Scribd
Upload
94 views3 pages

CASE DIGEST - GR No. 166680

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a former mayor for failure to render accounts under Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code. While the mayor was acquitted of a related graft charge, the Court found the elements of the two crimes differed. Additionally, prior demand to liquidate funds is not required under Article 218. The mayor received a cash advance in 1994 but did not settle his accounts until 2001, well beyond the two month period allowed. The Court affirmed the conviction but reduced the penalty.

Uploaded by

Roselyn Pascobello
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
94 views3 pages

CASE DIGEST - GR No. 166680

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a former mayor for failure to render accounts under Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code. While the mayor was acquitted of a related graft charge, the Court found the elements of the two crimes differed. Additionally, prior demand to liquidate funds is not required under Article 218. The mayor received a cash advance in 1994 but did not settle his accounts until 2001, well beyond the two month period allowed. The Court affirmed the conviction but reduced the penalty.

Uploaded by

Roselyn Pascobello
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

ALOYSIUS DAIT LUMAUIG, PETITIONER, VS.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,


RESPONDENT.
Date: July 07, 2014
Docket No: GR No. 166680
Ponente: Del Castillo, J.:
Prepared by: Roselyn Jane P. Bolingot

TOPIC: Failure of Accountable Officer to Render Accounts under Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code

ACTORS:
1. Aloysius Dait Lumauig, Municipal Mayor of Alfonso Lista, Ifugao

FACTS:
1. Sometime in January 1998, Commission on Audit (COA) Auditor Florence L. Paguirigan
examined the year-end reports involving the municipal officials of Alfonso Lista, Ifugao.
2. During the course of her examination of the records and related documents of the municipality,
she came across a disbursement voucher for P101,736.00 prepared for petitioner, a former mayor
of the municipality, as cash advance for the payment of freight and other cargo charges for 12
units of motorcycles supposed to be donated to the municipality.
3. The amount was covered by Land Bank Check No. 11894200[7] dated August 29, 1994 wherein
the payee is petitioner.
4. Her further investigation of the accounting records revealed that NO PAYMENT intended for the
charge was made to Royal Cargo Agencies for the month of August 1994. Thus, she issued a
certification to this effect on November 29, 2001.
5. She likewise claimed that she prepared two letters to inform the petitioner of his unliquidated
cash advance but the same were not sent to him because she could not get his exact address
despite efforts exerted.
6. She averred that on June 4, 2001, petitioner paid the subject cash advance before the treasurer of
the municipality, for which reason, incumbent Mayor Glenn D. Prudenciano executed an
Affidavit of Desistance.
7. Petitioner ADMITTED having obtained the cash advance of P101,736.00 during his incumbency
as municipal mayor of Alfonso Lista, Ifugao.
8. This amount was intended for the payment of freight and insurance coverage of 12 units of
motorcycles to be donated to the municipality by the City of Manila. However, instead of
motorcycles, he was able to secure two buses and five patrol cars.
a) He claimed that it never came to his mind to settle or liquidate the amount advanced since
the vehicles were already turned over to the municipality.
b) He alleged that he was neither informed nor did he receive any demand from COA to
liquidate his cash advances. It was only in 2001 while he was claiming for separation pay
when he came to know that he still has an unliquidated cash advance.
c) And so as not to prolong the issue, he paid the amount of P101,736.00 to the municipal
treasurer on June 4, 2001.
9. IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 26527: ACQUITTED
10. IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 26528 (Failure of Accountable Officer to Render Accounts under
Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code): CONVICTED
ALOYSIUS DAIT LUMAUIG, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
RESPONDENT.
11. On January 11, 2005, the Sandiganbayan promulgated its Resolution DENYING petitioner’s
Urgent Motion for Reconsideration. Hence, this Petition.

RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT: NO SUFFICIENT BASIS TO REVERSE THE


JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION.
A. THE ACQUITTAL OF PETITIONER IN THE ANTI-GRAFT CASE IS NOT A BAR TO
HIS CONVICTION FOR FAILURE TO RENDER AN ACCOUNT IN THE PRESENT
CASE.
1. It is undisputed that the two charges stemmed from the same incident. “However, [we
have] consistently held that the same act may give rise to two or more separate and
distinct charges.”
2. Further, because there is a variance between the elements of the two offenses charged,
petitioner cannot safely assume that his innocence in one case will extend to the other
case even if both cases hinge on the same set of evidence.
3. The glaring differences between the elements of these two offenses necessarily imply that
the requisite evidence to establish the guilt or innocence of the accused would certainly
differ in each case.
4. Hence, petitioner’s acquittal in the anti-graft case provides no refuge for him in the
present case given the differences between the elements of the two offenses.

B. PRIOR DEMAND TO LIQUIDATE IS NOT A REQUISITE FOR CONVICTION UNDER


ARTICLE 218 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE.
1. The central aspect of petitioner’s next argument is that he was not reminded of his
unliquidated cash advances.
2. The Office of the Special Prosecutor countered that Article 218 DOES NOT REQUIRE
the COA or the provincial auditor to first make a demand before the public officer should
render an account.
3. It is sufficient that there is a law or regulation requiring him to render an account.
4. MANLANGIT V SANDIGANBAYAN
Ruled that prior demand to liquidate is not necessary to hold an accountable officer liable
for violation of Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code.
a) Citing United States V Saberon, nowhere in the provision does it require that
there first be a demand before an accountable officer is held liable for a violation
of the crime. The law is very clear. Where none is provided, the court may not
introduce exceptions or conditions, neither may it engraft into the law
qualifications not contemplated. Where the law is clear and unambiguous, it must
be taken to mean exactly what it says and the court has no choice but to see to it
that its mandate is obeyed. There is no room for interpretation, but only
application.

C. PETITIONER IS LIABLE FOR VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 218 OF THE REVISED


PENAL CODE.
1. Since petitioner received the subject cash advance sometime in 1994, he was, thus,
required to liquidate the same on or before January 20, 1995.
ALOYSIUS DAIT LUMAUIG, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
RESPONDENT.
2. Further, to avoid liability under Article 218, he should have liquidated the cash advance
within two months from the time it was due, or on or before March 20, 1995.
3. In the case at bar, petitioner liquidated the subject cash advance only on June 4, 2001.
4. Hence, as correctly found by the Sandiganbayan, petitioner was liable for violation of
Article 218 because it took him over six years before settling his accounts.

ACTUAL RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT:


WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED IN PART. The Decision of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal
Case No. 26528 dated September 10, 2004 convicting petitioner of the felony of Failure of Accountable
Officer to Render Accounts under Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code is AFFIRMED with the
following MODIFICATIONS:
1. Petitioner is sentenced to a straight penalty of four months and one day of arresto mayor, and
2. The imposition of fine in the amount of P1,000.00 is deleted.

SO ORDERED.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy