G.R. Nos. 163957-58 & 164009-11. April 7, 2009.
MUNIB S. ESTINO and ERNESTO G. PESCADERA, Petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. (G.R. Nos. 163957-58)

ERNESTO G. PESCADERA, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. (G.R. Nos. 164009-11)

FACTS

Petitioners Munib S. Estino (Vice-Governor/Acting Governor of Sulu) and Ernesto G. Pescadera (Provincial Treasurer of Sulu) were charged before the Sandiganbayan. Estino acted as Governor from July 27, 1998, to May 23, 1999, pursuant to a Supreme Court status quo order. A special audit for that period revealed anomalies. Three Informations were filed: 1) Criminal Case No. 26192 for violation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. 3019 for failure to pay employees’ salary differentials, ACA, PERA, RATA, Mid-year Bonus, Cash Gift, and Clothing Allowance totaling P8,435,625.34; 2) Criminal Case No. 26193 for Malversation under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code for failure to remit GSIS contributions amounting to P4,820,365.30; and 3) Criminal Case No. 26194 for violation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. 3019 for irregular withdrawal of P21.5 million from the IRA. The Sandiganbayan convicted petitioners in Criminal Case No. 26192 for non-payment of RATA, acquitting them on other non-payment charges. It also convicted Pescadera in Criminal Case No. 26193 for malversation. Petitioners appealed.

ISSUE

1. In G.R. Nos. 163957-58: Whether petitioners are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 for failure to pay the RATA of provincial officials.
2. In G.R. Nos. 164009-11: Whether petitioner Pescadera is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Malversation of Public Funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code for non-remittance of GSIS contributions.

RULING

1. In G.R. Nos. 163957-58, the Supreme Court AFFIRMED the Sandiganbayan’s conviction of petitioners for violation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. 3019. The Court found that the non-payment of RATA for January to May 1999 caused undue injury to the entitled officials. Petitioners’ defense of payment was an affirmative allegation requiring proof. The disbursement vouchers they presented for RATA payment for May 1999 were unsigned by the claimants, and the prosecution established that funds (IRA) were available. Their conscious and deliberate failure to pay, despite available funds, constituted evident bad faith. The elements of the offense were present: they were public officers; they acted with evident bad faith; their action caused undue injury to the officials entitled to RATA; and the injury was caused in the discharge of their official functions.
2. In G.R. Nos. 164009-11, the Supreme Court REVERSED the Sandiganbayan and ACQUITTED petitioner Ernesto G. Pescadera of Malversation. The Court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the essential element of conversion or misappropriation. The evidence showed that the GSIS premiums were deducted from salaries but not remitted due to a prior agreement with the employees, reached in a general assembly, to prioritize payment of salary differentials and a PNB loan amortization. The unremitted funds remained in the provincial treasury and were not taken for personal use. The failure to remit constituted a different offense (technical malversation or violation of auditing rules), not the crime of malversation under Article 217 which requires personal use or conversion. Since the element of conversion was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, acquittal was warranted.