G.R. Nos. 243029-30. August 22, 2022.
TITO S. SARION, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Tito S. Sarion, then Municipal Mayor of Daet, was convicted by the Sandiganbayan of Malversation of Public Funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code and violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 . The charges stemmed from his approval of a disbursement voucher and a Landbank check for the payment of a price escalation claim to Markbilt Construction for the Phase II construction of the Daet Public Market. The prosecution alleged this payment was made despite the absence of a specific appropriation for the price escalation and without compliance with Section 61 of R.A. No. 9184 (the Government Procurement Reform Act). The Supreme Court, in a Decision dated March 18, 2021, denied Sarion’s petition for review, affirming his conviction. The Court found his issues were factual and that no exceptions to the rule against reviewing factual findings applied. On the merits, it ruled he committed gross inexcusable negligence as an accountable officer by facilitating the illegal release of funds.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court erred in denying the Motion for Reconsideration and affirming petitioner Sarion’s conviction for Malversation and violation of R.A. No. 3019 , based on a finding of gross inexcusable negligence.

RULING

The Court denied the Motion for Reconsideration and affirmed the conviction. The legal logic is anchored on two primary grounds: the procedural bar against reviewing factual findings and the substantive finding of gross inexcusable negligence. Procedurally, a petition for review under Rule 45 is limited to questions of law. The petitioner failed to demonstrate that his case fell under any recognized exception to this rule, as his arguments essentially challenged the Sandiganbayan’s evaluation of evidence. His attempt to specify exceptions only in his Motion for Reconsideration, after the Court had already pointed out the deficiency, was insufficient to warrant a departure from the lower court’s factual conclusions.
Substantively, the Court upheld that Sarion, as Municipal Mayor and an accountable officer, committed gross inexcusable negligence. His defense of good faith and reliance on subordinate municipal officers was unavailing. The Contract Agreement for the project provided a specific appropriation only for the base contract price, which had been fully paid. The claim for price escalation was an additional, separate demand not covered by that original appropriation. By approving the payment without ensuring the existence of a specific appropriation for it and without verifying compliance with the mandatory requirements of R.A. No. 9184 (which governs adjustments like price escalations), Sarion failed to exercise the high degree of diligence required of his position. His act of directing the municipal administrator to “look for funds” for the claim, coupled with his approval of the disbursement despite these patent legal deficiencies, constituted gross negligence. This negligence established his liability for Malversation under Article 217 of the RPC and for causing undue injury to the government under Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 . The dissenting opinion’s contrasting view on the technicalities of the information and appropriation did not persuade the majority to overturn the conviction.