G.R. Nos. 234435-36. February 06, 2023.
TAHIRA S. ISMAEL AND AIDA U. AJIJON, PETITIONERS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioners Tahira S. Ismael (Municipal Mayor) and Aida U. Ajijon (Municipal Treasurer) of Lantawan, Basilan, were charged before the Sandiganbayan for non-remittance of GSIS contributions. The Municipality had arrearages since 1997, which increased during Ismael’s term starting 2001. Collection letters for arrears from January 1999 to June 2001 and July 2001 to February 2003 were sent but remained unsettled, leading to the suspension of employees’ loan privileges. A complaint was filed with the Ombudsman, resulting in two Informations: one for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and another for violation of Sections 3.3.1 and 3.4, Rule III of the IRR of R.A. No. 8291 (GSIS Act). The Sandiganbayan convicted petitioners on both charges. Petitioners appealed, arguing: (1) their right to be informed of the accusation was violated because the Informations alleged conspiracy but did not implead the municipal accountant and budget officer; (2) their right to speedy disposition of cases was violated due to the case’s duration from 2005 to 2017; and (3) their failure to remit was due to factors beyond their control (terrorism, prior arrearages, limited resources) and lacked criminal intent.

ISSUE

1. Whether petitioners’ right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against them was violated.
2. Whether petitioners’ right to the speedy disposition of cases was violated.
3. Whether the Sandiganbayan correctly convicted petitioners of (a) violation of Section 3.3.1, in relation to Section 17.2.3 of the IRR of R.A. No. 8291 , and (b) violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 .

RULING

1. No violation of the right to be informed. The Informations sufficiently alleged the facts constituting the offenses: the petitioners’ positions, their failure to remit GSIS contributions for a specified period, and the resulting damage. The non-inclusion of other alleged conspirators (municipal accountant and budget officer) does not render the Informations insufficient. An indictment for conspiracy need not allege all details or the participation of all parties, so long as the acts imputed to the accused are clear to enable them to prepare a defense.
2. No violation of the right to speedy disposition of cases. The Court found no inordinate delay attributable to the Sandiganbayan. The proceedings involved necessary motions and offers of evidence, and petitioners did not demonstrate that the delays were vexatious, capricious, or oppressive. The overall timeline, considering the complexity and procedural steps, was not unreasonable.
3. Conviction under R.A. No. 8291 is affirmed; conviction under R.A. No. 3019 is reversed.
* For violation of Section 3.3.1, in relation to Section 17.2.3 of the IRR of R.A. No. 8291 : The Sandiganbayan correctly convicted petitioners. The law imposes a strict duty on the employer (the Municipality) to deduct and remit GSIS contributions. As Mayor and Treasurer, petitioners were responsible for ensuring remittance. Their defenses—terrorism, prior arrears, and limited municipal funds—do not exempt them from this mandatory statutory obligation. The offense is malum prohibitum, where criminal intent is not required; mere failure to remit within the prescribed period constitutes the violation.
* For violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 : The conviction is set aside. The elements of causing undue injury through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence were not proven. The evidence showed that petitioners did not act with corrupt intent. They attempted to address the arrears by seeking debt condonation from GSIS and entering into a Memorandum of Agreement for restructuring. Their failure to remit was due to the municipality’s genuine financial distress, not bad faith or gross negligence. Without proof of corrupt motives, criminal liability under the Anti-Graft Law cannot stand.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION (Summarized from the Decision):
The Petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Sandiganbayan Decision dated August 2, 2017, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioners are ACQUITTED of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 in Criminal Case No. 28278 for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Their conviction for violation of Section 3.3.1, in relation to Section 17.2.3 of the IRR of R.A. No. 8291 in Criminal Case No. 28279, and the penalties imposed thereof, are AFFIRMED.