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

FACTS

Petitioner Tito S. Sarion, then Municipal Mayor of Daet, Camarines Norte, was convicted by the Sandiganbayan for Malversation of Public Funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code and for violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 . The charges stemmed from his approval of a price escalation payment to Markbilt Construction for the Phase II construction of the Daet Public Market. The prosecution alleged he approved the disbursement in the absence of a Certificate of Availability of Funds (CAF). The Sandiganbayan and the Court’s main Decision affirmed his conviction, finding him guilty of gross inexcusable negligence for permitting payment despite alleged irregularities.
The main Decision, now affirmed via a Resolution denying Sarion’s Motion for Reconsideration, held that while the Information alleged an absence of a CAF, the conviction could stand based on a finding of an irregularity in the CAF pertaining specifically to the price escalation payment. It ruled that his failure to ensure strict compliance with procurement laws, like securing NEDA and GPPB approvals for the escalation, constituted gross negligence amounting to bad faith, sustaining both convictions.

ISSUE

Whether the conviction violates petitioner’s constitutional right to be informed of the charges against him, and whether the finding of gross inexcusable negligence amounting to bad faith is supported by the evidence.

RULING

Justice Caguioa, in dissent, votes for acquittal. The legal logic centers on a violation of the constitutional right to due process. The Information specifically alleged the absence of a CAF as the factual basis for the charge under Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 . The Sandiganbayan itself found as a fact that CAFs existed, noting it could not find culpability for an irregularity in the CAF because the Information did not allege it. Convicting Sarion based on a theory of “irregularity” in the CAF, rather than its absence, fundamentally alters the accusation. He prepared his defense to prove the existence of a CAF, which he successfully did. To convict him on an uncharged theory of irregularity deprives him of the opportunity to confront and refute that specific allegation, violating his right under Section 14(1), Article III of the 1987 Constitution .
Furthermore, the dissent argues the evidence does not support a finding of gross inexcusable negligence or bad faith. The CAF in question was duly certified by the Municipal Budget Officer and the Municipal Accountant, indicating the availability of funds from a valid appropriation ordinance. As the final approving authority, Sarion was entitled to rely on these certifications by responsible officers. His act of signing the voucher after it passed through the proper procedural channels, and his reliance on a legal opinion from the Municipal Legal Officer, demonstrates due diligence, not gross negligence. The dissent warns that holding a head of office criminally liable for every procedural step certified by subordinates would paralyze public administration, as managers would be forced to personally investigate every minute detail. Thus, the elements of the crimes, particularly the manifest partiality, bad faith, or gross negligence required under R.A. No. 3019 and the negligence for malversation, are not proven beyond reasonable doubt.