G.R. No. 97214 July 16, 1994
ERNESTO NAVALLO, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (SECOND DIVISION) and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

On May 11, 1978, an Information was filed with the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Surigao del Norte charging petitioner Ernesto Navallo, the Collecting and Disbursing Officer of the Numancia National Vocational School, with Malversation of Public Funds under Article 217(4) of the Revised Penal Code for an alleged shortage of P16,483.62. Warrants for his arrest were issued, but he could not be found. On December 10, 1978, Presidential Decree No. 1606 creating the Sandiganbayan took effect. Navallo was arrested on November 15, 1984, arraigned by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) on July 18, 1985, and pleaded not guilty. Upon prosecution motion, the RTC transferred the case to the Sandiganbayan on May 22, 1986. The Sandiganbayan issued a new arrest warrant, and Navallo posted a new bond after the initial one was found defective. Navallo filed a motion to quash, arguing the Sandiganbayan lacked jurisdiction and that his RTC arraignment placed him in double jeopardy. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion on September 15, 1989. He was re-arraigned on October 20, 1989, pleaded not guilty, and trial ensued.
The prosecution evidence, through auditors Antonio Espino and Leopoldo Dulguime, established that an audit for the period July 1976 to January 1978 revealed Navallo’s cash shortage of P16,483.62, which he failed to restitute despite demand. The defense claimed the shortage represented the unliquidated cash advance of his predecessor, Cesar Macasemo, and that the charge was motivated by a personal grudge. The Sandiganbayan convicted Navallo on November 8, 1990, sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty, perpetual special disqualification, a fine, and restitution.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Sandiganbayan acquired jurisdiction to try the case despite the Information being filed with the CFI before PD 1606 took effect.
2. Whether double jeopardy attached when petitioner was arraigned by the RTC on July 18, 1985.
3. Whether petitioner was under custodial investigation when he signed the certification prepared by State Auditing Examiner Leopoldo Dulguime.
4. Whether the guilt of petitioner was established beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

1. Yes, the Sandiganbayan acquired jurisdiction. Under Section 8 of PD 1606, any case cognizable by the Sandiganbayan within its exclusive jurisdiction shall be transferred to it if, as of the law’s effectivity date (December 10, 1978), none of the accused has been arraigned. Since Navallo was arraigned by the RTC only on July 18, 1985, long after the effectivity of PD 1606, the transfer of the case from the RTC to the Sandiganbayan was proper. The Sandiganbayan has exclusive jurisdiction over crimes committed by public officers embraced in Title VII of the Revised Penal Code, such as the malversation charge against Navallo.
2. No, double jeopardy did not set in. For double jeopardy to attach, the following must concur: (1) a valid complaint or information; (2) a court of competent jurisdiction; (3) the accused has pleaded to the charge; and (4) the accused has been convicted or acquitted, or the case has been dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent. At the time of Navallo’s arraignment before the RTC on July 18, 1985, the said court was no longer vested with jurisdiction over the offense, as jurisdiction had been transferred to the Sandiganbayan by PD 1606. Since the RTC acted without jurisdiction, the arraignment was invalid and could not give rise to double jeopardy.
3. No, petitioner was not under custodial investigation. The audit examination conducted by State Auditing Examiner Leopoldo Dulguime was a routine audit, not a custodial investigation. The constitutional rights under custodial investigation (right to remain silent and to counsel) apply when a person is taken into custody or is deprived of his freedom in a significant way. The audit was a regular duty in the course of which Navallo, as an accountable officer, was required to cooperate. His signature on the certification was not a confession obtained during custodial interrogation.
4. Yes, the guilt of petitioner was established beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution proved the elements of malversation: Navallo was a public officer accountable for public funds, the funds were missing, and he failed to account for them. The audit revealed a shortage of P16,483.62, which he could not explain or restitute. His defense that the shortage represented his predecessor’s unliquidated cash advance was not credible, as it was raised only at the trial 12 years after the audit, with no supporting details or evidence. The Sandiganbayan’s factual findings, which are accorded great respect, found the prosecution’s evidence sufficient for conviction.
The petition was DISMISSED and the decision of the Sandiganbayan was AFFIRMED in toto.