FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. Nos. 243962 and 245521-26. July 30, 2019.]

SYLVIA P. BINARAO , petitioner, v s . PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution
dated July 30, 2019 which reads as follows:
"G.R. Nos. 243962 and 245521-26 (Sylvia P. Binarao v. People
of the Philippines)
This Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 assails the Decision 2 dated
August 24, 2018 of the Sandiganbayan convicting petitioner Sylvia P.
Binarao of estafa through falsification of public documents, two counts of
malversation of public funds, two counts of falsification of public documents,
and two counts of violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. (R.A.) No.
3019. 3
FACTS OF THE CASE
Petitioner, City Accountant of Zamboanga City, was charged with: (1)
estafa through falsification of public documents; (2) two counts of
malversation of public funds; (3) two counts of falsification of public
documents; and (4) three counts of violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No.
3019. 4
Petitioner travelled to Cagayan de Oro on October 27 to 31, 2001 to
attend the seminar on Barangay Accounting and Auditing together with six
barangay bookkeepers and a driver. They stayed at the Commission on
Audit (COA) dormitory occupying three rooms. 5
On December 4 to 9, 2001, petitioner attended the quarterly meeting
of the Philippine League of Local Budget Officers in Roxas City. Since there
was no direct flight to Roxas City, petitioner first went to Manila. She stayed
in First Hotel in Binondo, Manila. 6
On May 12 to 19, 2002, petitioner stayed in Cherry Blossoms Hotel in
Ermita, Manila while she was on official business. 7
The prosecution presented seven witnesses to prove the elements of
the crimes charged, while petitioner presented two witnesses including
herself.
The first witness for the prosecution was State Auditor Mobin A. Abdula
who testified that his team conducted a post audit on Disbursement Voucher
(D.V.) No. 101-011219515, together with its supporting documents in
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 relation to petitioner's trip to Cagayan de Oro. Based on the audit, it was
found that Official Receipt (O.R.) No. 4800345 was altered. Instead of
P4,800.00, petitioner placed the amount of P14,800.00. 8 CAIHTE

The second witness presented was Atty. Hilde C. Dela Cruz-Likit, Graft
Investigation and Prosecution Officer II of the Ombudsman who issued a
subpoena to the manager of Cherry Blossoms Hotel ordering it to submit the
original of O.R. No. 47034 in order to validate the receipt that was submitted
by petitioner as supporting document of D.V. No. 101-020507914. It was
found that the amount in the receipt submitted by Cherry Blossoms was
P5,914.00 while the amount in the receipt submitted by petitioner as
supporting document of the voucher was P16,914.00. 9
A subpoena was also issued to the manager of First Hotel to submit the
original of O.R. No. 123429 in order to validate the receipt submitted by
petitioner as one of the supporting documents to D.V. No. 101-011220440.
The First Hotel submitted a copy of the receipt and it was found that the
amount indicated therein was P1,830.00 while the amount in the receipt
submitted by petitioner was P5,800.00. 10
The third witness was Atty. Franco C. Oco, Legal Officer, TLC Group of
Companies who testified that his clients submitted a duplicate original of
O.R. No. 4703. 11 Rodney Robosa, General Manager of Manila Grand Opera
Hotel corroborated the testimony of Atty. Franco C. Oco. 12
Kenyon Tan, the Manager of First Hotel also testified that First Hotel
submitted a photocopy of O.R. No. 123429 because the duplicate original
was destroyed by Typhoon Ondoy. 13
Ethyl Dexie Gerodiaz, Dormitory Supervisor of COA Training Center and
Dormitory testified that she issued O.R. No. 4800345 to petitioner for the
amount of P4,800.00. The certified true copy of the receipt was submitted in
court. 14
For her part, petitioner testified that she refunded the amount of
P10,000.00 which was the discrepancy between the amount in the receipt
issued by the COA in O.R. No. 480345 and the amount in the receipt
submitted by petitioner. As to her stay in First Hotel and Cherry Blossoms
Hotel, she claimed that she does not remember the amounts paid. 15
In its Decision 16 dated August 24, 2018, the Sandiganbayan convicted
petitioner for all the crimes charged except to one count of violation of
Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019.
As to the charge of estafa through falsification of public documents, the
Sandiganbayan found that all the elements of both crimes of other deceit
and falsification were established when petitioner presented the altered
receipt issued by Cherry Blossoms Hotel in liquidating the amount disbursed
by the city government for her official business. 17
As to the two counts of malversation, the Sandiganbayan likewise
found that all the elements were proved when petitioner failed to give an
explanation for the disappearance of the amounts that she had not spent in
her official travels to Cagayan de Oro and Roxas City. The release of the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 funds to her for official purpose is conditioned on the liquidation thereof by
submitting supporting documents such as receipts. The fact that she altered
the amounts therein points to a conclusion that she pocketed the
discrepancy between the real amounts and those altered. Even if she
refunded the P10,000.00 discrepancy in the receipt issued by COA, she is
still liable for malversation because the fact of refund will not exonerate her
from the charge. 18
As to the two counts of falsification of public documents, the
Sandiganbayan likewise found that the elements were duly proven when
petitioner altered the amounts in the receipts issued by the COA and the
First Hotel since it is her duty to prepare the liquidation report of the cash
advances she received and to attach the said receipts in support thereof. 19
As to the three counts of violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019, the
Sandiganbayan held that petitioner was guilty of only two counts for her
falsification of the amounts in the receipts issued by Cherry Blossoms Hotel
and First Hotel because in the receipt issued by the COA for the Cagayan de
Oro trip, she refunded the amount of P10,000.00. Hence, the government
has not incurred actual injury when she refunded the amount therein. 20
Aggrieved, petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari to the
Supreme Court. DETACa

THE RULING OF THE COURT

After a perusal of the records of the case, this Court resolves to deny
the Petition for Review on Certiorari for failure of petitioner to show that the
Sandiganbayan committed any reversible error in convicting petitioner.
It must be noted that the Court is not a trier of facts. The facts in this
case have already been threshed out by the Sandiganbayan in the
questioned Decision.
The questions raised in the petition, which were mere rehash of
petitioner's arguments in the motion for reconsideration of the assailed
Decision, are summarized as follows: (1) the witnesses presented by the
prosecution have no personal knowledge as to the execution of the receipts
presented during trial; (2) failure by prosecution to present the checks
subject of the disbursement vouchers to prove that indeed, funds from the
government was received by petitioner; and (3) the receipts presented were
not original.
As to the first argument, Section 36, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court
provides for the hearsay rule, such that, "a witness can testify only to those
facts which he knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which are derived
from his own perception." However, an exception thereto is provided in
Section 43 of the same rule which states that, "entries made at or near the
time of the transactions to which they refer, by a person deceased, or unable
to testify, who was in a position to know the facts therein stated, may be
received as prima facie evidence, if such person made the entries in his
professional capacity or in the performance of duty and in the ordinary or
regular course of business or duty."
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 In this case, when the managers of First Hotel and Cherry Blossoms
Hotel testified to the execution of the receipts even if they were not
personally the ones who made the entries therein, they are still admissible
based on the abovementioned exception.
As to the non-presentation of the check itself subject of the
disbursement vouchers, the Sandiganbayan is correct in saying that the
petitioner herself signed the disbursement vouchers acknowledging receipt
thereof. Additionally, even without the check itself, the elements of the crime
charged were still proven. Hence, there is no need to present the actual
receipts subject of the disbursement vouchers.
Lastly, the witnesses of the prosecution are not required to present the
original of the receipts because these originals were issued to petitioner. The
copies retained by establishments are duplicate originals which are
considered by the Rules to be admissible as originals because they are
copies executed at or about the same time, with identical contents. 21 The
First Hotel presented a photocopy of the duplicate original because the latter
was lost during Typhoon Ondoy. As the prosecution proved the need to
present secondary evidence such as a photocopy thereof, the same is
admissible in accordance with the Rules of Court. 22
As to the designation of the offenses, the Sandiganbayan convicted the
petitioner for estafa through falsification of a public document because of
her alteration of the amounts in the receipt issued by Cherry Blossoms Hotel.
It must be noted that the Supreme Court has decided in Monteverde v.
People 23 (Monteverde) that a private document acquires the character of a
public document when it becomes part of an official record and is certified by
a public officer duly authorized by law. In Monteverde, the accused public
officer submitted a sales invoice issued by a private entity as one of the
supporting documents for the liquidation of her accountability to the
Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation. Hence, when petitioner
submitted the hotel receipts as supporting document for liquidation of her
disbursement voucher, the same has become part of an official record
acquiring the character of a public document.
In either case, the receipt issued to petitioner by Cherry Blossoms
Hotel is a commercial document because it is used by merchants and
businessmen to promote or facilitate trade or credit transactions. 24 Hence,
petitioner was correctly convicted of estafa through falsification of public
document because of her alteration of the amount in the receipt issued by
Cherry Blossoms Hotel and two counts of falsification of public documents
because of her alteration of the amount in the receipt issued by the COA and
First Hotel. aDSIHc

The Sandiganbayan, in imposing the penalty for estafa through

falsification of public documents, adopted the penalties under R.A. No.
10951. However, upon reading the provisions of the Revised Penal Code, We
reduce the fine imposed since the provisions of the Revised Penal Code
regarding the fine is more favorable to petitioner.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. We
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 ADOPT the findings of the Sandiganbayan. The assailed Decision dated
August 24, 2018 of the Sandiganbayan in SB-12-CRM-0016, SB-12-CRM-
0017-0018, SB-12-CRM-0019-0020 and SB-12-CRM-0021-0023 finding
petitioner Sylvia P. Binarao GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of estafa
through falsification of public document, two (2) counts of malversation of
public funds, two (2) counts of falsification of public documents, and two (2)
counts of violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019 is AFFIRMED
with MODIFICATIONS such that:
1. For estafa through falsification of public documents, petitioner is
hereby sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years,
two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as
minimum to ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as
maximum and to pay a fine of P5,000.00. Petitioner is also
required to pay the City of Zamboanga the amount of P11,000.00
plus interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum until the
amount is fully paid.
2. For two (2) counts of malversation of public funds, petitioner is
hereby sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of four (4) months
and one (1) day of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision
correccional in its minimum period as minimum to two (2) years,
four (4) months, and one (1) day of prision correccional in its
medium and maximum periods as maximum, taking into
consideration the mitigating circumstance of restitution; and one
(1) year and one (1) day of arresto mayor in its maximum period
t o prision correccional in its minimum period as minimum to
three (3) years, six (6) months and twenty-one (21) days of
prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods as
maximum. Petitioner is also required to pay the City of
Zamboanga a fine of P3,970.00 plus interest at the rate of six
percent (6%) per annum until the amount is fully paid. Petitioner
is also perpetually disqualified from public office for each count.
3. For two (2) counts of falsification of public funds, petitioner is
hereby sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of two (2) years,
four (4) months, and one (1) day of prision correccional as
minimum to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as
maximum and to pay a fine of P5,000.00 for each case.
4. For the two (2) counts of violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act
No. 3019, petitioner is hereby sentenced to an indeterminate
penalty of six (6) years and one (1) month as minimum to ten
(10) years as maximum, with perpetual disqualification from
public office for each case.
SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 (SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENA
Division Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Rollo , pp. 9-54.

2. Penned by Associate Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang, with Associate Justices
Sarah Jane T. Fernandez and Zaldy V. Trespeses, concurring; id. at 59-89.
3. Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
4. Rollo , pp. 60-62.

5. Id. at 63.
6. Id.
7. Rollo , p. 79.
8. Id. at 66-67.
9. Id. at 69A.

10. Id. at 69A-70.

11. Id. at 71A-72.
12. Id. at 72A-73.
13. Id. at 73-74.
14. Id. at 74A.

15. Id. at 76A-77.

16. Supra note 2.
17. Rollo , pp. 79-81.
18. Id. at 81A-83.

19. Id. at 85A-86.

20. Id. at 86-88.
21. RULES OF COURT, Rule 130, Sec. 4.
22. RULES OF COURT, Rule 130, Sec. 5.
23. 435 Phil. 906 (2002).

24. Id. at 921.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com