REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

~anbifVtnha~an
Quezon City

FIRST DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

- versus - CRIM. CASE NO. S8-19-A/R-0018

ALlCE R. RAGODO Present:

Disbursing Officer
Romblon National High School DE LA CRUZ, J., Chaiperson
Romblon, Romblon, ECONG, J.,
Accused Appellant, CALDONA, J.

Promulgated on:

1 0 SEP 2020f

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --x

DECISION
DE LA CRUZ, J.:

On appeal before this Court is the Decision.' dated

September 4, 2015, of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 82,
of Odiongan, Romblon, convicting accused-appellant Alice R.
Ragodon in Criminal Case No. 00-1772, of the crime of
Malversation of Public Funds, defined and penalized under Article
217 of the Revised Penal Code. The RTC sentenced the accused-
appellant to suffer imprisonment ranging from eight (8) years and
(1) one day of prision mayor as minimum to twelve (12) years and
one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum, and to pay a fine
equal to the amount of the funds malversed which is P802,224.19.
The RTC likewise imposed upon her the penalty of perpetual
special disqualification from holding public office.

ANTECEDENT FACTS
On May 24, 2005, the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for
Luzon filed an lnforrnation/ before the RTC, charging the accused-

1 Records, pp. 6-10.

2 Records, pp. 4-5.
DECISION
pp v. Alice R. Ragodon
Criminal Case No. SB-19-A/R-0018

Page 2 of 18

x------------------------------------------------------x

appellant with the crime of Malversation of Public Funds under

Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, the accusatory portion of
which reads:
That on or about 14 October 2002 or sometime prior or
subsequent thereto at around 11:30 in the evening, more or less
in Odiongan, Romblon, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, Alice R.
Ragodon, an accountable public officer, being the Disbursing
Officer of Romblon National High School, Romblon, Romblon,
entrusted with and responsible for the encashment of the
salaries and cash benefits of Teachers and school personnel at
the Land Bank of the Philippines, Odiongan, Bra.nch did then
and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously permit/allow
another person to take Php 802,224.19 by negligently failing to
convert the cash into PNB demand draft which is the usual
procedure being undertaken whenever check (sic) are endorsed
at LBP Odiongan for transport to Romblon, Rornblon and by
failing to take the necessary precaution and observe the
requisite standard of care commensurate with the transportation
of the aforesaid public funds from Odiongan to Romblon,
Romblon, to the damage and prejudice of the public.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

On arraiqnment,:' the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to

the crime charged. After the termination of pre-trial conference on
August 6, 2007, trial ensued."

EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION

The prosecution presented two (2) witnesses, namely:
Maricel Montojo and Lupo Mazo, whose testimonies are set forth
below.
Maricel Montojo, Administrative Officer of Romblon
National High School.

During her direct examination." the prosecution and the

defense stipulated that at the time material to the case, the
accused-appellant was an employee serving as Disbursing Officer
of Romblon National High School (RNHS) and, as such, she was
responsible for withdrawing or encashing from Landbank-

3 RTC Records, p. 24.

4
RTC Records, p. 50.
s
TSN, February 12, 2012.
DECISION
pp v. Alice R. Ragodon
Criminal Case No. SB-19-A/R-0018

Page 3 0/18

x------------------------------------------------------x

Odiongan, Romblon checks intended as salary for the employees

of RNHS in Romblon, Romblon, although in doing so, she had to
be accompanied by a security or employee of the RNHS chosen
by the school principal."

Montojo testified that the funds which the accused-appellant

was withdrawing from the Landbank-Odiongan came from the
national government intended to pay for, among others, the
salaries of the teachers and other personnel of the RNHS.

On October 7, 2002, at around 10 o'clock in the morning,

while fixing the daily time records of the school personnel, she was
at her table beside or adjacent to the room of the school principal,
Fiorelio Faigao. She saw Faigao went out of his room and heard
him give instruction to the accused-appellant to withdraw from
Landbank-Odiongan the amount of ~802,224.19, and to exchange
the said cash for a demand draft at the Philippine National Bank in
Odiongan, Romblon, to be encashed at the Philippine National
Bank in Romblon, Romblon.
The procedure for withdrawing the salaries of RNHS
employees is as follows: (1) The disbursing officer will encash the
check representing the salaries of RNHS employees at Land Bank
of the Philippines-Odiongan Branch; (2) The cash withdrawn from
Landbank-Odiongan will be brought to Philippine National Bank-
Odiongan Branch to be exchanged with a demand draft; (3) The
Philippine National Bank-Odiongan will issue a demand draft
which will be brought to Phililppine National Bank-Romblon Branch
for encashment.

Her knowledge on the procedure was from her experience

as a former RNHS disbursing officer prior to assuming office as
administrative officer. When her old position was vacated, it was
accused-appellant Ragodon who assumed the position.
On cross," Montojo admitted that there were instances
during her stint as disbursing officer where she could not encash
the demand draft at PNB-Romblon for lack of cash. These
instances prompted her to carry the cash withdrawn from LBP-
Odiongan straight to Romblon, Romblon.

6 TSN, dated February 7,2012, page 3.

7 TSN, February 7, 2012.
DECISION
pp v. Alice R. Ragodon
Criminal Case No. SB-19-A/R-0018

Page 4 of18

x------------------------------------------------------x

She also confirmed that it was the principal who assigns the
security personnel who will accompany the disbursing officer to go
to Odiongan, Romblon.
Lupo Mazo, Security Guard of Romblon National High
School.

On direct examination," Mazo testified that at the time

material to this case, he was a utility worker of RNHS. He
accompanied the accused-appellant on October 14, 2002 to
withdraw money from Landbank-Odiongan, Romblon. Aside from
Ragodon, he likewise accompanied Montojo when she was still
the RNHS disbursing officer.
He knows the procedure of converting the salaries to
demand drafts because he personally witnessed it when he
accompanied the disbursing officer. On October 14, 2002, after
withdrawing the money from Landbank-Odiongan, and without
going to the PNB-Odiongan to exchange the cash with a demand
draft, they went directly to the house of a certain Mr. Arevalo, a
relative of the accused-appellant. In other words, the accused-
appellant veered from the usual procedure and instead of
converting the cash from Landbank-Odiongan into a demand draft
at PNB-Odiongan, they instead went directly to the house of Mr.
Arevalo, a relative of the accused-appellant. They went there
almost noon time and stayed until 11:45 in the evening. After
which, he went out of the Arevalo's house to call for a vehicle (a
tribike) that would take him and Ragodon to the pier. However,
they did not reach the pier because they were waylaid near the
new market by one person riding a motorcycle and two other
persons in another motorcycle. The perpetrators declared a hold
up and took their bags while they were still inside the tribike. He
did not resist as he saw that the perpetrator in front of the tribike
cocked a gun and he had no firearm with him to defend himself
and the accused-appellant. On the other hand, Ragodon resisted
but her bag was forcibly taken from her. Thereafter, they went to
the police station to report the incident but the perpetrators were
never identified.
On cross," he admitted that it was Faigao, the school
principal, who assigned him to accompany the accused-appellant

8 TSN, May 8, 2012.

9
TSNI May 81 2012.
DECISION
pp v. Alice R. Ragodon
Criminal Case No. SB-19-A/R-0018

PageS 0/18

x------------------------------------------------------x

to encash the check in Odiongan. When they were about to go to

the pier, it was him who called for the tribike while the accused-
appellant stayed at Mr. Arevalo's house. He did not know who the
driver of the tribike was and it took them a long time from the
incident to report the same to the police station since the tribike
would not start because the keys were likewise taken by the
robbers.
On July 11, 2012, the prosecution rested its case there being
no documentary exhibits to be offered, and after testimonial
evidence already offered in the course of the presentation of
evidence in chief."?

EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE

The defense presented two (2) witnesses, namely: Lupo
Mazo and accused-appellant Alice Ragodon, whose testimonies
are set forth below.
Lupo Mazo, Security Guard of Romblon National High
School.

On direct examination." Mazo testified that there were four

(4) security personnel at RNHS at the time of the commission of
the offense. At the time material to the case, he was then a utility
worker and when he was assigned by Faigao, the school principal,
to accompany Ragodon in Odiongan, he asked the latter why him
when in fact, there were other security personnel. As a utility
worker, he was not authorized to carry firearm and neither were
the security personnel. He and Ragodon finished their business at
LBP around twelve o'clock noon and went straight to Mr. Arevalo's
house after.
He was the one who commissioned the tribike and that they
were held up on their way to the pier at around 11:45 in the
evening. After the perpetrators forcibly took their bags, they
walked from the scene of the crime to the police station since the
robbers took the key of the driver of the tribike.

10 RTC Records, p. 130.

11 TSN, March 4, 2013.
DECISION
pp v. Alice R. Ragodon
Criminal Case No. SB-19-A/R-0018

Page 60f18

x - - - - ,-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

On cross." Mazo estimated that he had accompanied

Ragodon to Ongdiongan about 10 times. He knew that the money
they were going to encash were for the salaries of RNHS teachers
and personnel. He and the accused-appellant left LBP Odiongan
and went directly to Mr. Arevalo's house around noon. At the time
of the robbery incident, the money encashed were all with
Ragodon. He had no idea as to the amount she was carrying. All
he knew was that Ragodon had the money in her possession
before it was forcibly taken from her during the robbery incident. At
Mr. Arevalo's house, he briefly went out to buy peanut butter,
leaving Ragodon in the house with the money. He returned as
soon as possible. During the incident, as the robbers were taking
their bags, he stepped out and was about to react but one of the
assailants poked a gun at him.
Alice Ragodon, the accused-appellant, Disbursing Officer of
RNHS.
On direct examination." Ragodon testified that Faigao, the
school Principal, issued her a memorandum for travel to Odiongan
to transact official business (encashment of check). She was
accompanied by Lupo Mazo on October 14, 2002. On that
particular day, she indeed encashed the check at Landbank-
Odiongan and brought the cash to the house they stayed in. She
was supposed to deposit the same at PNB-Odiongan in exchange
for a demand draft to be issued but at that time, PNB was already
closed.

She recalled that she and Mazo were held up later that
evening on their way to the pier while they were on board a tribike.
During the robbery incident, Mazo stepped out of the tribike and
raised both his hands as if he was surrendering. Thereafter, one of
the robbers pointed a gun at her and forcibly took her bag. She
could not identify the man who had the gun at her neck because
he was wearing a bonnet. After the incident, they went to the
police station on foot to report and file a blotter. The assailants
remained unidentified.

On cross." she testified that there were a total of four men

who waylaid them, two (2) motorcycles with two (2) men riding on

12 TSN, March 4, 2013.

13 TSN, September 9, 2013.
14 TSN, September 9, 20l3.
DECISION
pp v. Alice R. Ragodon
Criminal Case No. SB-19-A/R-0018

Page 70f18

x------------------------------------------------------x

each. Out of the four, there were two who carried short firearms.
One man with gun was aiming at Mazo; the other was near the
driver aiming the gun at her. Upon reaching the corner of the new
market, one of the assailants on board one of the motorcycles
shouted stop. Thereafter, the second motorcycle stopped in front
of them where the first motorcycle was.
She concluded that the gun was real because she felt it was
cold when it was pointed to her neck." The assailants took her
and Mazo's bags, even the ones with their personal belongings.
She did not secure the demand draft because there was an
instance that the bank (PNB-Romblon) had no available cash.
She was able to carry cash straight from Odiongan, Romblon to
Romblon, Romblon prior to the incident. However, she clarified
that in 2000, she was able to exchange the cash for a demand
draft once.

Further, because of this particular incident, the Commission

on Audit started deducting the amount from her salary in August
2013 as restitution for the amount that had gone missing.
On redirect." she recalled one instance where she
exchanged the cash for a demand draft and brought it back to
PNB-Romblon, only to be told by the latter's manager that there
was no cash available. She had been the cashier of RNHS since
1999 and it was only once from 1999 to 2002 when she brought
back a demand draft; all the other instances, she returned with
cash. She reported back to the principal that PNB-Romblon did
not have sufficient cash that one time. Nevertheless, she was still
issued travel orders to encash checks in Odiongan, and it was not
specified if she would carry a demand draft or cash back to
Romblon, Romblon.

When she was replaced as disbursing officer in 2002 by a

certain Maricel, there was also an instance that PNB-Romblon ran
out of cash, and so thereafter, Maricel brought cash back from
Odiongan to Romblon. However, she clarified that that was an
isolated case.

15 TSN, January 7, 2014.

16 Ibid.
DECISION
pp v. Alice R. Ragodon
Criminal Case No. SB-19-A/R-0018

Page8of18

x - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --x

The defense failed to submit a formal offer of documentary

exhibits."? Therefore, the RTC ordered both parties to submit their
respective memorandum.
On September 17, 2015, the RTC promulgated its Decision,
dated September 4, 2015, convicting the accused-appellant, the
dispositive portion of which reads:

IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, the Court finds

accused, Alice Ragodon GUlL TV beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of Malversation penalized under Article 217 of the
Revised Penal Code and hereby sentences her to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of
prision mayor, as minimum to twelve (12) years and one (1)
day of reclusion temporal as maximum and to perpetual
special disqualification.

The accused Alice Ragodon is likewise ordered to pay a

fine equal to the amount of the funds malversed which is
P802,224.19.

SO ORDERED.

On September 24, 2015, the accused-appellant filed a

Motion for Reconsideration 18 before the RTC, assailing the
Decision on the following grounds: (1) the conversion of the cash
into demand draft is not the standard and usual procedure prior to
the incident of loss of the government funds, and (2) the failure of
the accused to convert the money into a demand draft is
excusable negligence, without any malice and in good faith.

The prosecutor manifested that it will not further comment on

accused-appellant's Motion for Reconsideration and submitted the
same to the discretion of the Honorable Court."
On July 25, 2016, the RTC issued a Resolution, denying the
said motion for reconsideration for lack of merit. The RTC opined
that the grounds raised therein were a mere rehash of the
accused-appellant's arguments that were already passed upon in
the assailed Decision."?

17 RTC Records, p. 165.

18 RTC Records, pp. 181-187.
19 RTC Records, p. 193.
20 RTC Records, p. 201
DECISION
pp v. Alice R. Ragodon
Criminal Case No. 5B-19-A/R-0018

Page 90/18

x------------------------------------------------------x

On August 23, 2016, the accused-appellant filed a Notice of

Appeal before the RTC which the latter granted in an Order, dated
August 24, 2016. The RTC elevated the case records to the Court
of Appeals."

The Court of Appeals rendered a Decision on March 29,

2019, the dispositive portion of which reads, thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal
is PARTLY GRA TED. The records of this case, together with
all the oral and documentary evidence, are REMANDED to the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 82, Odiongan, Romblon for
transmission to the Sandiganbayan, with reasonable dispatch.

The Court of Appeals citing U/ep v. Peopie'", Cariaga v.

People/? and Oizon v. People/" ratiocinated that the
Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over the appeal of the accused-
appellant.
Hence, this appeal.

THE APPEAL
The Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution," dated November
25, 2019, directing the parties to submit their respective briefs. A
copy of the resolution was received by the accused-appellant's
counsel of record and the prosecution on December 3, 2019.
However, to date, neither party submitted their briefs. Hence, this
decision.

ISSUE
The issue for this Court's resolution is whether or not the
RTC erred in convicting the accused-appellant of the crime of
Malversation of Public Funds under Article 217 of the Revised
Penal Code.
DISCUSSION
The appeal has no merit. This Court finds that the RTC did
not commit a reversible error in convicting the accused-appellant.

21 RTC Records, pp. 211-212.

22 G.R. No. 183373, January 30, 2009.
23 G.R. No. 180010, July 30, 2010.
24 G.R. No. 227577, January 24,2018.
25 Records, p. 53.
DECISION
pp v. Alice R. Ragodon
Criminal Case No. SB-19-A/R-0018

Page 100/18

x -- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - -- - -- - -- - - - - -- - - - -- -- - - - - - - - -- -- --x

Malversation is defined and penalized under Article 217 of

the Revised Penal Code,26which provides:

Art. 217. Malversation of public funds or property.-

Presumption of malversation. - Any public officer who, by
reason of the duties of his office, is accountable for public funds
or property, shall appropriate the same, or shall take or
misappropriate or shall consent, through abandonment or
negligence, shall permit any other person to take such public
funds or property, wholly or partially, or shall otherwise be guilty
of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or
property, shall suffer:

xxx

2. The penalty of pnston mayor in its minimum and

medium periods, if the amount involved is more than Forty
thousand pesos (P40,000) but does not exceed One million two
hundred thousand pesos (P1,200,000).

xxx

In all cases, persons guilty of malversation shall also

suffer the penalty of perpetual special disqualification and a fine
equal to the amount of the funds malversed or equal to the total
value of the property embezzled.

The failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming

any public funds or property 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.

Gleaned from the above, malversation of public funds has

the following elements: (a) that the offender is a public officer; (b)
that he had the custody or control of funds or property by reason
of the duties of his office; (c) that the funds or property were public
funds or property for which he was accountable; and (d) that he
appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented or, through
abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take
them."

All the above elements were adequately established.

26 As amended by Republic Act No. 10951.

27 Venezuela v. People of the Philippines, GR. No. 205693, 14 February 2018.
DECISION
pp v. Alice R. Ragodon
Criminal Case No. SB-19-A/R-0018

Page 110/18

x------------------------------------------------------x

The accused-appellant is a
public officer, who is charged
with the custody or control of
the funds of the RNHS, for
which she was accountable.

The first and second elements of the crime are undisputed.

The parties stipulated that at the time material to the case, the
accused-appellant was the Disbursing Officer of the RNHS, and as
such she was responsible in withdrawing or encashing checks
intended as salaries for the employees of RNHS, although in doing
so, she had to be accompanied by a security or employee of the
RNHS chosen by the school principal."

The funds, subject matter of the

case are public funds.

The funds which the accused-appellant withdrew from the

Landbank-Odiongan came from the national government intended
to pay for, among others, the salaries of the teachers and
personnel of the RNHS.29 Hence, the third element is likewise
present.

The accused-appellant, through

negligence, permitted another
person or persons to take them.

As to the fourth element, the Court agrees with the RTC

when it ruled that Ragodon, through her negligence, permitted
another person or persons to take them. The RTC in its Decision
ratiocinated as follows:
In fine, the accused was an accountable officer of the
salaries and cash benefits of Teachers and school personnel
withdrawn from the Land Bank of the Philippines, Odiongan,
Romblon amounting to ~802,224.19 by negligently failing to
convert the cash into PNB demand draft which is the usual
procedure being undertaken and failure to take necessary
precaution.

28 TSN, dated February 7,2012, page 3.

29 Ibid., pages 5-6.
DECISION
pp v. Alice R. Ragodon
Criminal Case No. SB-19-A/R-0018

Page 12 of18

x------------------------------------------------------x

xxx

In sum, all the elements of malversation of public funds

are present in the case at bar and the accused being an
accountable officer may be convicted of malversation even in
the absence of direct proof of misappropriation but through
negligence and for failure of the accused to observe diligently
the standard usual procedure being undertaken by converting
the cash withdrawn from the Land Bank of the Philippines,
Odiongan Branch to a demand draft at the Philippine National
Bank, Odiongan Branch.'?

A perusal of the testimonial evidence offered before the

court a quo would reveal that the accused-appellant was indeed
particularly instructed by her superior, RNHS principal Faigao, to
withdraw from Landbank-Odiongan the amount of ~802,224.19,
and to deposit the same to PNB-Odiongan in exchange for a
demand draft in the same amount. Witness Montojo testified that
Faigao, the RNHS principal, instructed Ragodon that after
withdrawing the money or encashing the check from Landbank,
she should deposit the same to PNB-Odiongan in exchange for a
demand draft in the said amount to be brought and encashed with
the PNB-Romblon.31 The accused-appellant admitted that she
should have done what was instructed, but gave as an excuse that
PNB Odiongan was closed by the time she finished her
transaction with LBP Odiongan. Thus, she testified:

On Direct Examination

ATTY. VICTORIANO, JR.

Q: What did you do when you reached Odiongan,

Romblon?

A: After our arrival in Odiongan, Romblon, we

proceeded to Land Bank, sir.

Q: What did you do in the Land Bank?

A: To in cash the check, sir.

Q: After in-cashing the checks, what did you do with

the funds?

30 Records, pp. 6-10.

31 TSN, February 7,2012, pp. 4-5.
DECISION
pp v. A/ice R. Ragodon
Criminal Case No. SB-19-A/R-0018

Page 13 0/18

x - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - -- - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - --x

A: I carried, sir.

Q: Where did you bring it?

A: I went to the place, in the house were we stayed,

sir.

Q: In whose house?

A: We went to the place in the boarding house, sir.

Q: Why did you bring cash in your boarding house?

A: The cash is supposedly to be deposited in the

PNB for demand draft but at that time the PNB
is already closed, sir.32

The Court is not inclined to believe the accused-appellant's

excuse, because she could not have known that the PNB-
Odiongan was closed. As testified to by Mazo, on October 14,
2002 at around noon time right after withdrawing the money from
Landbank-Odiongan, he and the accused-appellant proceeded
directly to Mr. Arevalo's house. Indeed, the accused-appellant did
not even try to go to PNB-Odiongan. On this point, Mazo testified:
PROS. CARREON:

Q You mentioned that a demand draft is made or to be

done after withdrawing from Land Bank of the
Philippines?

A Yes, sir.

Q That is the usual way in doing it?

A Yes, sir.

Q You know it because you have personal knowledge of

this transaction?

A Yes, sir.

Q In October 14, 2002, it was the same way that was done?

A No, sir.

32 TSN,September 9, 20l3, p.4j boldface supplied.

DECISION
pp v. Afice R. Ragodon
Criminal Case No. SB-19-A/R-0018

Page 14 of18

x------------------------------------------------------x

Q VVhathappened?

A VVewent to Mrs. Alice Ragodon's relative, sir.

Q VVhere at?

A In the house of Mr. Arevalo, sir.33

xxx

Q You said that you did not drop by the PNB and you went
directly to Mr. Arevalo after leaving the Land Bank, is that
correct?

A Yes, sir.34

When presented as witness for the defense, Mazo adhered

to his testimony that from Landbank-Odiongan, and without
attempting to go to PNB-Odiongan, he and the accused-appellant
proceeded directly to the house of Mr. Arevalo. Thus:

COURT'S CLARIFICATORY QUESTIONS:

Q From the bank (referring to Landbank-Odiongan), where

did you proceed?

A Mr. Arevalo.

Q You reached the house of Mr. Arevalo?

A Yes, sir.

Q VVhat time?

A I could not tell the exact time.

Q Is it still in the morning or in the afternoon?

A Lunch time.

Q Twelve (12) noon?

A Yes, sir.35

33 TSN, May 8,2012, pp. 4-5;

34 Ibid., page 13
35 TSN, March 4, 2013, p. 18.
DECISION
pp v. AJice R. Ragodon
Criminal Case No. SB-19-A/R-0018

Page 15 of18

x - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - - --- -- - -- - - -- - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- -- --x

That the accused-appellant did not exchange the cash

withdrawn from Landbank-Odiongan for a demand draft from PNB-
Odiongan is a clear defiance of Faigao's specific instruction. At
the very least, it is a clear indication of negligence on her part.
Indeed, the accused-appellant failed to exercise the ordinary
diligence of a good father of a family necessary in the care and
custody of the huge amount of 19802,224.19 intended for the
salaries of the teacher and other personnel of the RNHS. While it
is unfortunate that she and witness Mazo met a robbery incident
that particular day, it cannot be denied that Ragodon could have
prevented the cash from being forcibly taken from her had she
followed the instruction to her by Principal Faigao.
From the foregoing, therefore, this Court rules and so holds
that the RTC did not err in finding that the accused-appellant was
negligent in the discharge of her duties as Disbursing Officer of the
RNHS. Thus, the Court finds that the fourth element of
malversation of public funds has been adequately established.

With the passage of Republic

Act No. 10591, the penalty
imposed by the RTC should be
accordingly modified and
adjusted.

In the case In re: Correction/Adjustment of Penalty Pursuant

to Republic Act No. 10951, in Relation to Hernan v.
Sandiganbayan - Rolando Elbanbuena y Marfil, G.R. No. 237721,
July 31, 2018, the Supreme Court held:

On a final note, judges, public prosecutors, public

attorneys, private counsels, and such other officers of the law
are hereby advised to similarly apply the provisions of RA No.
10951 whenever it is, by reason of justice and equity, called for
by the facts of each case. Hence, said recent legislation shall
find application in cases where the imposable penalties of the
affected crimes such as theft, qualified theft, estafa, robbery
with force upon things, malicious mischief, malversation, and
such other crimes, the penalty of which is dependent upon the
value of the object in consideration thereof, have been reduced,
as in the case at hand, taking into consideration the presence of
existing circumstances attending its commission. For as long as
it is favorable to the accused, said recent legislation shall find
application regardless of whether its effectivity comes after the
DECISION
pp v. Alice R. Ragodon
Criminal Case No. SB-19-A/R-0018

Page 16 of 18

x------------------------------------------------------x

time when the judgment of conviction is rendered and even if

service of sentence has already begun. The accused, in these
applicable instances, shall be entitled to the benefits of the new
law warranting him to serve a lesser sentence, or to his release,
if he has already begun serving his previous sentence, and said
service already accomplishes the term of the modified sentence.
In the latter case, moreover, the Court, in the interest of justice
and expediency, further directs the appropriate filing of an action
before the Court that seeks the reopening of the case rather
than an original petition filed for a similar purpose.

Indeed, when exceptional circumstances exist, such

as the passage of the instant amendatory law imposing
penalties more lenient and favorable to the accused, the
Court shall not hesitate to direct the reopening of a final and
immutable judgment, the objective of which is to correct not so
much the findings of guilt but the applicable penalties to be
imposed. (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted.)

Following the said ruling, and based on the provrsions of

Republic Act No. 10951,36 there is a need to adjust and/or modify
the penalty imposed by the RTC. Thus, the imposable penalty
applicable to this case is prision mayor in its minimum to medium
periods which ranges from six (6) years and one (1) day to eight
(8) years and eight (8) months, considering that the
misappropriated amount involved is only P802,224.19.

Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law,37 the Court

therefore will impose upon the accused the penalty of two (2)
years, four (4) months, and one (1) day of prision correccional as
minimum, to seven (7) years, and four (4) months of prision mayor,
as maximum, and to suffer perpetual special disqualification. In
addition, the accused-appellant will be directed to pay a fine equal
to the amount of the funds malversed equivalent to P802,224.19.
WHEREFORE, in light of all the foregoing, the appeal is
hereby DENIED. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Odiongan, Romblon, Branch 82, dated September 4, 2015,

36 Also known as "An Act Adjusting the Amount or the Value of Property and Damage on Which a
Penalty is Based and the Fines Imposed Under the Revised Penal Code, Amending for the Purpose Act
No. 3815, Otherwise Known as "The Revised Penal Code", as Amended."
37Section 1. x x x in imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by the Revised Penal Code, or
its amendments, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the maximum
term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed
under the rules of the said Code, and the minimum which shall be within the range of the penalty
next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense; x x x.
DECISION
pp v. Alice R. Ragodon
Criminal Case No. SB-19-A/R-0018

Page 170118

x -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - --- - - - -- --x

convicting accused-appellant Alice Ragodon of the crime of

Malversation of Public Funds under Article 217 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, is hereby AFFIRMED, except for the
penalty imposed, and the lack of pronouncement of the civil
liability of the accused-appellant.
The accused-appellant is hereby sentenced to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of two (2) years, four (4) months, and one
(1) day of prision correccional as minimum, to seven (7) years,
and four (4) months of prision mayor as maximum, and to
perpetual special disqualification. She is also ordered to pay a
fine of ~802,224.19.
Finally, the accused-appellant is hereby ordered to pay the
Romblon National High School the sum of ~802,224.19.
SO ORDERED.

EFREN?!~ LA CRUZ
Chairperso;)'Atsociate Justice

WE CONCUR:

~ ItMA ~ ~.n\w.~l--
GERALDINE FAIT~. ECONG DO M. CALDONA
~M\,;lIMt-f'

Associate Justice ssociate Justice

DECISION
pp v. Alice R. Ragodon
Criminal Case No. SB-19-A/R-0018

Page 18 of 18

x------------------------------------------------------x

ATTESTATION

..
I attest that the conclusions in the above decision were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer
of the opinion of the Court's Division.

EFREN ~tlLA CRUZ

Chairper~'n~irst Division

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution,

and the Division's Chairperson's Attestation, it is hereby certified
that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court's Division:

Presiding Justice