GR 166680; (July, 2014) (Digest)
G.R. No. 166680 July 7, 2014
ALOYSIUS DAIT LUMAUIG, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Aloysius Dait Lumauig, former Municipal Mayor of Alfonso Lista, Ifugao, was charged under Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code for Failure of Accountable Officer to Render Accounts. The Information alleged that in or about August 1994, he received a cash advance of ₱101,736.00 for payment of insurance coverage for motorcycles purchased by the municipality and willfully failed to liquidate and account for the same. A Commission on Audit (COA) auditor discovered the unliquidated cash advance during an examination in 1998. Petitioner admitted receiving the cash advance, which was intended for freight and insurance of donated vehicles, but claimed he did not liquidate it because the vehicles were already turned over to the municipality and he was not informed or demanded by COA to liquidate. He paid the amount in June 2001. He was also charged with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) in a separate case (Criminal Case No. 26527) stemming from the same cash advance. After a joint trial, the Sandiganbayan acquitted him in the anti-graft case but convicted him under Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code, sentencing him to six months and one day of imprisonment and a fine of ₱1,000.00. His motion for reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE
1. Whether petitioner’s acquittal in the anti-graft case bars his conviction for failure to render accounts.
2. Whether a prior notice or demand for liquidation is a requisite for conviction under Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code.
RULING
1. No, acquittal in the anti-graft case is not a bar to conviction for failure to render accounts. The Supreme Court held that the same act may give rise to two separate and distinct charges. The elements of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code are different. For R.A. No. 3019, the elements include causing undue injury through manifest partiality, bad faith, or negligence. For Article 218, the elements are: (a) the offender is a public officer; (b) he is an accountable officer for public funds or property; (c) he is required by law or regulation to render accounts to COA or a provincial auditor; and (d) he fails to do so for two months after such accounts should be rendered. The variance in elements means the requisite evidence differs, so exoneration in one case does not extend to the other.
2. No, a prior notice or demand for liquidation is not a requisite for conviction under Article 218. The Court, citing Manlangit v. Sandiganbayan, ruled that Article 218 does not require a demand before an accountable officer is held liable. The law is clear and unambiguous: it only requires that the officer is mandated by law or regulation to render accounts and fails to do so for two months after the accounts should be rendered. Where the law does not provide for a demand, the court cannot introduce such a condition. Petitioner’s reliance on United States v. Saberon was misplaced as that case involved a violation of a different law (Act No. 1740), not Article 218. The Court affirmed petitioner’s conviction under Article 218.