ROSULO LOPEZ MANLANGIT, PETITIONER,VS. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

Manlangit versus Sandiganbayan

The Case

This is a petition for review filed by Rosulo Lopez Manlangit against the Sandiganbayan and the People of the Philippines, asking the Supreme Court to reverse his conviction for violation of Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code, the crime of failure of an accountable officer to render accounts. Manlangit, who had served as Officer-in-Charge for Information, Education and Communication of the Pinatubo Commission, received public funds for the Commission's anniversary activities and resigned without liquidating them within the period fixed by the Commission on Audit. The case matters because it settles a question that recurs in bar examinations and in practice: whether a prior demand from the Commission on Audit is an essential element of the crime, or whether the mere failure to render an account within the period required by law or regulation is enough to convict.

Procedural History

The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon filed an information against Manlangit for violation of Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code before the Sandiganbayan. After the prosecution rested its case, Manlangit filed a demurrer to evidence with leave of court, arguing that there was no criminal delay because the Commission on Audit had made no demand for an accounting, and that the case had been rendered moot by a letter of Undersecretary Mario Relampagos of the Department of Budget and Management Task Force Mt. Pinatubo requesting withdrawal of the case. The Sandiganbayan denied the demurrer, ruling that demand is not an element of Article 218 and that the letter had no bearing on the offense. It denied his motion for reconsideration, and Manlangit then presented his evidence in defense. In its decision dated February 27, 2003, the Sandiganbayan convicted him and sentenced him to imprisonment of one year. It denied his motion for reconsideration in a resolution dated April 24, 2003. Manlangit then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by petition for review.

Facts

On October 16, 1998, Manlangit, as Officer-in-Charge for Information, Education and Communication of the Pinatubo Commission, received 176,300 pesos to fund the Commission's sixth founding anniversary info-media activities. A few months later, he resigned without accounting for the fund.

On April 12, 2000, Artaserxes Sampang, then Executive Director of the Commission, filed an affidavit-complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman against Manlangit for violation of Articles 217 and 218 of the Revised Penal Code. Sampang invoked Commission on Audit Circular Number 90-331, as amended, which required Manlangit to render a true and correct account of all public funds entrusted to him. In his counter-affidavit, Manlangit claimed he had no intention to appropriate the funds, and blamed the delay on the reorganization of the Commission under new management, his resignation and search for new employment, and personal and family problems. He said he submitted his liquidation report on July 12, 2000 and settled the account. However, Virginia Yap, the appointed Deputy Executive Director, stated that no liquidation report had been submitted, and she pointed to the inconsistency between the date of the counter-affidavit, July 11, 2000, and the supposed submission on July 12, 2000.

On March 5, 2001, the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon filed the information for violation of Article 218. Later, in a letter dated August 12, 2001, Undersecretary Relampagos informed Ombudsman Aniano Desierto that Manlangit had already rendered an accounting and requested withdrawal of the case. The Sandiganbayan nonetheless convicted him, and he brought the matter to the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not a prior demand by the Commission on Audit or the provincial auditor for a public officer to render an account is an element of the crime penalized under Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code.
• Whether or not the ruling in United States versus Saberon remains good law and applicable.
• Whether or not Article 218 has dispensed with the necessity of demand by requiring only that the public officer be required by law or regulation to render accounts to the Commission on Audit.
• Whether or not the liquidation report submitted on July 12, 2000 rendered the case moot and academic.

Applicable Provisions

Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code, as quoted in the decision, provides:

Article 218. Failure of accountable officer to render accounts. Any public officer, whether in the service or separated therefrom by resignation or any other cause, who is required by law or regulation to render account to the Insular Auditor, or to a provincial auditor and who fails to do so for a period of two months after such accounts should be rendered, shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum period, or by a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both.

This is the very provision under which Manlangit was charged and convicted, and its text contains no requirement of prior demand.

Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code, on the rules for the application of penalties which contain three periods, provides:

Article 64. Rules for the application of penalties which contain three periods. In cases in which the penalties prescribed by law contain three periods, the courts shall observe for the application of the penalty the following rules, according to whether there are or are no mitigating or aggravating circumstances: 1. When there are neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, they shall impose the penalty prescribed by law in its medium period.

This governs the fixing of the maximum of the penalty, since no aggravating or mitigating circumstance was proven.

Article 65 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

Article 65. Rule in cases in which the penalty is not composed of three periods. In cases in which the penalty prescribed by law is not composed of three periods, the courts shall apply the rules contained in the foregoing articles, dividing into three equal portions the time included in the penalty prescribed, and forming one period of each of the three portions.

This allowed the Court to divide the minimum period of prision correccional into three portions and to take the medium portion as the maximum term.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that demand is not an element of the crime. Article 218 has four elements: that the offender is a public officer, whether in the service or separated therefrom; that he is an accountable officer for public funds or property; that he is required by law or regulation to render accounts to the Commission on Audit or to a provincial auditor; and that he fails to do so for a period of two months after such accounts should be rendered. The Court stressed that nowhere in the provision is a prior demand required, and that where the law is clear and unambiguous, it must be taken to mean exactly what it says. The Court declared:

Where none is provided, the court may not introduce exceptions or conditions, neither may it engraft into the law qualifications not contemplated.

On the second and third issues, the Court held that Manlangit's reliance on United States versus Saberon was misplaced, because Saberon involved a violation of Act Number 1740, which required a prior demand, whereas Article 218 merely requires that the public officer be required by law or regulation to render an account. The Court applied the rule of statutory construction that in the revision or codification of laws, all parts and provisions of the old laws omitted in the revised statute or code are deemed repealed, unless the statute or code provides otherwise.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the case was not rendered moot. Under Commission on Audit Circular Number 90-331, Manlangit was required to liquidate his cash advance within twenty days after the end of the year. Since the fund was issued on October 16, 1998, he should have submitted his liquidation report not later than January 20, 1999. His submission on July 12, 2000 was beyond the two-month period allowed by Article 218.

Finally, the Court modified the penalty. With no aggravating or mitigating circumstance, the penalty should be taken from the medium period of prision correccional in its minimum period, ranging from one year, one month and eleven days to one year, eight months and twenty days. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum term must be within the range of the penalty next lower, which is arresto mayor in its maximum period, or four months and one day to six months.

Doctrine

• Demand is not an element of the crime of failure of an accountable officer to render accounts under Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code. The elements are: the offender is a public officer, whether in the service or separated therefrom; he is an accountable officer for public funds or property; he is required by law or regulation to render accounts to the Commission on Audit or a provincial auditor; and he fails to do so for two months after the accounts should have been rendered.
• Where the law is clear and unambiguous, it must be taken to mean exactly what it says; the court may not introduce exceptions or conditions, nor engraft qualifications not contemplated by the law.
• The ruling in United States versus Saberon, which required a prior demand under Act Number 1740, does not apply to prosecutions under Article 218, because the omission of the demand requirement in the revised law is deemed a repeal of that requirement.
• Subsequent liquidation does not erase the crime; the offense is complete upon failure to render the account within the period fixed by law or regulation, here twenty days after the end of the year under the Commission on Audit circular, counted with the two-month period in Article 218.

Disposition

The petition was denied, and the Sandiganbayan's decision and resolution were affirmed with modification, sentencing Manlangit to an indeterminate prison term of four months and one day of arresto mayor as minimum to one year, one month and eleven days of prision correccional as maximum.

Remember This

Memorize the line that demand is not an element of Article 218, because the law itself fixes the period and the court may not add conditions it does not contain. Examiners use this case to test the elements of failure to render accounts, the effect of the Saberon ruling, and the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law when the penalty is not composed of three periods.