Zoleta Vs Sandiganbayan

||| Zoleta v.
Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 185224, [July 29, 2015]
FACTS
The case stemmed from an anonymous complaint filed against the petitioner, Mary
Ann Gadian, and Sheryll Desiree Tangan before the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao for
participating in the scheme of questionable grants and donations to fictitious entities using
provincial funds. As a result of this complaint, COA conducted a special audit in Sarangani
Province. Among the irregularities discovered by the Special Audit Team was a P20,000.00
financial assistance given to Women in Progress (WIP), a cooperative whose members were
mostly government personnel or relatives of the officials of Sarangani Province.
The COA Special Audit Team submitted its report to the Ombudsman which, in turn,
conducted a preliminary investigation. Thereafter, the Ombudsman, through the Office of the
Special Prosecutor, charged in Sandiganbayan Vice-Governor Felipe Constantino, Provincial
Accountant Maria Camanay, and Executive Assistant III Amelia Carmela C Zoleta and who
is also the daughter of Vice Governor and private individual Violeta Bahilidad in conspiracy
in committing malversation of public funds by falsification of public documents defined and
penalized under Article 217 in relation to Article 171 (2) and Article 48 of the Revised Penal
Code.
Allegedly, Zoleta represented WIP as its President and requested financial assistance
from them.
On arraignment, the petitioner, Vice-Governor Constantino and Bahilidad pleaded
"not guilty." Diaz and Camanay, on the other hand, remained at large.
Vice-Governor Constantino died in a vehicular accident, resulting in the dismissal of
the case against him.
Sandiganbayan found the petitioner and Bahilidad guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime charged.
Petitioner filed a petition for review on Certioari in Supreme Court.
ISSUES
1. May the Sandiganbayan decision be declared void because one of its
signatories,
Justice Gregory Ong, was not a natural-born Filipino citizen per Kilosbayan
Foundation v. Exec. Sec. Ermita, and hence not qualified to be a Sandiganbayan
justice?
2. Is the petition for review on certiorari the right recourse?
3. Was petitioner denied of due process when Sandiganbayan convicted her of
malversation through consent, abandonment, or negligence even this allegation was
not contained in the Information?|
||
RULING
1. No. The petitioner's reliance in Kilosbayan to challenge the validity of the
Sandiganbayan's decision of her case is misplaced.
In the said case, both Kilosbayan Foundation and Bantay Katarungan — both non-
governmental organizations engaged in public and civic causes — questioned President
Arroyo’s appointment of Justice Ong in Sandiganbayan on the ground that he was not a
natural-born citizen. However, SC did not rule that Justice Ong was not a natural-born
Filipino (and hence unqualified to assume the position of a Sandiganbayan Justice). The
Court merely stated that Justice Ong cannot accept an appointment to the position of
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court or assume the position of that office, "until he shall
have successfully completed all the necessary steps, through the appropriate adversarial
proceedings in court to show that he is a natural-born Filipino citizen and correct the records
of his birth and citizenship." Because of that, Justice Ong filed in RTC petition for the
amendment/correction/supplementation or annotation of an entry in [his] Certificate of Birth
where he was recognized of such status. And the SC decision became final and executory.
Even without this ruling, we hold that Justice Ong was a de facto officer during the
period of his incumbency as a Sandiganbayan Associate Justice.
A de facto officer is one who is in possession of an office and who openly exercises
its functions under color of an appointment or election, even though such appointment or
election may be irregular.
A de facto officer is defined as one who is in possession of an office, and is
discharging its duties under color of authority, by which is meant authority derived from an
appointment, however irregular or informal, so that the incumbent be not a mere volunteer.
Consequently, the acts of the de facto officer are as valid for all purposes as those of
a de jure officer, in so far as the public or third persons who are interested therein are
concerned.
2. No. Only Questions of law must be raised in Supreme Court.

Petitioner alleges that the presented evidence were insufficient to support a
conviction. She thus seeks a reevaluation of the Sandiganbayan's appreciation of the evidence
presented, including the credibility of witnesses and the probative value of their testimonies.
Appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over decisions and final orders of the
Sandiganbayan is limited only to questions of law; it does not review the factual findings of
the Sandiganbayan which, as a general rule, are conclusive upon the Court.
A question of law exists when there is doubt or controversy as to what the law is on a
certain state of facts. On the other hand, a question of fact exists when the doubt or
controversy arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. The resolution of a question of
fact necessarily involves a calibration of the evidence, the credibility of the witnesses, the
existence and the relevance of surrounding circumstances, and the probability of specific
situations.
SC held that Sandiganbayan's findings that: the testimonies of Gadian and Tangan
were credible and worthy of belief; WPI was an unregistered cooperative; the signatures of
the petitioner and her co-accused on the disbursement voucher were authentic; Remulta's
signature had been forged; and the charges against the accused were not politically
motivated, are questions of fact, as these matters were resolved after a calibration of the
pieces of evidence presented during trial. The Court will not anymore weigh these pieces of
evidence in the absence of a clear showing that these findings had been arrived at arbitrarily
or are devoid of support in the records.
How is the crime of Malversation of public funds be committed?
Elements:
 that the offender be a public officer
 that he had custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his
office;
 that those funds or property were public funds or property for which he was
accountable; and
 that he appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented, or through
abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take them|||
First element, all except Bahilidad are public officers.
Second element, funds misappropriated are public in character as they were funds
belonging to Province of Sarangani.
Third element, Vice Governor and Camanay were accountable officers.
Local government officials become accountable public officers either (1)
because of the nature of their functions; or (2) on account of their
participation in the use or application of public funds.||| As a required
standard procedure, the signatures of, among others, the Vice-Governor
and the Provincial Accountant are needed before any disbursement of
public funds can be made.|||
Finally, Vice-Governor Constantino and Camanay appropriated, took, misappropriated
or consented, or through abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take
the public funds when they signed Disbursement Voucher.|||
And that falsification was a necessary means to commit the crime of malversation.|||
Discussion on Conspiracy
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy does not need to be proven
by direct evidence and may be inferred from the conduct — before, during, and after
the commission of the crime — indicative of a joint purpose, concerted action, and
concurrence of sentiments. In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. Conspiracy is
present when one concurs with the criminal design of another, as shown by an overt act
leading to the crime committed. It may be deduced from the mode and manner of the
commission of the crime.|||
The connivance was clear when the entire transaction — from the letter-request, to the
approval of the disbursement voucher, until the processing and release of the check —
was completed in only one day. Disbursement had been approved even without the
required supporting documents such as the Articles of Cooperation and Certificate from
the Cooperative Development Authority. There was also noncompliance with the COA-
prescribed auditing and accounting guidelines on the release of fund assistance to
NGOs, such as the required monitoring and inspection report either by the Office of the
Provincial Agriculturist or the Provincial Engineering Office.|||
3. No.
Malversation is committed either intentionally or by negligence. The dolo or
the culpa present in the offense is only a modality in the perpetration of the felony. Even if
the mode charged differs from the mode proved, the same offense of malversation is
involved and conviction thereof is proper. All that is necessary for conviction is sufficient
proof that the accountable officer had received public funds, that he did not have them in his
possession when demand therefor was made, and that he could not satisfactorily explain his
failure to do so. Direct evidence of personal misappropriation by the accused is hardly
necessary as long as the accused cannot explain satisfactorily the shortage in his accounts.|||
SC modified the maximum term of the penalty imposed on the petitioner by the
Sandiganbayan, from sixteen (16) years, five (5) months, and eleven (11) days to eighteen
(18) years, two (2) months, and twenty one (21) days of reclusion temporal, in accordance
with Articles 48 and 217 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, in relation to
the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
Hence, petition is denied.

Zoleta Vs Sandiganbayan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Zoleta Vs Sandiganbayan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Zoleta Vs Sandiganbayan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

||| Zoleta v.

2. No. Only Questions of law must be raised in Supreme Court.

You might also like