G.R. No. 210603 , November 25, 2015
Editha B. Saguin and Lani D. Grado, Petitioners, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners Editha B. Saguin (Accountant II) and Lani D. Grado (Cashier), along with Ruby C. Dalman (Administrative Officer II), all of Rizal Memorial District Hospital (RMDH), Dapitan City, were charged with violation of Section 23 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1752, as amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7742. The Information alleged that during March 1993, they conspired and caused the deduction from employees’ salaries of Pag-IBIG contributions and loan repayments totaling ₱23,784.39 but willfully failed to remit said collections to the Pag-IBIG Fund, to the prejudice of the employees who incurred penalties. The prosecution established that the deductions for March 1993 were made but not remitted, discovered when employees were denied loans due to non-remittance. The defense claimed that devolution of the hospital to the provincial government in April 1993 prevented them from issuing checks for remittance, believing the provincial government would assume the responsibility. The MTCC and the RTC convicted the petitioners. The Sandiganbayan affirmed the conviction but deleted the civil indemnity due to a separate civil action.

ISSUE

Whether petitioners Editha B. Saguin and Lani D. Grado are criminally liable under Section 23 of P.D. No. 1752, as amended by R.A. No. 7742 , for failure to remit the deducted Pag-IBIG contributions and loan payments.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the Sandiganbayan’s decision and acquitted the petitioners. The Court held that under the specific wording of Section 23 of P.D. No. 1752, as amended, the duty to remit and the corresponding penal liability fell solely on the “employer.” For private corporations, liability extended to members of the governing board and the President or General Manager. For government instrumentalities, the law did not specify which officials or employees would be liable. The law in force at the time of the alleged offense (1993) did not expressly impose criminal liability on ordinary employees like an Accountant II and a Cashier. The Court found that the Sandiganbayan erred in applying the law’s penal provisions to the petitioners, as the statutory construction at the time did not clearly encompass them. The repeal and reenactment of the law under R.A. No. 9679 in 2009, which expanded liability to “other officials and employees,” could not be applied retroactively to the petitioners. The prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The acquittal is without prejudice to any administrative or civil liabilities.