PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. TERESITA J. SOLIVA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Soliva

The Case

This is an ordinary appeal brought by Teresita J. Soliva, the former Mayor of the Municipality of Remedios T. Romualdez in Agusan del Norte, challenging her conviction by the Sandiganbayan. She was found guilty of one count of Malversation of Public Funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code and ten counts of Failure of Accountable Officer to Render Accounts under Article 218 of the same Code. The case matters because it clarifies the interplay between these two distinct offenses arising from unliquidated cash advances, and it reinforces the strict requisites for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.

Procedural History

The Office of the Ombudsman filed eleven Informations against Soliva with the Sandiganbayan. After trial, the Sandiganbayan rendered a Decision on June 16, 2023, convicting Soliva of all eleven counts. Soliva filed a Motion for Leave of Court to Avail Remedies with Reconsideration, which the Sandiganbayan admitted, allowing her to avail of post-judgment remedies. The prosecution filed its Comment and Opposition. By Resolution dated July 20, 2023, the Sandiganbayan denied the motion and affirmed its judgment of conviction. Soliva then elevated the case to the Supreme Court through a Notice of Appeal.

Facts

Soliva served as Mayor of the Municipality of Remedios T. Romualdez from 2001 to 2007. During her tenure, she received cash advances from municipal funds for various purposes including travelling expenses, peace and order programs, and confidential and intelligence fund expenses. She failed to liquidate these cash advances despite repeated demands. The Municipal Accountant sent her a demand letter in April 2015 stating that she had unliquidated cash advances of nearly one million pesos, and that at her monthly refund rate of one thousand pesos, it would take her eighty-two years to settle the account.

The Commission on Audit conducted an investigation and issued further demand letters. Soliva made partial settlements through payroll deductions, reducing her balance, but substantial amounts remained unliquidated. The prosecution established that only cash advances supported by disbursement vouchers totaling 551,000 pesos could be proven for the malversation charge. Soliva failed to appear at several hearings, failed to submit her judicial affidavit, and presented no evidence in her defense. She also failed to submit a memorandum after the case was submitted for judgment.

Issues

• Whether or not the Sandiganbayan correctly convicted Soliva of Malversation of Public Funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code.
• Whether or not the Sandiganbayan correctly convicted Soliva of Failure of Accountable Officer to Render Accounts under Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code.
• Whether or not the Sandiganbayan correctly denied Soliva's motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence.

Applicable Provisions

Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, on Malversation of Public Funds, provides:

Any public officer who, by reason of the duties of his office, is accountable for public funds or property, shall be guilty of malversation of public funds or property and shall suffer the penalties prescribed in Article 217, if he shall appropriate the said funds or property, 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, in whole or in part, and shall otherwise fail to render accounts therefor.

This provision defines the crime of malversation and establishes the liability of accountable officers who fail to account for public funds in their possession.

Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code, on Failure of Accountable Officer to Render Accounts, provides:

Any public officer who, being accountable for public funds or property, shall fail to render accounts therefor, or shall make any false statement in his accounts, shall be punished with the penalties prescribed in Article 217.

This provision penalizes the mere failure to render accounts, regardless of whether the funds were actually misappropriated.

Rule 121, Section 2 of the Revised Rules of Court, on grounds for a new trial, provides:

The court shall grant a new trial on any of the following grounds: ... (b) That new and material evidence has been discovered which the accused could not with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at the trial and which if introduced and admitted would probably change the judgment.

This provision sets the standard for granting a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.

Ruling

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed Soliva's conviction. On the first issue, the Court held that all the elements of malversation under Article 217 were proven beyond reasonable doubt. Soliva was a public officer accountable for public funds, she received cash advances from municipal funds, and she failed to liquidate them despite repeated demands. The Court stressed that payment or reimbursement of unliquidated cash advances is not a defense in malversation and may only affect the offender's civil liability.

On the second issue, the Court held that Soliva was duty-bound to liquidate her cash advances or return the unutilized portions in accordance with existing Commission on Audit rules and regulations. Despite the passage of more than a decade from her initial receipt of the funds, her cash advances remained unaccounted for. Even assuming she fully liquidated them later, the prescribed period for liquidation had already elapsed. Her clear and deliberate disregard of her legal obligation to account for her outstanding cash balances made her guilty of ten counts of violation of Article 218.

On the third issue, the Court agreed with the Sandiganbayan that the alleged certification could not be considered newly discovered evidence. Soliva failed to exhibit due diligence in obtaining it prior to trial, and it lacked the capacity to function as exculpatory evidence due to its limited weight and evidentiary value. The Court reiterated the four requisites for newly discovered evidence:

That the evidence was discovered after trial; that such evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence; that it is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative, or impeaching; and the evidence is of such weight that it would probably change the judgment if admitted.

Soliva failed to satisfy these requisites, particularly the requirement of due diligence.

Doctrine

For malversation under Article 217, the prosecution must prove that the accused is a public officer accountable for public funds, that the accused received public funds, and that the accused failed to account for them. Payment or reimbursement of the funds is not a defense and only affects civil liability.

For failure to render accounts under Article 218, the mere failure of an accountable officer to render accounts for public funds, after being required to do so, constitutes the offense regardless of whether the funds were actually misappropriated.

For a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, the movant must prove all four requisites: the evidence was discovered after trial; it could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence before trial; it is material and not merely cumulative; and it would probably change the judgment if admitted.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the Sandiganbayan's Decision convicting Soliva of one count of malversation and ten counts of failure to render accounts.

Remember This

Remember that unliquidated cash advances by an accountable public officer constitute malversation, and payment after the fact does not erase criminal liability. Examiners like to test the distinction between Articles 217 and 218, and the strict requisites for newly discovered evidence as a ground for new trial.