NARCISO C. LOGUINSA, JR., PETITIONER, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN (5TH DIVISION), RESPONDENT.

Loguinsa versus Sandiganbayan

The Case

This is the case of Loguinsa versus Sandiganbayan, a petition for review on certiorari brought by Narciso Loguinsa, Junior, the Municipal Treasurer of Banaybanay, Davao Oriental, against the Fifth Division of the Sandiganbayan. Loguinsa was convicted of malversation of public funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code for a shortage of one million seven hundred twenty-eight thousand one hundred forty-five pesos and thirty-five centavos in his General Fund cashbook, and he asks the Supreme Court to overturn that conviction. The case matters to a reviewee because it teaches how a cash examination report signed by an accountable officer is weighed as evidence, when the prima facie presumption of malversation arises, and why a request for a re-audit raised for the first time on appeal cannot succeed.

Procedural History

The case began in the Sandiganbayan, which issued the Information against Loguinsa. With the passage of a law expanding the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts over certain cases, the Sandiganbayan remanded the case to the Regional Trial Court of Mati, Davao Oriental, and it was raffled to Branch 5. After trial, that court rendered a guilty verdict. Loguinsa appealed to the Sandiganbayan, which affirmed the conviction in full. He then filed a motion for reconsideration and a supplemental motion for reconsideration, and while these were pending he asked that the proceedings be suspended pending a re-audit of his accounts. The Sandiganbayan denied the motions for reconsideration, denied his second motion for reconsideration, and denied the motion to suspend proceedings. Loguinsa then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari. The petition was initially dismissed for procedural defects, but upon his motion the Court reconsidered and reinstated it.

Facts

On the twenty-third of March 1993, the Provincial Auditor of Mati, Davao Oriental, created special audit teams to conduct a financial and compliance audit of several municipalities and a cash examination of their municipal treasurers. On the twenty-ninth of March 1993, a team led by State Auditor Robert Lumpay proceeded to the Municipality of Banaybanay and examined the cash and accounts of Loguinsa, the Municipal Treasurer. Loguinsa opened his safe vault in the presence of the Assistant Municipal Treasurer, the Budget Officer, and Lumpay. The vault was then sealed with a coupon bond bearing the notation that the seal must not be broken under penalty of law, signed by the two local officials.

Lumpay examined the journals and ledgers and reconciled the cashbook balances for the period from the seventeenth of June 1992 to the twenty-ninth of March 1993. He found no difference in the other funds, but in the General Fund cashbook, which Loguinsa had personally prepared, there appeared a shortage of one million seven hundred twenty-eight thousand one hundred forty-five pesos and thirty-five centavos. The examination lasted three weeks, and Lumpay prepared the Report of Cash Examination on General Form 74(A). Loguinsa was given a copy and affixed his signature to it. Lumpay then demanded in writing that Loguinsa produce the missing funds and explain the shortage within seventy-two hours. Loguinsa asked for the complete details of the examination, which were furnished to him, but no explanation was received, and the demand was reiterated.

A second, separate investigation was later conducted by the Office of the Provincial Treasurer through Maximo Tanzo and Anecita Plaza, covering the same period. When invited to a meeting, Loguinsa appeared but refused to sign any document or answer questions about the results of the cash verification. The second investigation confirmed the same shortage. Loguinsa was formally charged with dishonesty through malversation of public funds, and an Information for malversation was filed against him.

Issues

• Whether or not the Sandiganbayan gravely erred in not declaring that the examination and audit report prepared by the audit team was contrary to law.
• Whether or not Loguinsa's constitutional right to due process was denied when his pleas for a re-audit and review of his case and account were denied outright.
• Whether or not the trial court and the Sandiganbayan erred in ruling that his guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Applicable Provisions

Section 44, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Evidence, on entries in official records, provides:

Entries in official records made in the performance of his duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.

This is the basis for treating the cash examination report as prima facie proof of the shortage it records.

Section 5, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, on who controls the prosecution, provides:

All criminal actions commenced by a complaint or information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the prosecutor.

This supports the ruling that the choice of which evidence to present belongs to the prosecution, not to the accused.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the conviction did not rest on the cash examination report alone. The prosecution also presented documentary evidence and the testimonies of the auditors and of the Assistant Municipal Treasurer, and the failure to mark the General Fund cashbooks in evidence did not exonerate Loguinsa. Under Section 5, Rule 110, the prosecution decides what evidence to present. The cash examination report, being an entry in an official record made in the performance of duty, is prima facie evidence of the facts stated in it. The Court also held that Loguinsa's signature on the report could not be taken lightly, since a person is presumed not to sign an official document without knowing its contents, and only substantial evidence to the contrary could overcome that acknowledgment, which he failed to present. The Court distinguished the earlier Tinga case, where the audit was incomplete and the accuracy of the findings was disputed, from this case, where two separate and independent audits both confirmed the same shortage.

On the second issue, the Court held that there was no denial of due process, because the essence of due process is the reasonable opportunity to be heard and to submit evidence. The request for a re-audit was not sanctioned by the Rules, since the case was already on appeal, and it should have been raised before the trial court. The factual findings of the trial court, affirmed by the Sandiganbayan, are accorded high respect and will not be disturbed absent a showing that the court overlooked or misapplied facts of substance.

On the third issue, the Court held that all the elements of malversation were proven beyond reasonable doubt: that the offender is a public officer, that he has custody or control of the funds by reason of the duties of his office, that the funds are public funds for which he is accountable, and that he appropriated, took, or misappropriated them, or permitted another to take them through abandonment or negligence.

Doctrine

A cash examination report on General Form 74(A) is an entry in an official record made in the performance of duty and is therefore prima facie evidence of the facts stated in it under Section 44, Rule 130. When an accountable officer signs such a report, he acknowledges and certifies that the amount stated is his accountability, and only substantial evidence to the contrary can overcome that acknowledgment. The prima facie presumption of malversation stands where the audit findings are accurate, correct, and regular, and are confirmed by a second independent audit. The prosecution has the discretion to determine which evidence to present, and the accused cannot dictate that choice. A request for a re-audit raised for the first time on appeal comes too late, since due process means only a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

Disposition

The petition was denied for lack of merit, and the Court affirmed the conviction of Loguinsa, including the penalty, the fine, the indemnity, and the denial of his motions for reconsideration and to suspend proceedings.

Remember This

Remember that a signed cash examination report is prima facie evidence of the shortage and amounts to an acknowledgment of accountability that only substantial evidence can overturn. Examiners like to use this case on the prima facie presumption of malversation and on the rule that a re-audit cannot be demanded for the first time on appeal.