naga City.

A comparison was made among the following official records: (1) MTCC docket book; (2) cash book
maintained by respondent; and (3) file copies of official receipts issued to acknowledge collection of the
fees mentioned.

The examination disclosed that from the latter part of 1989 until 1993, the total collection reflected in the
cash book was only P8,092.00, while in the docket book it amounted to P89,742.00, revealing a shortage
of P81,650.00.

She manifested willingness to restitute the missing amount, expressing her wholehearted repentance and
further pleading for utmost consideration and leniency. The City Auditor's Office in Naga City confirmed
the full payment by respondent of the cash shortage.
But Fiscal Audit Division (FAD) was able to find another shortage apart from the aforementioned amount,
a deficit in JDF collections amounting to P29,776.00. She was able to pay P18,000, and promised to pay
the rest which the FAD considered.

Mrs. Buena was forced to falsify official receipts to solve her financial dilemma. It was due to her son’s
hospitalization due to being hit by a stray bullet during police operation, and she hoped for the damage
claim by NAPOLCOM but gave up due to expensive travel expenses for she is a widow with 2 children,
the aforementioned and the youngest, who was sick of typhoid fever. She also incurred loans from JUSLA
and GSIS, subsequent amortizations for which were deducted from her salary, resulting in her low take-
home pay. She also expressed that she was 27 years in service long and faithful years of public service,
and active and voluntary work in her parish and in the Gift of Love ministry.

Office of Court Administrator, in its recommendation, finds her guilty and dismisses her.

Issue:

Should Mrs. Buena be dismissed?

Ruling:

The court believed that the extreme penalty of dismissal with its accessory penalties is TOO HARSH. The
concurrence of these three factors should serve to mitigate the penalty of respondent. In the exercise of
the Court's discretion, they consider it just and fair to deem respondent resigned from her post
effective immediately. They allowed her to claim leave credits and retirement benefits in order to
provide her and her family a new lease on life, so that she may not succumb again to dark temptations
caused by financial troubles. In the same vein, the Court's action is without prejudice to her re-
employment in any branch, agency or instrumentality of the government where she may be qualified.

Diaz vs. Sandiganbayan,

Facts:

Provincial Auditor directed Auditor and Auditing Examiners to examine the cash and other accounts of
petitioner Milagros L. Diaz, then postmistress of Tandag, Surigao del Sur. They then required petitioner
Diaz to produce all she was officially accountable for. Petitioner, who was bonded for P100,000.00, was
found to have made cash payments in the total amount of six thousand one hundred seventy-one pesos
and twenty-three centavos (P6,171.23) The audit team also found petitioner to have sold postage stamps
in the sum of P8,020.40 which she had failed to record in her cash book, and since Quijada neither
considered the cash items in the aforesaid amount of P6,171.23 as having been validly disbursed, he
reported that petitioner had incurred a total "cash shortage" of P14,191.63.

The investigating prosecutor, issued an order dismissing the complaint on the basis of her finding that the
shortage was incurred to defray operational expenses for the Tandag post office.

Sandiganbayan rejected the order of prosecution. petitioner was arraigned. She pleaded not guilty.
During a pre-trial, a letter was sent by Regional Office of the Bureau of Posts confirming the respondent
had reimbursed the entire amount for which petitioner was held accountable

The Sandiganbayan rejected such withdrawal, and still convicted the accused guilty of malservation of
public property (217).

Issue:

whether or not petitioner really has misappropriated public funds

Ruling:

ACQUITTED. Lack of evidence

The conclusion made by the Sandiganbayan that the amounts paid by petitioner to the Bureau of Posts
under O.R. No. 6645668 and No. 6645670 were "restitution's" would seem to be less than accurate. The
amounts were "replenishments” coming from the Regional Office in checks issued out in petitioner's name
which she paid, after encashment, to the Bureau of Posts. The sum of P9,807.29 that was replenished,
when added to the ten items certified to be accounts payable and to two items replenished by checks
issued after 04 March 1983, approved as operational expenses in the amount of P4,377.64, totalled
P14,284.43, or even P92.80 more than the supposed "shortage" of P14,161.63.

The Sandiganbayan noticeably depended on the recommendations of COA in convicting appellant. The
Court could not help but observe that upon being informed that the Bureau of Posts had reimbursed the
entire amount alleged to be her shortage, Auditor Quijada opined that his audit report had to be altered to
reflect that fact. Auditor Quijada's acquiescence to the alteration of his report to conform to the advice
would somehow manifest that the audit was not conducted with sufficient thoroughness.

Rationale:

The Sandiganbayan cites the presumption in Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code that the "failure of a
public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds 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." The presumption is, of course, rebuttable. Accordingly, if the accused is able to present
adequate evidence that can nullify any likelihood that he had put the funds or property to personal use,
then that presumption would be at an end and the prima facie case is effectively negated. This Court has
repeatedly said that when the absence of funds is not due to the personal use thereof by the accused, the
presumption is completely destroyed; in fact, the presumption is deemed never to have existed at all.

Generally, the factual findings of the Sandiganbayan are conclusive upon this Court but there are
established exceptions to that rule, such as, sans preclusion, when (1) the conclusion is a finding
grounded entirely on speculation, surmise and conjecture; (2) the inference made is manifestly an error or
founded on a mistake; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on
misapprehension of facts; and (5) the findings of fact are premised on a want of evidence are contradicted
by evidence on record. In these instances, this Court is bound to review the facts in order to avoid a
miscarriage of justice.

Salamera vs. Sandiganbayan,

Facts:

Petitioner was elected to and assumed the position of mayor of the municipality of Casiguran, province of
Aurora. He received from Casiguran Barangay Captain one .38 Caliber Revolver.

The gun was owned by and licensed to Ponciano Benavidez, an uncle of Antonio, who mortgaged it to
him.

Petitioner brought it, while in attache case, to Manila. On their return to the province, their car was
stopped at a spot checkpoint in Quezon City, where Pat. Alfredo B. Villanueva of the Quezon City Police
saw the revolver.

On petitioner's instruction, his security men surrendered the gun to police officer Villanueva.

Back home, the licensed owner of the gun claimed it from petitioner. The accused mayor informed
Ponciano (owner) that the gun was confiscated by the Quezon City Police.

Issue:

Did the Barangay Captain's surrender of the gun to petitioner mayor invest the gun with public character
sufficient to consider the gun as public property for which the mayor is accountable?

Ruling:

NO, There was no reason to surrender or confiscate the gun. It was duly licensed to Ponciano Benavidez.
The license is not transferable. Antonio could not validly possess the gun. He should have returned the
gun to Ponciano, the licensed owner or surrendered it to the local police or to the Constabulary Provincial
Commander. By turning over the gun to petitioner mayor, the gun did not become public property
because it was not intended for public use or purpose nor was it lawfully seized. The gun continued to be
private property, that is why the gun owner rightfully asked for its return to him, not to be turned over to
the public coffer or treasury. Petitioner's failure to return the gun after demand by the private owner did
not constitute a prima facie evidence of malversation. The property was private and the one who
demanded its return was a private person, not a person in authority. The presumption of conversion will
not apply.

Nevertheless, petitioner made restitution of the value of the gun to the private owner, Ponciano
Benavidez. Obviously, petitioner did not malverse the gun by dolo or culpa to his private use or benefit.

ACQUITTED

Martinez vs. People,

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

ACQUITTED
Morong Water District vs. Deputy Ombudsman,

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

CASE DISMISSED

Estrella vs. Sandiganbayan,

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling: