PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT VS. PABLO A. CONSIGNA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEE.

People versus Consigna

The Case

This is the case of People versus Consigna, a criminal case for malversation of public property that became a test of what a trial court may order when it acquits a public officer. The accused, Pablo Consigna, was the property clerk of the Office of the Division Superintendent of Schools of Surigao del Norte. After trial, the Court of First Instance of Surigao acquitted him for absolute lack of evidence, but it went further: it ordered his reinstatement to his former position. The Government appealed that portion of the judgment. The case matters because it fixes the rule that an acquittal in a malversation case carries with it the right to reinstatement, even though the accused had already been dismissed in a separate administrative proceeding.

Procedural History

An information for malversation was filed against Consigna and one Prospero Borja, a warehouseman of the Namarco branch in Surigao, before the Court of First Instance of Surigao. After trial, the court rendered judgment on October 1, 1960, acquitting both accused. Consigna was acquitted for absolute lack of evidence; Borja, on reasonable doubt. The same judgment ordered the reinstatement of both accused and directed that Consigna be paid his full salary during the period of his suspension or separation from employment.

The provincial fiscal of Surigao moved for reconsideration of the reinstatement and salary portions, invoking a decision of the Commissioner of Civil Service rendered on September 16, 1959, which had found Consigna guilty of gross negligence on the same facts and ordered his removal from office. The trial court found the motion partly well taken: it eliminated the order to pay Consigna's salary during his suspension, but left undisturbed the order of reinstatement. The Government then appealed to the Supreme Court, raising only the question of the trial court's authority to order reinstatement.

Facts

Consigna was the property clerk of the Office of the Division Superintendent of Schools of Surigao del Norte, and as such was accountable for the materials and supplies received and handled by him. Borja was the warehouseman of the Namarco branch in Surigao, accountable for the merchandise stored in its bodega. The information charged that, between June 29 and August 22, 1955, the two conspired to defraud the government of 860 G.I. corrugated sheets, valued at 4,773 pesos, which had been requisitioned and purchased for the repair and improvement of the elementary schools of several barrios of Hinatuan, Surigao, under Republic Act Number 1200.

It was alleged that, instead of shipping the sheets to Hinatuan, the accused misappropriated and converted them to their personal use and benefit, and that despite repeated demands by the municipal mayor of Hinatuan and other authorized officers, they failed and refused to produce the sheets.

While the criminal case was pending, Consigna's administrative superiors proceeded with an administrative investigation against him. That investigation ended in the decision of the Commissioner of Civil Service dated September 16, 1959, finding him guilty of gross negligence and ordering his removal from office. The criminal case, however, ended in acquittal on October 1, 1960, for absolute lack of evidence of the willful malversation charged.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court, after acquitting Consigna for absolute lack of evidence, had the authority to order his reinstatement to his former position.
• Whether or not the decision of the Commissioner of Civil Service finding Consigna guilty of gross negligence and ordering his removal is binding upon the courts.

Applicable Provisions

Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, as discussed in the decision, provides for the penalties for malversation of public funds or property:

The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if the amount involved is more than 200 pesos but does not exceed 6,000 pesos.

The Court reads this provision, together with the additional penalty of special perpetual disqualification, as showing that conviction necessarily results in dismissal from the public office held at the time of the offense, so that acquittal must carry the opposite consequence of reinstatement.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the trial court had the authority to order reinstatement, and affirmed that portion of the judgment. The State had argued, relying on People versus Daleon, that the only issue joined by a plea of not guilty is whether the accused committed the crime charged, so that the only proper judgment is acquittal or conviction. The Court disagreed. It reasoned that under the information, Consigna could have been convicted not only of willful malversation but also of malversation through negligence, because the greater offense includes the lesser. His acquittal for absolute lack of evidence of the willful act therefore impliedly but necessarily acquitted him also of malversation through negligence.

The Court then turned to Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code and explained that conviction of malversation carries the additional penalty of special perpetual disqualification, from which it is clearly inferable that conviction necessarily results in dismissal from the public office occupied at the time of the offense. The Court stated the rule in these words:

If this is the inevitable result of conviction, reinstatement should also follow acquittal.

The Court distinguished People versus Daleon, holding that its ruling there was simply that, upon acquittal, the court has no authority to order payment of salaries corresponding to the period of suspension, because that right was not involved in the case. The right to reinstatement, on the other hand, is involved in a malversation case, albeit as a mere incident, because conviction would necessarily deny it.

On the second issue, the Court held that the decision of the Commissioner of Civil Service is not binding upon the courts. It noted that the administrative investigation was started after the filing of the criminal case, and that Consigna's superiors went ahead with it instead of waiting for the result of the criminal case. Paraphrasing Batungbakal versus National Development Company, the Court said that the least that could be done is to restore to him the office and post of which he had been illegally deprived, to remedy the evil and wrong committed and to fully accomplish the vindication to which he is entitled.

Doctrine

First, upon acquittal of an accused charged with malversation of public funds or property, the trial court has the authority to order his reinstatement to the position he occupied at the time of his suspension. The reason is that conviction under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code carries the additional penalty of special perpetual disqualification, which necessarily results in dismissal from office; if conviction inevitably results in dismissal, acquittal should likewise carry reinstatement.

Second, a decision of the Commissioner of Civil Service finding an accused guilty of gross negligence on the same facts is not binding upon the courts. The administrative finding cannot override a judicial acquittal.

Third, an acquittal for lack of evidence of willful malversation impliedly acquits the accused of malversation through negligence, because the greater offense includes the lesser. The right to reinstatement is deemed involved in the malversation case as a mere incident, which is why the trial court may order it.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court ordering Consigna's reinstatement, with costs de oficio. The Government's appeal failed on that point.

Remember This

Memorize the line: if dismissal is the inevitable result of conviction, reinstatement should also follow acquittal. Examiners use this case to test the effects of acquittal in malversation cases and the relationship between administrative findings and judicial acquittals.