RICHARD V. PETRALBA, PETITIONER, VS. THE SANDIGANBAYAN AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

This Petition for Review on Certiorari seeks the reversal
of the Decision*
of the Sandiganbayan promulgated on October 5, 1987
in Criminal Case No. 9390 entitled “The People of the Philippines vs.
Richard V. Petralba” convicting herein
petitioner of the crime of Malversation of Public
Funds penalized under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code and the Resolution
of the Sandiganbayan dated December 15, 1987 denying
the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

Abstract from the records are the following facts:

Herein petitioner Richard V. Petralba
was designated Officer-in-Charge of the Municipal Treasury of Alcoy, Cebu on October 23,
1979.  Fourteen (14) months after
designation, petitioner’s cashbook balance was audited by Auditors Constantino Alagar and Rene
Flores.  He was found short of
P28,107.00.  Petitioner, theretofore, was
charged with, and convicted of, 31 counts of “Malversation
of Public Funds,” “Illegal Use of Public Funds” and
“Falsification of Public Documents.” Petitioner was granted probation
and continued his function as Municipal Treasurer of Alcoy, Cebu, from December 23, 1980 until he was succeeded by Mrs. Lilia Suico on March 15,
1981.

Petitioner’s cash and accounts from the period of December 23, 1980 to March 15, 1981 were audited by
Leticia Trazo and Flora Pacana.  Petitioner was found short in the amount of P50,447.06
which was arrived at as follows:

GENERAL
INFRASTRUCTURE TRUST

(pp. 106-107, Rollo)

On December 4, 1981,
the Trazo Team sent a letter (Exhibit “H”)
to the petitioner demanding the turn-over of the latter’s cash accountability.

Vouchers amounting to P43,468.84, which were previously allowed
by Auditors Constantino Alagar
and Rene Flores, were presented by petitioner to Auditors Trazo
and Pacana. 
Only the amount of P21,348.87 was allowed reducing the petitioner’s accountability
to only P29,098.19 while the remaining vouchers amounting to P22,119.97 were
disallowed for want of administrative approval.

On July 30, 1984
herein petitioner, Richard V. Petralba, was charged
with Malversation of Public Funds, in violation of
Article 217, Revised Penal Code, allegedly committed as follows:

“That on the 5th day of November, 1981 and for some time prior
thereto, in the Municipality of Alcoy, Province of Cebu, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, a Deputy Provincial and Municipal
Treasurer then designated as the Officer in Charge of the Municipal Treasury of
Alcoy, Cebu, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take and misappropriate the amount
of P29,098.19 representing various receipts and collection and, therefore,
public funds, which he had custody or control by reason of the duties of his
office and for which he was accountable, and despite repeated demands for him
to produce or restitute the amount, failed and still fails to do so, to the
damage and prejudice of the government in the amount aforestated.

In violation of Article 217 of the Revised (Penal) Code.”

(Rollo, “Information,” pp.
21-22)

During the pre-trial inquest, the parties stipulated and agreed
on the following facts:

“(A)    The accused admits that he had been
appointed Deputy Provincial and Municipal Treasurer of Alcantara,
Cebu as shown by Exh. A;

“(2)    That on October 23, 1979, he was designated Officer-in-Charge of
the Municipal Treasury of Alcoy, Cebu and acted as such until March 15, 1981 as shown by Exh. B;

“(3)    Accused also admits that on March 15, 1981 the office of the
accused as Officer-in-Charge of the Municipal Treasurer of Alcoy, Cebu was turned over to Mrs. Lilia Suico;

“(4)    That accused admits that after the turn-over
of the office to Suico the statement of his cash
accountability was prepared and signed by him as shown in Exh.
C and C-1;

“(5)    Accused admits that on November 5, 1981 COA Examiners Leticia Trazo and Flora Pacana conducted
an examination on the cash and accounts of his (sic) as shown by the Reports of
Examination for General Funds marked Exh. D, Trust
Funds marked Exh. E, Infrastructure Funds as Exh. F and Special Educational Funds marked as Exh. G and that certified the findings of the COA examiners
as reflected in said report and his signatures already marked as Exhs. D-1, F-1 and G-1;

“(6)    Likewise, accused admitted that on December 7, 1981, a letter of demand
was served on and received by him as reflected in Exh.
H, as shown by his signature acknowledging receipt thereof;

“(7)    Accused admits that COA Examiners Leticia Trazo and Flora Pacana were duly
authorized to conduct an examination of the cash and accounts of the accused as
shown by Exh. I;

“(8)    That accused admits that he was originally
found short in the amount of P50,447.00 as shown by Exh.
J, however, after he submitted vouchers which were allowed, his shortage was
reduced to P29,098.19 as shown by Exhs. J-1 and K;

“(9)    That accused denies that up to the present
he has not yet paid the amount of P29,098.19, and which he will explain on the
witness stand.”

(Rollo,
Annex “B”, pp. 24-25)

In view of the admission of the petitioner that he was short of
P29,098.19, the prosecution waived the presentation of testimonial
evidence.  Instead, it offered its
documentary evidence, marked as Exhibits “A” to “K”, and
rested its case.  The petitioner
presented testimonial and documentary evidence.

The respondent Court found that the vouchers disallowed by the Trazo team in the amount of P22,119.19 were either
supported by invoices or receipts or duly signed by respective payees.  Thus, the amount of P6,978.22 out of the
P29,098.19 remained unaccounted for.  The
respondent Sandiganbayan rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused Richard V. Petralba guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Malversation of Public Funds described in and penalized
under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, Appreciating in favor of the
accused the mitigating circumstance of Voluntary Surrender, there being no
aggravating circumstance adduced and proven by the prosecution, the accused
should be, as he is, hereby sentenced to the indeterminate penalty of, from Six
(6) Years and One (1) Day of prision mayor,
as minimum, to Ten (10) Years and One (1) Day of prision
mayor, as maximum, with the accessory penalties of the law; to pay a
fine in the sum of P6,978.22, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency; to suffer the penalty of perpetual special disqualification; to
indemnify the government in the aforesaid sum of P6,978.22; and to pay the
costs.

SO ORDERED.” (pp. 68-69, Rollo)

Sandiganbayan  denied the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner dated December 15, 1987.  Hence, this petition.

Petitioner raises the following issues:

“I

WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONER WAS PROPERLY
AUDITED AND WHETHER EXHIBITS ’11’ TO ‘11-M’ WERE INCLUDED IN THE SETTLEMENT OF
THE ACCOUNT OF THE PETITIONER.

“II

WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONER HAS ADDUCED
EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE MISSING FUNDS WERE NOT PUT TO HIS PERSONAL USE.

On August 10, 1989,
while this case was pending before Us, petitioner’s counsel filed a
manifestation that his client, Richard V. Petralba,
had died, evidenced by a death certificate dated July 10, 1989.  (Rollo, Annex “A” of Manifestation, p. 173).

Under Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code, death of the convict
extinguishes criminal liability.  In view
of the fact that one of the juridical conditions of penalty is that it is
personal.  Actio
personalis moritur
cum persona; actio peonalis in haeredem
non datur, nisi forte
ex damno locupletior
haeres factus
sit.  (A personal right of action
dies with the person.  A penal action is
not given against an heir, unless, indeed, such heir is benefited by the
wrong.)

Criminal liability  does not
only mean the obligation to serve the personal or imprisonment penalties but it
also includes the liability to pay the fines or pecuniary penalties.  Pecuniary liability is extinguished only when
the death of the offender occurs before final judgment.  (Art. 89(1), Revised Penal Code).  In the case at bar, petitioner Richard V. Petralba died pending appeal and before any final judgment
therein.  Hence, the death of Richard V. Petralba extinguished his personal and pecuniary (such as
the fine) liabilities.

Though the death of an accused-appellant during the pendency of an appeal extinguished his criminal liability,
his civil liability survives.  Extinction
of criminal liability does not necessarily mean that the civil liability is
also extinguished.  In People vs. Navoa, 132 SCRA 410, and in People vs. Sendaydiego,
81 SCRA 120, We ruled that only the criminal liability (including the fine,
which is pecuniary, but not civil) of the accused is extinguished by his death,
but the civil liability remains.  The
claim of the government for the civil liability survives Petralba
but only if the offense can be proved.

The Supreme Court continues to exercise appellate jurisdiction
over the petitioner’s possible civil liability for the money claims of the
government arising from the alleged criminal acts complained of, in much the
same way as when no criminal action had been filed.  No separate civil action need be instituted
(People v. Sandaydiego, supra).

Going now into the civil liability of the accused, be it noted
that he claimed that no shortage ever occurred because:

1.   The discrepancy between Exhibit “4”
prepared by the accused and Exhibit “H” prepared by the Trazo team casts doubt on the veracity of the latter.  Petitioner’s total collection for the month
of January, 1981 in Exhibit “4” appears to be P13,515.04 while
Exhibit “H” indicates a collection of P12,515.04, or a difference of
P1,000.00.  For the month of February,
1981 petitioner’s collection, as reflected in Exhibit “4”, is
P21,532.36, while Exhibit “H” indicates a collection of
P23,479.07.00, or a difference of P1,946.71.

2.   The respondent Court failed to include Exhs. “11” to “11-M” representing the
amount of P6,835.48 to settle the account of petitioner.

The above allegations are devoid of any merit.

Exhibit “4” was prepared by the petitioner to apprise Suico of his transactions from January 1, 1981 to March
15, 1981.  Due to the
inveracity of Exhibit “4”, an audit was performed, the result of
which is listed in Exhibit “H”. 
Evidently, Exhibit “4” is self-serving and unreliable and,
therefore, cannot prevail over the official findings of the Trazo
team contained in Exhibit “H”. 
Besides, petitioner himself acknowledged and signed the official
findings of the Trazo team.  He is estopped from
impugning the veracity of Exhibit “H”.

Equally baseless is the claim of the petitioner that Sandiganbayan did not consider his Exhibit “11”
to “11-M”.  It is admitted by
petitioner that Exhibit “11” to “11-M” were among the
vouchers listed in Exhibits “2-A” and “2-B” allowed by the Alagar team and by the Trazo
team.  (Memorandum for the accused, p. 11).  Auditor Alagar
declared that Exhibits “2-A” and “2-B” were taken into
account during his audit.  (Decision of Sandiganbayan, p. 7, Rollo, p.
58).  Thus, the amount appearing in
Exhibits “11” to “11-M” was included in the amount of
P22,119.97 allowed by the Trazo team in reducing the
original unaccounted amount of P50,447.06 to P29,098.19.  (Exhibit “8-B”).

Petitioner alleges that Exhibit “2”, indicating a total
of P10,296.47, should total P10,371.47. 
His argument is based on the non-inclusion of the amount of P75.00.  However, a perusal of Annex “B” of
petitioner’s Reply (Rollo, p. 126) indicates that the
name of creditor opposite the amount of P75.00 was erased, and the same was not
presented by petitioner as part of his Exhibit “7”.  Thus, the Trazo
team did not commit any abuse of discretion in their failure to credit P75.00.

Petitioner was able to explain the amount of P22,119.97 out of
the shortage of P29,098.19, but he failed to explain the remaining balance of
P6,978.22, thereby giving rise to the conclusion that he had spent such amount
for his personal use.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the estate of the deceased petitioner
is hereby sentenced to indemnify the government in the amount of
P6,978.22.  With costs.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., Narvasa,
Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado, and Davide, Jr.,
JJ., concur.

* Penned by Associate Justice Regino
Hermosisima, Jr. and concurred in by Associate
Justices Romeo M. Escareal and Augusto
M. Amores.