PEÑAFLOR PEÑAVERDE, PETITIONER, VS. THE SANDIGANBAYAN AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

Petitioners Peñaflor Peñaverde and Melecio Hermita seek to set aside the decision of respondent Sandiganbayan, convicting them of the crimes of
falsification of public documents and malversation of
public funds on three (3) counts. The informations
filed against them read, as follows:

“Criminal Case No. 2135–For

Falsification of Public

Document

________________________

“That on or about November 18, 1978, in the Municipality of Minalabac, Camarines Sur and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
accused Peñaflor Peñaverde,
a public officer and discharging his official functions as Barangay
Captain of Barangay Manapao,
Minalabac, Camarines Sur and accused Melecio Hermita, likewise a public officer discharging his official
function as Kagawad in the Sangguniang
Bayan of Minalabac, Camarines Sur, taking advantage
of their official positions and committing said acts in relation to their
office, conspiring, conniving and confederating with each other, in order to
conceal their misappropriation of the amount of P500.00 earmarked for labor
expenses, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously falsify the
Certificate of Project Completion and Turn-Over by making it appear that the
Foot-Path Project of Barangay Manapao
was completed and turned over to the barangay people
on said date when in truth and in fact it was not so which accused fully knew,
thereby causing damage and prejudice to the public service.

“CONTRARY TO LAW.

“Criminal Case No. 2136 – For

Malversation of Public Funds

“That on or about October 7, 1978, in the Municipality of Minalabac, Camarines Sur and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
accused Penaflor V. Peñaverde
being then a public officer and discharging his official function as the Barangay Captain of Barangay Manapao, Minalabac, Camarines Sur and therefore
accountable for Barangay Improvement and Development
Assistance (BIDA) funds collected and received by him by reason of such
position and accused Melecio C. Hermita,
likewise a public officer then Kagawad in the Sangguniang Bayan of Minalabac, Camarines Sur, taking advantage of their official positions and
conspiring, conniving and confederating with each other, did them and there
willfully, feloniously and fraudulently misappropriate, embezzle and take away
from said funds for which they are both accountable, the total sum of THREE
HUNDRED PESOS (P300.00), Philippine Currency, which they appro­priated and
converted to their own personal use and benefit, which amount represents a part
of the BIDA funds allotted for Barangay Manapao, to the damage and prejudice of the government in
the aforesaid amount.

“CONTRARY TO LAW.

“Criminal Case No. 2137– For

Malversation of Public Funds

“That on or about December 27, 1978, in the Municipality of Minalabac, Camarines Sur and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
accused Peñaflor V. Peñaverde
being then a public officer and discharging his official function as the Barangay Captain of Barangay Manapao, Minalabac, Camarines Sur and therefore
accountable for Barangay Improvement and Development
Assistance (BIDA) funds collected and received by him by reason of such
position and accused Melecio Hermita,
likewise a public officer then Kagawad in the Sangguniang Bayan of Minalabac, Camarines Sur, taking advantage of their official positions and
conspiring, conniving and confederating with each other, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and fraudulently mis­appropriate, embezzle
and take away from said funds for which they are both accountable, the total
sum of FIVE HUNDRED PESOS (P500.00), Philippine Currency, which they
appropriated and converted to their own personal use and benefit, which amount
represents part of the BIDA funds allotted for Barangay
Manapao, to the damage and prejudice of the
government in the aforesaid amount.

“CONTRARY TO LAW.

“Criminal Case No. 2138 – For

Malversation of Public Funds

“That on or about October 11, 1978 in the Municipality of Minalabac, Camarines Sur and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
accused Peñaflor V. Peñaverde
being then a public officer and discharging his official function as the Barangay Captain of Barangay Manapao, Minalabac, Camarines Sur and therefore
accountable for Barangay Improvement and Development
Assistance (BIDA) funds collected and received by him by reason of such
position and accused MeIecio C. Hermita,
likewise a public officer then Kagawad in the Sangguniang Bayan of Minalabac, Camarines Sur, taking advantage of their official positions and
conspiring, conniving and confed­erating with each other, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and fraudulently misappropriate, embezzle
and take away from said funds for which they are both accountable, the total
sum of ONE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED NINETY SEVEN PESOS (P1,897.00), Philippine
Currency, which they appro­priated and converted to their own personal use and
benefit, which amount represents a part of the BIDA fund allotted for Barangay Manapao, to the damage
and prejudice of the government in the aforesaid amount.

“CONTRARY TO
LAW.”

(pp. 89-91, Rollo)

After trial, respondent Sandiganbayan
promulgated a decision in the four (4) cases, the dispositive portion of which
reads:

“WHEREFORE, finding the two accused Peñaflor
V. Peñaverde and Melecio C.
Hermita, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes
of Falsification of Public Document, in Criminal Case No. 2135, and in three
counts of Malversation of Public Funds in Criminal
Cases Nos. 2136, 2137, and 2138, without migrating nor aggravating
circumstances and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court hereby
sentences each of them to suffer the following penalties.

“1.  In Criminal Case No. 2135 for Falsification of
Public Document, each of them shall suffer an indeterminate penalty of from TWO
(2) YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of prision
correctional, as minimum, to EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor, as maximum, and to pay a fine
in the amount of FIVE HUNDRED PESOS (P500.00);

“2.  In Criminal Case No. 2136 for Malversation of Public Funds involving the amount of
P300.00, each of them shall suffer an indeterminate penalty of from TWO (2)
YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of prision
correccional, as minimum, to SIX (6) YEARS and
ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor, as
maximum, and to indemnify jointly and severally the Barangay
of Manapao, Minalabac, Camarines Sur, the amount of
P300.00 representing the amount malversed and not
restituted;

“3.  Criminal Case No. 2137, for Malversation of Public Funds involving the amount of
P500.00, each of the two accused is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate
penalty of from TWO (2) YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of prision correctional, as minimum, to SIX (6)
YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor,
as maximum, and to indemnify jointly and severally the Barangay
of Manapao, Minalabac, Camarines Sur, the amount of
P500.00 which is the amount embezzled and not restituted;

“4.  In Criminal Case No. 2138, for Malversation of Public Funds involving the amount of
P1,897.00, each of the two accused is hereby sentenced to suffer an
indeterminate penalty of from FOUR (4) YEARS, TWO (2) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of
prision correctional, as minimum, to
SEVEN (7) YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of prision
mayor, as maximum, and to indemnify jointly and severally the Barangay of Manapao, Minalabac, Camarines Sur, the sum of P1,891.00 which is the amount malversed and not restituted; and

“5.  With accessory penalties provided by law.

“The accused are entitled to full credit of the preventive
imprisonment they have undergone, if any, in accordance with Art. 29, as
amended by Republic Act No. 6127, of the Revised Penal Code.

“With costs against the two accused in all
cases.

“SO ORDERED.” (pp. 10-11, Rollo)

Petitioners filed separate motions for reconsideration which,
however, were denied. Hence, the present petitions alleging that respondent Sandiganbayan committed reversible errors in convicting
petitioners Peñaverde and Hermita
of the crimes charged and presenting for resolution the following issues:

(1)  Whether or not serious doubts exist as to the
probability of the commission of the offenses imputed to herein petitioners.

(2)  Whether or not there is conspiracy between
petitioner Peñaflor Peñaverde
and his co-accused Melecio C. Hermita
to commit the offenses.

Anent the first issue, petitioners contend that Peñaflor V. Peñaverde, as Barangay Captain of Manapao, Minalabac, Camarines Sur, is not an accountable officer; that the BIDA funds in
the amount of P5,000.00 to which Barangay Manapao is entitled was not entrusted to his custody but to
the custody and control of Provincial Development Officer Adolfo Badiola, who issued the checks for the purchase of
construction materials and for the cost of labor; and that since Badiola is the accountable officer and not petitioner Peñaverde, he (Penaverde) cannot
therefore be guilty of the crime of malversation of
public funds. Further, they argue that assuming, without admitting, that there
was malversation of public funds, the taking of the
amount from the P5,000.00 in three (3) different
occasions constitutes one (1) crime only.

In his comment to instant petitions the Solicitor General admits
that petitioners may not be convicted of malversation
because they were not accountable officers. Adolfo Badiola,
the Provincial Development Officer, admitted that he has been the accountable officer for the BIDA funds.

“Q     Do I understand Mr. Badiola
that you were the one who issued these Exhibits A and A-1, these checks?

A       Yes sir.

Q       You were the one who issued these checks
because you were the one in charge of disbursing this amount of P5,000.00 BIDA funds in your capacity as Provincial
Development Officer?

A       Yes, sir.

Q       And you are the accountable officer
insofar as that fund is concerned?

A       Yes, sir. (tsn. p. 28, May
14, 1981)

However, the Solicitor General alleged
that in Criminal Cases Nos. 2136 and 2138 petitioners conspired to induce Rito Sultan, the owner of the Sulu
Hardware which was granted the award for materials, to part with the remaining
balance of P4,500.00, in the amount of P300.00 and
P1,897.00, on two (2) different occasions on the pretext that the said amount
was for the repair of the school. After receiving the balance, they misappropriated
it. Thus, they were properly charged in two separate informations
of Malversation of Public Funds, although they were
only guilty of Estafa, a lesser offense (Delfin vs. Court of Appeals, 13 SCRA 366).

Again, in Criminal Case No. 2137, petitioners conspired to induce
Municipal Development Officer Filomeno Olaño to give them a check for P500.00, the amount
allegedly awarded for labor, by misrepresenting through a picture that the
footpath project was already completed. They eventually encashed
the check and misappropriated it, for the third occasion, to the damage of the
government.

With respect to the allegation that there was error on the part
of respondent Sandiganbayan in concluding that
petitioners conspired in the commission of the offense, suffice it to say that
the basis of its finding was the credibility of witnesses. Pursuant to Section
7 of Presidential Decree No. 1606, in relation to Section 2, Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court, the findings of fact of the Sandiganbayan
are entitled to great respect and only questions of laws may be raised to the
Supreme Court. Besides, well settled is the rule that the findings of trial
court on credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed unless such findings
overlook certain facts of substance and value which, if considered, might
affect results of case.

In Criminal Cases Nos. 2136, 2137 and 2138, We
find that the crimes committed by the herein petitioners are estafa, not malversation as
charged in the information.

WHEREFORE, the conviction of petitioners by respondent Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 2135 is hereby AFFIRMED.
However, in Criminal Cases Nos. 2136, 2137 and 2138, petitioners Peñaflor Peñaverde and Melecio C. Hermita are guilty of estafa and each is sentenced as follows:

1.   
In Criminal Case No. 2136 – one (1) month and
one (1) day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to one (1)
year and one (1) day of prision correccional,
as maximum;

2.   
In Criminal Case No. 2137 – one (1) month and
one (1) day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to one (1)
year and one (1) day of prision correccional,
as maximum; and

3.   
In Criminal Case No. 2138 – one (1) month and
one (1) day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to one (1)
year and one (1) day of prision correccional,
as maximum.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, C.J., Teehankee, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr.,
Guerrero, Melencio-Herrera, Plana,
Escolin, Vasquez, and
Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.

Makasiar, J., no part.

Abad Santos and De Castro, JJ., on leave.