G.R. No. 139282 ; September 4, 2000
Romeo Diego y De Joya, petitioner, vs. The Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Romeo Diego, a Police Superintendent and Evidence Custodian, was convicted of Malversation of Public Property by the Sandiganbayan. The case stemmed from the loss of forty plastic bags of shabu, valued at five million pesos, which were under his custody as evidence for a court case. Diego was subpoenaed to bring the evidence to the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City. On the first two trips, he was accompanied by police escorts. On the third trip on February 9, 1993, he traveled alone. He reported that along F.B. Harrison Street, near the courthouse, he was waylaid by armed holduppers who took the bag containing the shabu.
The prosecution and defense entered into a Stipulation of Facts, which included the facts of Diego’s position, his receipt of the evidence, the subpoena, his failed attempt to secure an escort on February 9, and his subsequent failure to deliver or return the shabu. The prosecution rested its case based on these judicial admissions without presenting testimonial evidence.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting petitioner of Malversation of Public Property under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code based solely on the judicial admissions in the Stipulation of Facts.

RULING

No, the Sandiganbayan did not err. A judicial admission, such as the Stipulation of Facts signed by the petitioner and his counsel, is conclusive and does not require proof. It binds the party making it, and he cannot subsequently take a contrary position. The stipulation established the elements of the crime through negligence: that Diego was a accountable public officer, that the shabu was public property entrusted to him by reason of his office, and that he failed to account for it upon demand (implied by the court subpoena).
The defense of force majeure or fortuitous event is unavailing. For such a defense to prosper, the event must be the sole and proximate cause of the loss, and the obligor must be free from any contributory negligence. The Court found Diego negligent. He traveled alone with highly valuable contraband on a known route, despite having escorts on prior trips and despite being aware of the risks. His failure to take adequate security precautions constituted gross negligence, which precludes the defense of a fortuitous event. His conviction for malversation through negligence under Article 217 is therefore affirmed.