SILVINO C. EVANGELISTA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

Evangelista versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This is the story of a municipal mayor prosecuted not for stealing public money himself, but for supposedly allowing his municipal treasurer to steal it. Silvino Evangelista, as mayor of San Miguel, Bohol, was charged with malversation of public funds through negligence under the Revised Penal Code, on the theory that he signed six checks without supporting documents, thereby permitting the treasurer to pocket the proceeds. The case matters because it draws the exact line between simple carelessness, which is not a crime, and that reckless, inexcusable negligence which approximates malice or fraud and which alone can sustain a conviction. It is a study in the mental element of malversation by culpa, and in how the dismissal of a parallel administrative case does not automatically kill the criminal charge.

Procedural History

An administrative complaint was first filed before the Office of the Ombudsman against the municipal treasurer, a former mayor, and Evangelista. The Ombudsman dismissed the case as to Evangelista for insufficiency of evidence, but later, in a separate resolution, found probable cause to indict him for six counts of malversation. Six Informations were filed before the Sandiganbayan. Evangelista pleaded not guilty to all. After trial, the Sandiganbayan convicted him of malversation through negligence and imposed an indeterminate penalty of six years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to eight years of prision mayor as maximum, with perpetual special disqualification and a fine of 553,148 pesos. The Sandiganbayan denied his Motion for Reconsideration. Evangelista then filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, and the case reached the Supreme Court.

Facts

During Evangelista's incumbency as municipal mayor, six checks were issued without the necessary supporting documents, totaling 553,148 pesos. The municipal accountant discovered the matter in 2002 during a bank reconciliation ordered by the Commission on Audit. A State Auditor then issued an Audit Observation Memorandum dated September 17, 2002, addressed to Evangelista, the municipal treasurer, and the accountant, apprising them of the check disbursements and bank credits not taken up in the books due to lack of supporting documents.

In 2006, an Annual Audit Report reflected that no action had been taken on the cash shortage incurred by the treasurer arising from unrecorded checks from 1998 to 2001. The Commission on Audit furnished Evangelista a copy and asked him to act within one month. When no action appeared to have been taken, a Notice of Disallowance was issued in 2007. Meanwhile, the Sangguniang Bayan passed a resolution requesting the treasurer to settle her accountabilities, and Evangelista issued her a memorandum directing her to comply with the audit observations.

When Evangelista was about to retire, the treasurer told him she would issue a waiver in favor of the Municipality to settle her accountabilities. She later executed an Affidavit of Undertaking acknowledging a monetary obligation of 1,003,960.19 pesos and offering her vehicle and housing unit as security, and then an Affidavit of Waiver. The Ombudsman found the treasurer administratively liable for dishonesty but dismissed the case as to Evangelista for insufficiency of evidence. It later found probable cause to indict him criminally, leading to his conviction by the Sandiganbayan.

Issues

• Whether or not the dismissal of the administrative case against Evangelista, based on the same facts and evidence, operates to dismiss the criminal case against him.
• Whether or not Evangelista, as municipal mayor, is an accountable officer with respect to the funds of the municipal treasurer.
• Whether or not Evangelista's negligence was reckless, inexcusable, and approximating malice or fraud, so as to sustain a conviction for malversation through negligence.

Applicable Provisions

Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, defines and penalizes malversation:

Article 217. Malversation of public funds or property. — Presumption of malversation. — Any public officer who, by reason of the duties of their office, is accountable for public funds or property, shall appropriate the same, or shall take or misappropriate or shall consent, 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, shall suffer: . . . 2. The penalty of prisión mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if the amount involved is more than 40,000 pesos but does not exceed 1,200,000 pesos. . . . In all cases, persons guilty of malversation shall also suffer the penalty of perpetual special disqualification and a fine equal to the amount of the funds malversed or equal to the total value of the property embezzled. The failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property with which they are chargeable, upon demand by any duly authorized officer, shall be prima facie evidence that they have put such missing funds or property to personal uses.

This provision supplies the very elements of the offense and the mode of commission through negligence that the Court must apply.

Article 391 of the old Código Penal, from which Article 217 originated, states:

Article 391. El funcionario público que por abandono o negligencia inexcusables diere ocasión á que se efectuare por otra persona la sustracción de caudales o efectos públicos de que se trata en los núms. 2.°, 3.° y 4.° del artículo anterior, incurrirá en la pena de multa equivalente al valor de los caudales o efectos sustraídos.

This old provision confirms that the negligence contemplated must be inexcusable, not merely simple.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the dismissal of the administrative case does not bar the criminal case. Administrative cases are independent from criminal actions for the same act or omission. Only when there is a finding that the act from which liability is anchored does not exist will the dismissal of the administrative case operate to dismiss the criminal case. Here, the administrative case was dismissed merely for insufficiency of evidence, which is different from a finding that the act does not exist. The prosecution is not precluded from adducing additional evidence to discharge the criminal burden of proof.

On the second issue, the Court held that Evangelista was an accountable officer. As head of the Municipality, he was immediately and primarily responsible for all government funds pertaining to it, and since any disbursement required his approval, he had control and responsibility over the funds.

On the third issue, the Court ruled in favor of Evangelista. For malversation through negligence to prosper, mere negligence is not sufficient. The negligence must be positively and clearly shown to be inexcusable, approximating malice or fraud. The Court quoted its earlier pronouncement:

To constitute a crime, the act must, except in certain crimes made such by statute, be accompanied by a criminal intent, or by such negligence or indifference to duty or to consequences, as, in law, is equivalent to criminal intent. The maxim is, actus non facit reum, nisi mens rea—a crime is not committed if the mind of the person performing the act complained of be innocent.

The Court explained that what characterizes the negligence is not what the offender did after the funds were taken, but what he did or omitted to do which permitted the taking. The prosecution failed to present the checks themselves, and the bank witnesses admitted they had no personal knowledge of the genuineness of the signatures, relying only on the fact of encashment. On this record, the negligence was not shown to be reckless, inexcusable, and approximating malice or fraud.

Doctrine

For a conviction of malversation of public funds through negligence, mere negligence is not enough. The negligence must be positively and clearly shown to be inexcusable, approximating malice or fraud, and must be in the nature of reckless negligence. Simple negligence will not suffice. The dismissal of an administrative case for insufficiency of evidence does not operate to dismiss a parallel criminal case, because administrative cases are independent from criminal actions; only a finding that the act from which liability is anchored does not exist will produce that effect. A municipal mayor, as head of the municipality, is an accountable officer immediately and primarily responsible for its government funds.

Disposition

The Supreme Court granted the petition, acquitting Silvino Evangelista of malversation of public funds through negligence.

Remember This

Memorize this line: for malversation through negligence, the negligence must be inexcusable, approximating malice or fraud, and simple negligence will not do. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between simple and reckless negligence in malversation, and the independence of administrative from criminal proceedings.