MAYOR SUBO TANGGOTE, PETITIONER, VS. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, SECOND DIVISION, AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

The instant petition for review on certiorari seeks the reversal of the Sandiganbayan’s
decision of 27 November 1991, in Criminal Case No. 14976, convicting petitioner
Subo Tanggote of the crime of malversation of public funds, defined in Article
217(4) of the Revised Penal Code, as well as its resolution, dated 22 January
1992, denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

On 23 and 28 February 1982, petitioner, then Municipal Mayor of
Poonapiagapo, Lanao del Norte, received from Hadji Abad Sangbaan, the Municipal
Treasurer, cash advances in the amounts of P17,424.00 and P15,000.00,
respectively, for the repair of the town’s municipal building and public market
and the construction of a municipal stage. Petitioner was accused of having later misappropriated the sum. Specifically, the information filed with
respondent court, which charged petitioner with Malversation of Public Funds
under paragraph 4, Article 217, of the Revised Penal Code, read:

“That on or about the period from February 23 to 28, 1982, or
for sometime immediately prior and subsequent thereto in Poonapiagapo, Province
of Lanao del Norte, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, said
accused, a public officer, being the Mayor of the said municipality, and as
such accountable for the public funds collected and received by him, with grave
abuse of confidence, did then and there wilfully, and unlawfully misapply and
embezzle for his own personal use and benefit from said funds the sum of THIRTY
TWO THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED TWENTY FOUR PESOS (P32,424.00) to the damage and
prejudice of the government in the aforementioned amount.”^[1]

When arraigned, on 07 August 1990, the accused pleaded not guilty
to the charge. After trial, the
Sandiganbayan rendered its judgment, promulgated on 27 November 1991,
convicting the accused, thusly:

“WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused Datu Subo Tanggote y
Polange guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the crime of
malversation of public funds defined in Article 217(4), Revised Penal Code, and
there being no modifying circumstances, imposes upon him the indeterminate
sentence ranging from TWELVE (12) YEARS, FIVE (5) MONTHS, and ELEVEN (11) DAYS reclusion
temporal as minimum to EIGHTEEN (18) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS, and ONE
(1) DAY also of reclusion temporal as maximum, the penalty of
perpetual special disqualification, and a fine of THIRTY-TWO THOUSAND FOUR
HUNDRED TWENTY-FOUR PESOS (P32,424.00).

“He is further ordered to indemnify the government in the same
amount of P32,424.00.

“Let copy of this Decision be furnished the Department of
Local Government for whatever action it may take on the alleged abandonment of
the Municipal Building of Poonapiagapo, Lanao del Norte and the holding of
offices by the municipal officials in Iligan City.

“SO ORDERED.^[2]

The Sandiganbayan, in its resolution of 22 January 1992, denied
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

In this petition, the judgment of conviction is assailed
allegedly for being contrary to the evidence adduced by the parties and for
being based on mere inferences and speculations.

The petition cannot be granted.

The crime of malversation of public funds, defined under the
Revised Penal Code, is committed by “(a)ny public officer who, by reason
of the duties of his office, is accountable for public funds or property, shall
appropriate the same, or shall take or misappropriate or shall consent, or
through abandonment or negligence, shall permit any other person to take such
public funds or property, wholly or partially, or shall otherwise be guilty of
the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property, x x x.”
The failure of the public officer to have duly forthcoming such public funds or
property, upon demand by a duly authorized officer, “shall be prima facie evidence that he has put such missing
funds or property to personal use.”^[3]

The fact of receipt by petitioner from the municipal treasurer of
the amounts of P17,242.00 and P15,000.00, or a total of P32,243.00, for the
repair of the town’s municipal building and public market, as well as the
construction of a municipal stage, is not disputed. The only real and remaining issue before us, which itself is
basically factual in nature, relates to how the money has been spent.

At the trial, contradictory testimonies were given. Prosecution witnesses testified that there
were neither repairs nor constructions undertaken; the defense witnesses, upon
the other hand, simply made the opposite assertion. Petitioner himself decried the charge against him as having been
politically or improperly motivated as could
be attested, he said, by the delay in the filing of the complaint. The Sandiganbayan, evaluating the
conflicting evidence, both testimonial and documentary, reached these findings:

“To answer the issues entails
an examination and appreciation of the evidence, testimonial and documentary. Ultimately, therefore, these questions boil
down to one of credibility.

“Three witnesses for the prosecution, including Sangba-an,
testified that Tanggote never had the municipal building and public market of
Poonapiagapo repaired nor the municipal stage constructed. On the other hand, three witnesses for the
defense, among whom was Tanggote, declared under oath the exact opposite. After an analysis of the evidence, the Court
is inclined to give credence to the prosecution evidence.

“(a)    As depicted in
the pictures, the municipal building of Poonapiagapo constructed in 1981 is
semi-concrete; the first or ground floor is cemented; the second floor, wooden;
the roof is of G.I. Sheets. The wall of
the public market also built in 1981 is made of wood.

“According to three defense witnesses, the double wallings,
ceiling, and floor of the municipal building were repaired, and while two of
them testified that the repair of public market consisted of cementing its
floor, Tanggote added that the walls and posts of the market were likewise
repaired. If these were so, plywood,
lumber and/or nails were used in the repair of the municipal building and
public market. But significantly, none
of these materials was specified in the voucher, Exhibit A, to be purchased nor
allegedly purchased as listed in the cash invoice or receipt, Exhibit E-5. Per those voucher and cash invoice or
receipt, only the following were to be purchased and allegedly purchased:

“‘186 Bags Cement —————————— P 6,510.00

12 CU.M. Sand ——————————–          660.00

24 CU.M. Gravel ——————————-          440.00

135 Pcs. Iron Bar 3/8 x 20 ——————– 2,438.00

152 Pcs. “ “ 6/8 x 20 ——————– 6,384.00

P17,424.00’

“These supposed purchases exhausted the total amount
appropriated for the repair of the
municipal building and public market.

“(b)    Defense witnesses
also swore that the municipal stage built by Tanggote was adjoining the
municipal building and is now depicted in the picture marked Exhibit D-1 or 5.

“That picture, however, shows a veranda or balcony rather than
a stage. The structure projects from
the outer wall of the municipal building (background in the picture) and
opposite that wall is a balustrade (foreground). The roof of the structure is the eaves of the roof of the
building. Since the structure is on the
same level as the second floor of the municipal building, it is too high for a
stage, and people sitting on chairs in the structure will be partly hidden from
people on the ground and in front of the structure by the balustrade. Of course, the structure can be used as an improvised
stage, but it actually is not intended as a stage.

“The veranda or balcony appears to be entirely made of
concrete. But one of the receipts or
cash invoices listing the materials allegedly bought by Tanggote for the
construction of the municipal stage included ’50 pcs. plywood’ and ’10 kls.
G.I. nails.’

“(c)    Tanggote has two
different versions as to how the cash invoices or receipts, Exhibits E-1 to
E-8, purportedly issued in February 1982, came into existence. In his counter-affidavit, Exhibit E,
executed on December 13, 1988, he swore that immediately after he had purchased
the materials to be used in the projects, he turned over the original cash
invoices or receipts to Sangba­an for the latter to liquidate the cash advances
totalling P32,424.00 and that he secured ‘xerox copies of the duplicate copies
of all the receipts covering all the purchased materials’ which he submitted to
the investigating officer as annexes to his counter-affidavit.

“The Investigating Officer, however, found that those cash
invoices or receipts were printed in 1983 but antedated 1982, a finding based
on the words ‘Printed by BONAFIDE Prtg. Press, Iligan city, BIR AP No. 78-165986-83′ appearing at the bottom of the
invoices or receipts. This prompted
Tanggote to revise his story.

“Thus, he testified in court that the originals of the cash
invoices or receipts which he gave to Sangba-an in 1982 were lost. So in 1983, he asked the seller to give him
copies of the documents. But since the duplicates
could not be located, the seller issued another
set of cash invoices or receipts printed in 1983 but antedated to 1982. These second set or original receipts
or cash invoices were again misplaced. So in 1988 Tanggote again got xerox copies of the duplicates of
the second set of receipts or cash invoices, which are now Exhibits E-1 to E-8.

“No one corroborated Tanggote, not even a witness from Maria Cristina
Enterprises, the alleged seller.”^[4]

More than once, this Court has ruled that passing upon the
credibility of witnesses is a matter that primarily should be addressed by the
trial court. In the recent case of
People vs. Miranda, G.R. No. 92369, 10 August 1994, we have said:

“x x x (T)he issue on credibility of witnesses is almost
invariably within the exclusive province of a trial court to determine. It is before that court that testimonies are
first hand given, received, assessed and evaluated. The well established rule is that an appellate tribunal must
defer, and accord the highest degree of respect, to the findings of a trial
court. Repeatedly said is that a trial
court, which itself hears the witnesses and observes their deportment and manner
of testifying, would be in the best position to weigh conflicting testimonies
presented to it.”

We see no reason to depart from the rule,
particularly, such as in this
case at bench, where the records cannot be said to be bereft of substantial
evidence to support the trial court’s conclusions.

Petitioner argues that since the municipal treasurer did not
incur any shortage of funds, the latter having been able to fully liquidate the
amount of P32,424.00 (representing petitioner’s cash advances), petitioner must
then be deemed have likewise accounted in full that same amount. Obviously, it does not necessarily
follow. The municipal treasurer
liquidated his withdrawals totaling P32,424.00, by merely reflecting, such as
could be expected, his proper disbursements to the petitioner (Municipal
Vouchers [Exhibits A and B]), which the latter has duly receipted for. It has thus behooved petitioner, in turn, to
liquidate his own cash advances and to prove his lawful usage thereof.

Neither is there merit in petitioner’s assertion that he is not
an accountable public officer. An
accountable officer under Art. 217 of the Revised Penal Code is a public
officer who, in the discharge of his office, receives money or property of the
government which he is bound to later account for. It is the nature of the duties of, not the nomenclature used for,
or the relative significance of the title to, the position which controls in
that determination (see U.S. vs. Velasquez, 32 Phil. 157).

In the crime of malversation, all that is essential for
conviction is proof that the accountable officer has received public funds but
that, when demand therefor is made, he is unable to satisfactorily account for
the same (Valle vs. Sandiganbayan, 214 SCRA 532; Felicilda vs. Grospe, 211 SCRA
285; Sambrano vs. Sandiganbayan, 208 SCRA 44).

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED and the appealed
decision of the Sandiganbayan is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Feliciano, Padilla, Regalado, Davide, Jr.,
Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Quiason, Puno, Kapunan, and
Mendoza, JJ., concur.

Cruz and Bidin, JJ., on leave.

^[1]
Rollo, p. 27.

^[2]
Rollo, pp. 50-51.

^[3]
Art. 217, Revised Renal Code.

^[4]
Rollo, pp. 41-45.