Lumauig v. PP Case Digest

Aloysius Dait Lumauig v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
166680, July 7, 2014

Title VII – Crimes Committed By Public Officers
Chapter Four – Malversation Of Public Funds or Property
Article 218 – Failure of accountable officer to render accounts
Doctrine:
A prior notice or demand for liquidation of cash advances is not a condition sine qua non before
an accountable public officer may be held under Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code.
Facts:
In 1994, then Mayor Aloysius Dait Lumauig of Alfonso Lista, Ifugao, obtained a cash advance on
the amount of Php101, 736.00 intended for the payment of freight and insurance coverage of
12 units of motorcycles to be donated by the City of Manila.
However, instead of motorcycles, he was able to secure two buses and five patrol cars. It never
came to his mind to settle or liquidate the amount advanced since the vehicles were already
turned over to the municipality.
He claimed 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 he still has unliquidated cash advance.
And so as not to prolong the issue, he paid the amount of Php101,736.00 to the municipal
treasurer, for which reason, the incumbent Mayor Prudenciano executed an Affidavit of
Desistance.
Sandiganbayan:
In criminal case for violation of Section 3 of Republic Act No. 3019, ACQUITTED. But in criminal
case for Failure of Accountable Officer to Render Accounts under Article 218 of the Revised
Penal Code, CONVICTED. He is sentenced to straight penalty of six months and one day and fine
of Php1000.00
Petitioner filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration but was denied. Hence, this petition.
Issues:
1) Does the acquittal of the petitioner in the anti-graft case bar his conviction for failure to
render accounts?
2) Is prior demand to liquidate a requisite for conviction under Article 218 of the Revised
Penal Code?
3) Is the petitioner liable for violation of Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code?
Supreme Court:
1) No. The elements of the two offenses charged are different:
Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code
That the accused is a public officer or That the offender is a public officer
private person charged in conspiracy with whether in the service or separated
the former therefrom
That the said public officer commits That he must be an accountable officer
prohibited acts during the performance for public funds or property
of his or her official duties or in relation
to his or her public positions
That he/she cause undue injury to any That he is required by law or regulation to
party, whether the government or a render accounts to the COA or to a
private party provincial auditor; and
That such injury is caused by giving That he fails to do so for a period of two
unwarranted benefits, advantage or months after such account should be
preference to such parties; and rendered
That the public officer has acted with
manifest partiality, evident bad faith or
gross inexcusable negligence
These differences necessarily imply that the requisite evidence to establish guilt or
innocence of the accused would certainly differ in each case. 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.
2) No. The question has been settled in Manlangit v. Sandiganbayan where we ruled that
prior demand to liquidate is not necessary to hold accountable officer liable for violation
of Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code. Nowhere in the provision (elements) does it
require that there first be a demand before an accountable officer is held liable for a
violation of the crime.
Article 218 merely provides that the public officer be required by law and regulation to
render account.
3) Yes.
Section 5 of COA Circular No. 90-331, the circular in force at the time petitioner availed
of the subject cash advance, pertinently provides:
5. LIQUIDATION OF CASH ADVANCES
5.1 The AO (Accountable Officer) shall liquidate his cash advance
as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
5.1.2 Petty Operating Expenses and Field Operating
Expenses – within 20 days after the end of the year;
subject to replenishment during the year
Since petitioner received the subject cash advance sometime in 1994, he was, thus,
required to liquidate the same on or before January 20, 1995. Further to avoid liability
under 218, he should have liquidated the cash advance within two months from the
time it was due, or on or before March 20, 1995. In case at bar, petitioner liquidated
the subject cash advance only on June 4, 2001. Hence, as correctly found by
Sandiganbayan, petitioner was liable for violation of Article 218 because it took him over
six years before settling his accounts.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED IN PART. The Decision of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal
Case No 2658 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 1,000 is deleted.

Lumauig v. PP Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lumauig v. PP Case Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lumauig v. PP Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aloysius Dait Lumauig v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.

166680, July 7, 2014

You might also like