Candao v. People, G.R. Nos.186659-710, October 19, 2011, 659 SCRA 696

FIRSTDIVISION
ZACARIAA.CANDAO, G.R.Nos.186659710
ABASA.CANDAOAND
ISRAELB.HARON, Present:
Petitioners,
CORONA,C.J.,
Chairperson,
versus BERSAMIN,
DELCASTILLO,
VILLARAMA,JR.,and
SERENO,*JJ.

PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES Promulgated:
ANDSANDIGANBAYAN,
Respondents. October19,2011
xx
DECISION

VILLARAMA,JR.,J.:
[1]
AssailedinthispetitionforreviewoncertiorariunderRule45istheDecision datedOctober
[2]
29, 2008 and Resolution dated February 20, 2009 of the Sandiganbayan (First Division)
finding the petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of malversation of public funds under
Article217oftheRevisedPenalCode,asamended.
TheFacts
On August 5, 1993, Chairman Pascasio S. Banaria of the Commission on Audit (COA)

constitutedateamofauditorsfromthecentralofficetoconductanExpandedSpecialAuditof
the Office of the Regional Governor, Autonomous Region for Muslim Mindanao (ORG
ARMM). State Auditors Heidi L. Mendoza (Team Leader) and Jaime Roxas (Member) were
directedtoconductthesaidauditunderthesupervisionofJaimeP.Naranjo(StateAuditorV).
FromAugust24toSeptember1,1993,theexpandedauditwasthusconductedonthefinancial
transactionsandoperationsofORGARMMfortheperiodJuly1992toMarch1993.
AsstatedinSpecialAuditOffice(SAO)ReportNo.9325submittedbytheauditteam,it
was found that illegal withdrawals were made from the depository accounts of the agency
through the issuance of checks payable to the order of petitioner Israel B. Haron (Disbursing
Officer II) without the required disbursement vouchers. The following are the details of the
[3]
government accounts and the fiftytwo (52) checks issued and encashed without proper
supportingdocuments:
PNBAccountNo.3703208
DATE CHECK SIGNATORIES AMOUNT
ISSUED NO.

December29,1992 414431 IsraelHaron&AbasCandao 500,000.00
January26,1993 414487 IsraelHaron&AbasCandao 500,000.00
February2,1993 414493 IsraelHaron&AbasCandao 500,000.00
February18,1993 461803 IsraelHaron&ZacariaCandao 500,000.00
March18,1993 461932 IsraelHaron&AbasCandao 500,000.00
TOTAL P11,118,570.64
AccountNo.844061(TreasurerofthePhilippines)
DATE CHECK SIGNATORIES AMOUNT
ISSUED NO.

January11,1993
January13,1993 968751 PandicalSantiago&AbasCandao 120,000.00
March2,1993 974192 IsraelHaron&ZacariaCandao 250,000.00
TOTAL P9,927,000.00
GRANDTOTAL=P21,045,570.64
In a letter dated September 10, 1993, Chairman Banaria demanded from petitioner Haron to
produce and restitute to the ARMMRegional Treasurer immediately the full amount of
P21,045,570.64 and submit his explanation within seventytwo (72) hours together with the
officialreceiptissuedbytheARMMRegionalTreasurerinacknowledgmentofsuchrestitution.
OnApril17,1998,theOfficeoftheSpecialProsecutor,OfficeoftheOmbudsmanMindanao,
filedintheSandiganbayancriminalcasesformalversationofpublicfundsagainstthefollowing
ORGARMM officials/employees: Zacaria A. Candao (Regional Governor), Israel B. Haron
(Disbursing Officer II), Abas A. Candao (Executive Secretary) and Pandical M. Santiago
(Cashier). They were charged with violation of Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, under the following informations with identical allegations except for the varying
date,numberandamountofthecheckinvolvedineachcase:
CriminalCaseNos.2456924574,2457624584,24593,
[4]
2459524620
(42countsinvolvingchecksinthetotalamountof
P17,190,585.00)
That on or about 29 December 1992, in Cotabato City, Philippines, and within the
jurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,accusedIsraelB.Haron,alowrankingpublicofficerbeing
the Disbursing Officer of the Office of the Regional Governor, and as such is responsible and
accountableforthefundsofthesaidofficeintheAutonomousRegioninMuslimMindanao,in
connivanceandinconspiracywith[Abas]Candao,ExecutiveSecretaryofthesameoffice,who
is a high ranking officer, while in the performance of their respective official functions, taking
advantage of their official positions, and committing the offense in relation to their respective
functions,withgrossabuseofconfidence,didthenandtherewilfully,unlawfullyandfeloniously
withdrawtheamountofP500,000.00fromthedepositoryaccountoftheOfficeoftheRegional
GovernorthrutheissuanceofCheckNo.414431dated29December1992,payabletotheorder
ofaccusedIsraelB.Haron,withouttherequireddisbursementvoucherandonceinpossessionof
thesaidamountwithdrawn,wilfully,unlawfullyandfeloniouslytake,misappropriate,embezzle
andconverttotheirownpersonaluseandbenefittheamountofP500,000.00,tothedamageand
prejudiceofthegovernmentintheaforesaidsumasabovestated.
CONTRARYTOLAW.
[5]
CriminalCaseNos.2458524592and24594
(9countsinvolvingchecksinthetotalamountof
P3,854,985.64)

That on or about 18 February 1993, in Cotabato City, Philippines, and within the
connivanceandinconspiracywithZacariaCandao,RegionalGovernorofthesameoffice,who
is a high ranking officer, while in the performance of their respective official functions, taking
advantage of their official positions, and committing the offense in relation to their respective
functions,withgrossabuseofconfidence,didthenandtherewilfully,unlawfullyandfeloniously
withdrawtheamountofP500,000.00fromthedepositoryaccountoftheOfficeoftheRegional
GovernorthrutheissuanceofCheckNo.461803dated18February1993,payabletotheorderof
accusedIsraelB.Haron,withouttherequireddisbursementvoucherandonceinpossessionofthe
saidamountwithdrawn,wilfully,unlawfullyandfeloniouslytake,misappropriate,embezzleand
convert to their own personal use and benefit the amount of P500,000.00, to the damage and
prejudiceofthegovernmentintheaforesaidsumasabovestated.
CONTRARYTOLAW.
[6]
CriminalCaseNo.24575
That on or about 13 January 1993, in Cotabato City, Philippines, and within the
connivance and in conspiracy with Pandical Santiago and [Abas] Candao, Cashier and
ExecutiveSecretary,respectively,ofthesameoffice,whileintheperformanceoftheirrespective
official functions, taking advantage of their official positions, and committing the offense in
relationtotheirrespectivefunctions,withgrossabuseofconfidence,didthenandtherewilfully,
unlawfullyandfeloniouslywithdrawtheamountofP120,000.00fromthedepositoryaccountof
the Office of the Regional Governor thru the issuance of Check No. 968751 dated 13 January
1993,payabletotheorderofaccusedIsraelB.Haron,withouttherequireddisbursementvoucher
andonceinpossessionofthesaidamountwithdrawn,wilfully,unlawfullyandfeloniouslytake,
misappropriate, embezzle and convert to their own personal use and benefit the amount of
P120,000.00,tothedamageandprejudiceofthegovernmentintheaforesaidsumasabovestated.
CONTRARYTOLAW.
At their arraignment, all accused pleaded not guilty to the charge of malversation. In the
meantime,accusedSantiagodiedandconsequentlythecaseagainsthiminCriminalCaseNo.
24575wasdismissed.
[7]
TheprosecutionslonewitnesswasHeidiL.Mendoza, COAStateAuditorIV. She testified
thattheirexpandedaudit,conductedfromAugust24toSeptember1,1993,disclosedtheillegal
withdrawals of funds from the PNB and Treasury accounts of ORGARMM involving 52
checks issued without the required disbursement vouchers. Specifically, their attention was
caught by the fact that the Report of Checks Issued by the Deputized Disbursing Officer
(RCIDDO) showed that the subject 52 checks have no assigned voucher numbers. The audit
teamdemandedfortheoriginalofsaidRCIDDOforthemonthsofDecember1992,February
andMarch1993,whichweresupposedtobepreparedandsubmittedbythedisbursingofficer,
but the ORGARMM did not submit the same. In a letter dated August 24, 1993, the COA
likewise made a demand from the Regional Governor through the resident auditor for the
production of the original disbursement vouchers and complete supporting documents of the
[8]
subjectchecks.
Inresponse,theFinanceandBudgetManagementServicesofORGARMMinformedtheaudit
team that the vouchers were already submitted to COA Resident Auditor, Supervising State
Auditor IV Rosalinda Gagwis, purportedly under transmittal letters dated March 4 and March
30, 1993. Mendoza then personally verified from Gagwis who denied having received the
subjectvouchersandissuedacertificationtothateffect.InaletterdatedSeptember10,1993,
ChairmanBanariafinallydemandedfortherestitutionofthefundsillegallywithdrawnthrough
the issued 52 checks and to comply with such demand within 72 hours from receipt of said
letter.Astotheabsenceofhersignatureintheauditreport,sheexplainedthatshewasalready
onmaternityleavewhentheinterimreport(SAOReportNo.9325)wassubmitted. However,
she,togetherwithauditteammemberJaimeB.RoxasexecutedaJointAffidavitdatedMay17,
1996 regarding their conduct of the expanded audit and their findings and recommendation.
Although Haron submitted copies of disbursement vouchers to the COA receiving clerk, this
[9]
wasmadebeyondthe72hourdeadlinegiventothem.
Oncrossexamination,witnessMendozawasaskediftheauditteamhadinformedtheofficeor
partiesconcernedthattheyaregoingtobeaudited(entryconference).Sherepliedthatthiswasa
sensitive assignment, recalling that they were threatened after their identities were established
duringtheearlierauditofthesameofficesuchthatshehadtobebroughtbacktoManila.At
thattime,theRegionalGovernorwasaccusedCandao. Hence, during the expanded audit, the
teamwasunabletoproceedasinordinarysituations.Whiletheydidanentryconferenceduring
thepreviousmainaudit,theywereunabletodosoatthetimeoftheexpandedaudit.Againfor
securityreasons,theteamalsodidnotconductanexitconferenceafterfieldworktheywould
beriskingtheirlivesiftheydiscussthereandthentheirfindings.Duetothreattoherlife,itwas
herteamsupervisor(Naranjo)andmember(Roxas)whopersonallyretrievedthedocumentsin
CotabatoCity.Sheadmittedthebelatedsubmissionoforiginalvouchers(October29,1993)to
[10]
theCOAcentralofficebutthesearewithoutsupportingdocuments.
For the accused, the first witness was Nick Luz Aduana who was the Director of Finance of
ORGARMMfromJuly1991untilhisresignationinMarch1993.Hetestifiedthathisfunctions
then include the supervision and overseeing of the three divisions: Budget, Accounting and
Management.Whenreportoftheauditteamcameout,hewassurprisedbecausetheywerenot
informedoftheaudit.Hewasfamiliarwiththe52checksbecausethedisbursementvouchers
passed through his office. He explained the procedure with respect to the processing of cash
advancesasfollows:generally,therewerecashadvancesmadeinARMMwhichcovertravels,
salaries,etc.butparticularlyforpeaceandordercampaign,itemanatesfromtheORGwhenthe
Regional Governor issues an authority for cash advance, and then they process the voucher
(Finance and Budget Management Services) once their division have performed their
accountingfunctionsrelativetothevouchers,thesameareforwardedtotheRegionalGovernor
forapprovalorinhisabsencetohisExecutiveSecretaryaftertheapprovalofthevoucher,it
willbeforwardedtotheCashDivisionfortheissuanceofcheckthepersonwhowillliquidate
the cash advance is usually the employee mentioned in the voucher and after they have
preparedalltheliquidationpapers,thesearesubmittedtotheBudgetandManagementDivision
before forwarding them to the COA Auditor. He maintained that the original disbursement
vouchershavealreadybeensubmittedtotheCOASpecialAuditOffice.Since1991,theyhave
neverreceivedanynoticeofdisallowanceoftheirdisbursements,includingthoseintendedfor
peaceandordercampaign.BeingthefirstARMMsetofofficials,theyhadsoughttheadviceof
theirAuditorastoproperaccountingprocedurestheyfollowedtheadviceofAuditorGagwis
who said that there should be authority to cash advance coming from the Regional Governor
which should be given to the Disbursing Officer. He identified the vouchers presented by the
defense as the ones processed by their division with the corresponding amounts reflected
therein. Insofar as the expanded audit is concerned, they were not given the opportunity to
[11]
defendthecaseastheywerenotgiventhesocalledexitconference.
Oncrossexamination,witnessAduanahintedonpoliticalreasonswhyanexpandedauditwas
conductedwhenRegionalGovernorPagdangananassumedofficedespitethefactthatanearlier
auditwasalreadymadeduringtheadministrationofGovernorCandao.Heclaimedthathedid
notreceiveanycopyofthedemandletterdatedAugust24,1993hewasnolongerconnected
withARMMatthetime.Healsomaintainedthatthedisbursementvoucherswereprocessedby
their office and entered into their books of account. However, when asked what happened to
these books of account, Aduana said these are with the Office of the Regional Governor. He
admittedthattheonlysupportingdocumentforthechecksandvouchersweretheauthorityto
cashadvancethepeaceandordercampaigndisbursementispeculiartoARMMandhencethey
didnotknowwhatsupportingdocumentstoattach.Whenqueriedabouttheparticularactivities
covered by this peace and order campaign disbursement, Aduana admitted that he really does
notknowthebreakdownofexpensesorforwhatitemsinparticularwerethedisbursedamounts
spent. Their division merely processed the disbursement vouchers that were prepared by the
ORG, and while his signature appears in said vouchers his role was limited to certifying the
[12]
availabilityoffunds.
The next witness, Rosalinda G. Gagwis, former COA Resident Auditor of ORGARMM,
testified that in 1991 she was the Chief of the Operation and Review Division (ORD), COA
RegionXIIwhichatthetimehasjurisdictionoverORGARMMshewasAuditorinChargeof
ORGARMMonlyuptoMarch8,1993whentheseparationofCOARegionXIIpersonneland
COAARMMwasimplemented.AmongherdutiesassuchAuditorinChargewastoconducta
postauditofthefinancialtransactionsofORGARMM.Inthecourseoftheexpandedauditof
ORGARMM,shewasrequestedtoissue the Certification dated August 27, 1993 stating that
she has not received the January to March 1993 vouchers as stated in the letter of Haron.
Subsequently,onJuly22,1998sheexecutedatwopageAffidavitbecauseshehasbeenhearing
that her previous Certification was misinterpreted to mean that the subject vouchers were not
existing. She then clarified that actually, ORGARMM tried to submit bundles of vouchers to
herofficebutsherefusedtoacceptthembecauseshewasnolongerAuditorinChargeofthat
office as there was already an order separating COARegional Office XII from the COA
ARMM. She confirmed that when ARMM was a newly created agency, its officers (Aduana,
BrigidaFontanillaandBartolomeCorpus)soughtheradviceregardingaccountingprocedures.
Prior to submission to her office for postaudit, the accountable officers like the Cashier and
Disbursement Officer prepares and submits a Monthly Report of Disbursements to the
Accounting Division which, within ten days from receipt and recording in the Books of
Accounts,shallsubmitthesametotheauditorforpostauditcustody.Basedonherexperience,
however, this deadline was not strictly observed as 25% to 50% of the national agencies are
delayed in the submission of such reports. The usual reasons given were the geographical
locations of the offices in Region XII and ARMM, lack of manpower due to budgetary
constraints and lack of knowhow of personnel regarding accounting and auditing procedures,
especially if there is a change in administration. As far as she can recall, their office had not
issued a notice of disallowance to ORGARMM although notices of suspension have been
issuedforminordeficienciesnotedduringpostauditthesenoticesofsuspensionwereusually
[13]
compliedwithbytheagency.
On crossexamination, witness Gagwis said that upon seeing the bundles of vouchers being
submitted to her office, she immediately refused to accept, and sort of washed her hands by
telling her staff that they were no longer incharge of ORGARMM. She did not actually scan
those documents and examine their contents. She also did not receive the Monthly Report of
Disbursementsfromsaidoffice.AstotheexecutionoftheJuly22,1998Affidavit,sheinsisted
thatshediditvoluntarilyfiveyearslaterinordertoclarifyherselfafterhearingaboutthecase
filed in the Sandiganbayan and her name was being dragged because of the Certification she
madeinAugust1993.AstotheearlierCertification,shemaintainedthatshedidnotreceivethe
[14]
subjectvouchersandshedoesnotknowwherethesedocumentsareatpresent.
Another witness, Brigida C. Fontanilla, Chief Accountant, ORGARMM, testified that her
duties and responsibilities include the processing, updating and recording of transactions of
ORGARMMinthebooksofaccountswhilevouchersarerecordedintheJournalofAnalysis
andObligations(JAO).Theyalsopreparedfinancialreports.Astocashadvances,sheexplained
that the procedure starts with the preparation of the voucher at ORG which also issues the
authority to withdraw cash advance which is attached to the disbursement voucher and
supporting documents, afterwhich it is forwarded to the Finance and Budget Management
Services for processing: there, it is first submitted to the Budget Division for the request for
allotmentofobligation,andnextforwardedtotheAccountingDivisionforthejournalentryof
obligationandrecordinginthebooksofaccount,andthenthedocumentsareforwardedtothe
Office of the Finance Director for his approval, and thereafter returned back to the ORG for
final approval for the issuance of the check. Presently, their office is more systematic and
organizedthanitwasduringtheadministrationofGovernorCandao.Sometimein1994during
theinvestigationbytheOfficeoftheOmbudsmanrelativetothesubjectillegalwithdrawals,she
wassummonedtoproducetheCashReceiptsBookandCashDisbursementBookofthe1991
ARMM seed money for regional, provincial and district Impact Infrastructure Projects.
However,shewasnotabletocomplywiththesaiddirectivebecausesuchbooksarenotamong
those required by the COA for their office what the COA directed them to maintain was the
JAO,abookoforiginalentryforallotmentsreceivedanddisbursementsforthetransactionsof
ORGARMM. She wrote a letterreply to the Ombudsman Investigator and transmitted the
[15]
original1992JAOwhichwasneverreturnedtotheiroffice.
ExplainingthecontentsoftheJAO,witnessFontanillasaidthattheentriesinthevoucherare
recordedtherein:anobligationnumberisplacedintherequestofallotment(ROA)whichalso
appears in the voucher. Before such recording in the JAO, the disbursement vouchers are
presentedtotheiroffice.Actually,shedoesnotknowwhetherthe1992JAOstillexistsorwith
the Ombudsman Investigator because at the time, they were holding office temporarily at the
[16]
officeofORGAuditorwhichunfortunatelygotburnedsometimein1996.
AsforwitnessBartolomeM.Corpus,hisdepositionuponoralexaminationwastakenonAugust
27,2004beforeAtty.EdipoloSarabia,ClerkofCourt,RegionalTrialCourtofDavaoCity.He
testifiedthatin1991hewasappointedChiefoftheManagementDivisionoftheFinanceand
Budget Management Services (FBMS), ORGARMM. He was placed on floating status for
threeyearsbythenewChiefofStaffofORGARMM(NasserPangandaman)upontheelection
of a new Regional Governor, Lininding Pangandaman who defeated Governor Candao. As
FinanceDirector,itwashisresponsibilitytoreviewalltransactionsoftheORGARMMandsee
toitthatCOAregulationsareinplaceandsupportingdocumentsarecomplete.Afterreviewing
documents, which include disbursement vouchers, his office submits the same to the COA
Regional Officer or to the COA Resident Auditor. Being the internal control unit of ORG
ARMM, all transactions and supporting documents must pass through his office. As to the
transactionscoveredbythesubject52checks,heconfirmedthatthesepassedthroughhisoffice,
includingthedisbursementvouchers,afterwhichthesewereforwardedtotheAccountingOffice
andthentotheCashDivisionforissuanceofchecks.Heclaimedthathissubordinatestriedto
submit the disbursement vouchers to the Resident Auditor, as shown by the transmittal letters
dated March 4 and March 30, 1993. However, Ms. Gagwis refused to accept the vouchers
because she was no longer the Resident Auditor at the time. During the time of Governor
Candao,hedoesnotrecallhavingreceivedanynoticeofdisallowancefromtheCOAalthough
thereweretimestheyreceivedanoticeofsuspensionwhichhadbeensettled.Duringthetimehe
was on floating status, he discovered that some vouchers including those original vouchers
coveredbythesubject52checkswerestillinhisfilingcabinet.Hethenhandedthemoverto
[17]
Haron.In1996,hewasreinstatedbyGovernorNurMisuari.
On crossexamination, witness Corpus said that they tried to submit the vouchers to Gagwis
sometime in late March or early April 1993. He was not aware of the August 27, 1993
CertificationissuedbyGagwis.Whenaskedaboutthestatedpurposepeaceandordercampaign
inthecashadvancevouchers,heconfirmedthatthiswasthepracticeatthattimeanditwasonly
duringliquidationthatORGwillhavethelistofexpensesthesupportingdocumentswillcome
[18]
onlyaftertheissuanceofthecheck. Onredirectexamination,hemaintainedthattherewere
previous similar vouchers for peace and order campaign which have not been disallowed but
[19]
onlysuspendedbytheCOA.
SandiganbayanRuling
ByDecisiondatedOctober29,2008,theSandiganbayanfoundpetitionerHaronguiltybeyond
reasonabledoubtofmalversationofpublicfundsunderArticle217oftheRevisedPenalCode,
asamended,committedinconspiracywithpetitionersZacariaA.CandaoandAbasA.Candao
who were likewise sentenced to imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine equivalent to the
amountofthecheckineachcase,asfollows:
CriminalCaseNos.2456924584,
24593,2459524620

IsraelB.HaronandAbasA.Candaoconvictedof43countsofMalversationofPublicFunds
andeachwassentencedtoindeterminateprisontermineachcaseoften(10)yearsandone
(1)dayofprisionmayor,asminimum,toeighteen(18)years,eight(8)monthsandone(1)
dayofreclusiontemporal,asmaximum,andorderedtopayafineineachcaseequivalent
totheparticularcheckinvolved,withoutsubsidiaryimprisonmentincaseofinsolvencyand
the penalty of perpetual special disqualification to hold public office and other accessory
penaltiesprovidedbylaw.Intheserviceoftheirrespectivesentences,theyshallbeentitled
to the benefit of the threefold rule as provided in Art. 70 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended.
CriminalCaseNos.2458524592&24594

IsraelB.HaronandZacariaA.Candaoconvictedof9countsofMalversationofPublicFunds
andeachwassentencedtoindeterminateprisontermineachcaseoften(10)yearsandone
(1)dayofprisionmayorasminimum,toeighteen(18)years,eight(8)monthsandone(1)
dayofreclusiontemporal,asmaximum,andorderedtopayafineineachcaseequivalent
totheparticularcheckinvolved,withoutsubsidiaryimprisonmentincaseofinsolvencyand
the penalty of perpetual special disqualification to hold public office and other accessory
penaltiesprovidedbylaw.Intheserviceoftheirrespectivesentences,theyshallbeentitled
to the benefit of the threefold rule as provided in Art. 70 of the Revised Penal Code, as
[20]
amended.
TheSandiganbayanfoundnomeritinpetitionersclaimthatthesubjectcheckswerecoveredby
existing disbursement vouchers which were belatedly submitted and received by the COA
CentralOfficeonOctober29,1993.Itsaidthathadthosevouchersreallyexistedatthetimeof
the 52 withdrawals petitioners made from December 29, 1992 to March 30, 1993, petitioner
Haroncouldhavereadilyproducedthemwhenrequiredtodosobythespecialauditteamon
August24,1993.SaidcourtlikewisedidnotgivecredencetothetestimonyofCorpusinview
of the August 27, 1993 Certification issued by then COA Auditor Gagwis that she has not
received the vouchers mentioned in the transmittal letters. Gagwis explanation, on the other
hand,contradictedthetestimonyofCorpusthatwhenhereturnedtohisofficesometimeinMay
1993,hefoundtheoriginalvoucherstogetherwiththetransmittallettersstillthereinhisfiling
cabinetandhavenotbeensubmittedtotheCOAResidentAuditor.
TheSandiganbayannotedthatpetitionerspresentednoproofthatthecashadvancesintendedfor
peace and order campaign were spent for public purposes, as in fact the alleged disbursement
vouchers did not indicate any detail as to the nature of the expense/s such as purchase of
equipment, services, meals, travel, etc. and there were no supporting documents such as the
Request for Issuance of Voucher, Purchase Request and Inspection Report of the items
supposedly purchased. More importantly, the vouchers were not accomplished in accordance
with existing COA circulars because they are unnumbered and undated. Hence, the belatedly
submittedvouchersareofdoubtfulveracityororigin,nay,afabricatedevidenceor,aspointed
out by the prosecution, selfserving or an afterthought, belatedly prepared to give the illegal
disbursements amounting to the aggregate amount of more than P21M, a semblance of
[21]
regularity. As to the JAO and Certification dated August 18, 1998 issued by Chief
Accountant Fontanilla, the Sandiganbayan found there is nothing therein to indicate the
particulardisbursementvoucherthatcorrespondstoeachofthesubject52checkswhichwere
neitherreflectedintheJAO.
WithrespecttopetitionersassertionthattheauditconductedbytheCOAspecialauditteamwas
incomplete and tainted as it did not follow procedures because the person audited were not
notifiedthereof,theSandiganbayanfoundtheseallegationsunsubstantiatedasinfactatthestart
of the audit on August 24, 1993, the audit team thru their team leader StateAuditor Naranjo,
informed the management of ORGARMM thru the COA Resident Auditor of the expanded
specialaudittobeconductedastheyevenrequestedfortheoriginalcopiesofthedisbursement
voucherstogetherwiththeircompletesupportingdocumentscoveringthe52checks.Butdespite
saidletter,theORGARMMfailedtoheedtheauditteamsrequest.Forthefailureofpetitioner
Haron to account for the funds involved in the illegal withdrawals when asked to do so, the
presumptionarosethathemisappropriatedthesame,whichpresumptionwasnotovercomeby
defenseevidence.
On the respective liabilities of petitioners Zacaria A. Candao and Abas A. Candao, the
Sandiganbayanheldthatbytheiractofcosigningthesubjectchecks,petitionerHaronwasable
to consummate the illegal withdrawals without the required disbursement vouchers of the
amounts covered by the 43 checks (for Abas) and 9 checks (for Zacaria). Thus, by their
collectiveacts,saidcourtconcludedthatpetitionersconspiredtoeffecttheillegalwithdrawals
of public funds which, when required by the COA to be properly accounted for, petitioners
failedtodoso.
In its Resolution dated February 20, 2009, the Sandiganbayan denied the prosecutions
motiontocancelbailbondsandpetitionersmotionforreconsideration.
ThePetition
Petitionersraisedthefollowinggroundsfortheiracquittal:
1. THE SANDIGANBAYAN...COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR IN CONVICTING

THE ACCUSED PETITIONERS FOR THE CRIME OF MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC
FUNDS DESPITE PROOF POSITIVE THAT, CONTRARY TO WHAT THE
INFORMATIONS CHARGED, THERE WERE DISBURSEMENT VOUCHERS EXCEPT
THAT THE COA REFUSED TO ACCEPT MUCH LESS EXAMINE THE SAME.
PETITIONERS WERE THUS DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW WHEN THEY WERE
CONVICTED FOR OFFENSES NOT COVERED BY THE INFORMATIONSAGAINST
THEM.

2. .THE SANDIGANBAYAN COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR IN NOT APPLYING
THE EQUIPOISE RULE WHICH IF APPLIED WOULD HAVE RESULTED IN THE
ACQUITTALOFTHEACCUSEDPETITIONERS.

3. THE SANDIGANBAYAN COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR IN CONVICTING
ACCUSEDPETITIONERSZACARIAA.CANDAOANDABASA.CANDAODESPITE
THEFACTTHATTHECHARGEOFCONSPIRACYWHICHISTHEIRONLYLINKTO
THE OFFENSES HEREIN HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE
[22]
DOUBT.
OurRuling
Thepetitionhasnomerit.
Article217oftheRevisedPenalCode,asamended,provides:
Art.217.Malversation of public funds or property Presumption of malversation. Any

public officer who, by reason of the duties of his office, is accountable for public funds or
property,shallappropriatethesame,orshalltakeormisappropriateorshallconsent,orthrough
abandonmentornegligence,shallpermitanyotherpersontotakesuchpublicfundsorproperty,
whollyorpartially,orshallotherwisebeguiltyofthemisappropriationormalversationofsuch
fundsorproperty,shallsuffer:
1. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the
amountinvolvedinthemisappropriationormalversationdoesnotexceedtwohundredpesos.
2. Thepenaltyofprisionmayorinitsminimumandmediumperiods,iftheamount
involvedismorethantwohundredpesosbutdoesnotexceedsixthousandpesos.
3. Thepenaltyofprisionmayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its

minimumperiod,iftheamountinvolvedismorethansixthousandpesosbutislessthantwelve
thousandpesos.
4. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium and maximum periods, if the
amountinvolvedismorethantwelvethousandpesosbutislessthantwentytwothousandpesos.
Iftheamountexceedsthelatter,thepenaltyshallbereclusiontemporalinitsmaximumperiodto
reclusionperpetua.
In all cases, persons guilty of malversation shall also suffer the penalty of perpetual
specialdisqualificationandafineequaltotheamountofthefundsmalversedorequaltothetotal
valueofthepropertyembezzled.
Thefailureofapublicofficertohavedulyforthcominganypublicfundorproperty
withwhichheis chargeable,upondemand by any duly authorized officer, shall be prima
facieevidencethathehasputsuchmissingfundsorpropertytopersonaluses. (Emphasis
supplied.)
Thefollowingelementsareessentialforconvictioninmalversationcases:
1.Thattheoffenderisapublicofficer
2.Thathehadcustodyorcontroloffundsorpropertybyreasonofthedutiesofhisoffice
3.Thatthosefundsorpropertywerepublicfundsorpropertyforwhichhewasaccountableand
4. That he appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented or, through abandonment or

[23]
negligence,permittedanotherpersontotakethem.
Alltheforegoingelementsweresatisfactorilyestablishedbytheprosecutioninthiscase.
Petitioners have not rebutted the legal presumption that with the Disbursing Officers (Haron)
failure to account for the illegally withdrawn amounts covered by the subject checks when
demandedbytheCOA,theymisappropriatedandusedthesaidfundsfortheirpersonalbenefit.
PetitionershoweverassertthattheirconvictionswerebasedsolelyontheSandiganbayans
conclusion that the vouchers submitted by the defense were illegal or irregular, whereas the
informationssimplyallegedtheirabsenceornonexistence.Theycontendthatsaidcourtcould
not have validly assessed the disbursement vouchers as to their legality because that duty
pertainstotheCOAwhichrefusedandfailedtoexaminethesame.Hadthecourtallowedthe
COAtoevaluateandmakearulingonthevalidityofthevouchers,theresultwouldhavebeen
differentandmostprobablytheywouldhavebeenacquittedofthecrimecharged.
Wearenotpersuadedbypetitionersasseveration.
TheSandiganbayancategoricallyruledthatthedisbursementvoucherswereinexistentat
thetimeoftheissuanceofthesubjectchecksandexpandedspecialauditbasedonitsfindings
that:(1)petitionerHaroncouldnotproducethevouchersupondemandbytheCOAinAugust
1993 (2) ResidentAuditor Gagwis certified at about the same time that to date she has not
receivedthevouchersmentionedinthesupposedtransmittallettersofMarch4andMarch30,
1993 (3) the entries in the duly certified Report of Checks Issued by Deputized Disbursing
Officer(RCIDDO)ofthelatePandicalM.Santiago,CashierofORGARMM,showedthatfor
the months of January, February and March 1993, there were indeed entries of checks issued
with Haron as payee but no disbursement voucher numbers as these were either lacking,
detachedormissing,andwhichwereverifiedbytheauditteamascorrespondingtothesubject
52checksissuedandsignedbypetitionersandencashedbypetitionerHaronwhoreceivedthe
moneywithdrawnfromthegovernmentdepositaryaccounts(4)FBMSChiefCorpustestified
that he discovered the supposed vouchers still there at his office filing cabinet in May 1993
whenthesesupposedlyhavealreadybeensubmittedtotheCOAResidentAuditorasreflectedin
theMarch4andMarch30,1993transmittallettersand(5)thesupposedoriginaldisbursement
vouchers belatedly submitted to the COA central office last week of October 1993, were
undatedandunnumberedwithnosupportingdocumentsasrequiredbyCOACircularNo.7879
(April5,1978).
Contrary to petitioners claim, the special audit team could not have examined the
vouchers presented by the defense (Exhibits 1 to 1A43) because the only indication of its
actualreceiptbytheCOAasadmittedbytheprosecution,wasonOctober23,1993longafter
theexpandedauditwascompletedandbeyondthe72hourdeadlinespecifiedintheSeptember
10, 1993 demand letter addressed to Haron for the restitution of the total amount of illegal
withdrawals.Inaddition,suchdisbursementvouchershavenosupportingdocumentsasrequired
by COA Circular No. 92389 dated November 3, 1992. On the other hand, the Certification
datedAugust18,1998issuedbyARMMChiefAccountantFontanillastatingthatthevouchers
wereregularbecausethesewereproperlyrecordedintheJAO,wasnotgivencredencebythe
Sandiganbayan. Upon scrutiny of the JAO covering the period January to March 1993, said
courtfoundthatitfailedtoindicatetheparticulardisbursementvoucherthatcorrespondstoeach
ofthe52checks,asidefromthefactthatitwaspreparedbytheARMMChiefAccountantwho
is under the control and supervision of the ORG. Notably, the JAO is used to summarize
obligationsincurredandtomonitorthebalanceofunobligatedallotments,whichispreparedby
[24]
function, and project for each fund and allotment class. The JAO is thus separate and
distinctfromtheReportofChecksIssued(RCI)whichispreparedbytheDisbursingOfficerto
reportchecksissuedforpaymentofexpendituresand/orprioraccountspayable.Whatisclearis
thatthedisbursementoffundscoveredbythe52checksissuedbythepetitionersaresubjectto
therulethatdisbursementvouchershallbeusedbyallgovernmententitiesforallmoneyclaims
and that the voucher number shall be indicated on the voucher and on every supporting
[25]
document. Inasmuch as the JAO for the months of January, February and March 1993 do
not at all reflect or indicate the number of each of the disbursement vouchers supposedly
attachedtothe52checks,itcannotserveasevidenceoftherecordingoftheoriginalvouchers,
much less the existence of those disbursement vouchers at the time of the issuance of the 52
checksandtheconductoftheexpandedaudit.
Petitioners further raise issue on the regularity, completeness and objectivity of the
expandedauditconductedbytheCOA.However,recordsshowedthattheORGARMMwere
dulynotifiedoftheexpandedauditatitscommencementandwasevenrequestedthrutheCOA
ResidentAuditortosubmittheneededdisbursementvouchers.Itmustbenotedthatatanearlier
date, a main audit had already been conducted for the financial transactions of ORGARMM
duringwhichStateAuditorMendozaexperiencedthreatsagainstherownsecuritythatshehad
to be immediately recalled from her assignment. Thus, by the time the expanded audit was
conducted in August 1993 upon the directive of the COA Chairman, petitioners, especially
Haron, should have seen to it that the records of disbursements and financial transactions
including the period January to March 1993, were in order and available for further audit
examination. In any case, even if there was no socalled entry conference held, there is
absolutelynoshowingthatpetitionersweredenieddueprocessintheconductoftheexpanded
auditastheysimplyrefusedorfailedtoheedCOAsrequestfortheproductionofdisbursement
vouchers and likewise ignored the formal demand made by COA Chairman Banaria for the
restitution of the illegally withdrawn public funds, submitting their compliance only after the
specialauditteamhadsubmittedtheirreport.
Infine,theSandiganbayancommittednoreversibleerrorinholdingthatthetestimonial
and documentary evidence presented by the petitioners failed to overcome the prima facie
evidenceofmisappropriationarisingfromHaronsfailuretogiveasatisfactoryexplanationfor
the illegal withdrawals from the ARMM funds under his custody and control. Petitioners
likewisedidnotaccomplishtheproperliquidationoftheentireamountwithdrawn,duringthe
expandedauditoranytimethereafter.There is therefore no merit in petitioners argument that
theSandiganbayanerredinnotapplyingtheequipoiserule.
Undertheequipoiserule,wheretheevidenceonanissueoffactisinequipoiseorthereis
doubtonwhichsidetheevidencepreponderates,thepartyhavingtheburdenofproofloses.The
equipoiserulefindsapplicationiftheinculpatoryfactsandcircumstancesarecapableoftwoor
moreexplanations,oneofwhichisconsistentwiththeinnocenceoftheaccusedandtheother
consistent with his guilt, for then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty, and
[26]
doesnotsufficetoproduceaconviction. Suchisnotthesituationinthiscasebecausethe
prosecution was able to prove by adequate evidence that Disbursing Officer Haron failed to
account for funds under his custody and control upon demand, specifically for the
P21,045,570.64illegallywithdrawnfromthesaidfunds.Inthecrimeofmalversation,allthatis
necessary for conviction is sufficient proof that the accountable officer had received public
funds,thathedidnothavetheminhispossessionwhendemandthereforwasmade,andthathe
couldnotsatisfactorilyexplainhisfailuretodoso.Directevidenceofpersonalmisappropriation
[27]
bytheaccusedishardlynecessaryinmalversationcases.
As to the liability of petitioners Zacaria A. Candao and Abas A. Candao, the

SandiganbayancorrectlyruledthattheyactedinconspiracywithpetitionerHarontoeffectthe
illegalwithdrawalsandmisappropriationofORGARMMfunds.
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy need not be proved by direct
evidence and may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during and after the
commission of the crime, which are indicative of a joint purpose, concerted action and
concurrenceofsentiments.Inconspiracy,theactofoneistheactofall.Conspiracy is present
whenoneconcurswiththecriminaldesignofanother,indicatedbytheperformanceofanovert
actleadingtothecrimecommitted.Itmaybededucedfromthemodeandmannerinwhichthe
[28]
offensewasperpetrated.
Inthiscase,petitionersZacariaA.CandaoandAbasA.Candaowerecosignatoriesinthe
subject checks issued without the required disbursement vouchers. Their signatures in the
checks, as authorized officials for the purpose, made possible the illegal withdrawals and
embezzlementofpublicfundsinthestaggeringaggregateamountofP21,045,570.64.
Petitioners Zacaria A. Candao and Abas A. Candao assail their conviction as co
conspirators in the crime of malversation contending that their only participation was in the
ministerialactofsigningthechecks.Thecheckshavingpassedthroughprocessingbyfinance
andaccountingpersonnelofORGARMM,petitionerssaidtheyhadtorelyonthepresumption
of regularity in the performance of their subordinates acts. Furthermore, they assert that since
conspiracyrequiresknowledgeofthepurposeforwhichthecrimewascommitted,theycould
nothavebeenconspiratorsinthedesigntodefraudthegovernment.
Wedisagreewithsuchpostulation.
As the Regional Governor of ARMM, petitioner Zacaria A. Candao cannot exonerate

himselffromliabilityfortheillegallywithdrawnfundsofORGARMM.UnderSection102(1)
oftheGovernmentAuditingCodeofthePhilippines,heisresponsibleforallgovernmentfunds
pertainingtotheagencyheheads:
Section 102. Primary and secondary responsibility. (1) The head of any agency of the
government is immediately and primarily responsible for all government funds and
propertypertainingtohisagency.
xxxx(Emphasissupplied.)
Petitioners Zacaria A. Candao and his Executive Secretary Abas A. Candao are both
accountable public officers within the meaning of Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended.Nocheckscanbepreparedandnopaymentcanbeeffectedwithouttheirsignatureson
a disbursement voucher and the corresponding check. In other words, any disbursement and
[29]
release of public funds require their approval, as in fact checks issued and signed by
petitioner Haron had to be countersigned by them. Their indispensable participation in the
issuanceofthesubjectcheckstoeffectillegalwithdrawalsofARMMfundswasthereforeduly
established by the prosecution and the Sandiganbayan did not err in ruling that they acted in
conspiracywithpetitionerHaroninembezzlingandmisappropriatingsuchfunds.
Moreover, as such accountable officers, petitioners Zacaria A. Candao and Abas A.

Candaowerechargedwiththedutyofdiligentlysupervisingtheirsubordinatestopreventloss
ofgovernmentfundsorproperty,andarethusliableforanyunlawfulapplicationofgovernment
funds resulting from negligence, as provided in Sections 104 and 105 of the Government
AuditingCodeofthePhilippines,whichread:

Sec.104.Recordsandreportsrequiredbyprimarilyresponsibleofficers.Theheadofany
agency or instrumentality of the national government or any governmentowned or controlled
corporationandanyotherselfgoverningboardorcommissionofthegovernmentshallexercise
thediligenceofagoodfatherofafamilyinsupervisingaccountableofficersunderhiscontrolto
preventtheincurrenceoflossofgovernmentfundsorproperty,otherwiseheshallbejointlyand
solidarilyliablewiththepersonprimarilyaccountabletherefor.xxxx
Sec.105.Measureofliabilityofaccountableofficers.xxx
(2)Everyofficeraccountableforgovernmentfundsshallbeliableforalllossesresulting
fromtheunlawfuldeposit,use,orapplicationthereofandforalllossesattributabletonegligence
inthekeepingofthefunds.
ThefactthatARMMwasstillarecentlyestablishedautonomousgovernmentunitatthe
time does not mitigate or exempt petitioners from criminal liability for any misuse or
embezzlementofpublicfundsallocatedfortheiroperationsandprojects.TheOrganicActfor
ARMM(R.A.No.6734)mandatesthatthefinancialaccountsoftheexpendituresandrevenues
[30]
oftheARMMaresubjecttoauditbytheCOA. Presently,undertheAmendedOrganicAct
(R.A.No.9054),theARMMremainedsubjecttonationallawsandpoliciesrelatingto,among
[31]
others,fiscalmattersandgeneralauditing. Here,theprosecutionsuccessfullydemonstrated
that the illegal withdrawals were deliberately effected through the issuance of checks without
therequireddisbursementvouchersandsupportingdocuments.AndevenifpetitionersZacaria
A. Candao and Abas A. Candao invoke lack of knowledge in the criminal design of their
subordinate, Disbursing Officer Haron, they are still liable as coprincipals in the crime of
malversationassumingsuchmisappropriationofpublicfundswasnotintentional,asallegedin
the informations, but due to their negligence in the performance of their duties.As this Court
[32]
ratiocinatedinCabellov.Sandiganbayan :
Besides, even on the putative assumption that the evidence against petitioner yielded a
caseofmalversationbynegligencebuttheinformationwasforintentionalmalversation,under
thecircumstancesofthiscasehisconvictionunderthefirstmodeofmisappropriationwouldstill
be in order. Malversation is committed either intentionally or by negligence. The dolo or the
culpapresentintheoffenseisonlyamodalityintheperpetrationofthefelony.Evenifthemode
charged differs from the mode proved, the same offense of malversation is involved and
conviction thereof is proper. A possible exception would be when the mode of commission
allegedintheparticularsoftheindictmentissofarremovedfromtheultimatecategorizationof
thecrimethatitmaybesaiddueprocesswasdeniedbydeludingtheaccusedintoanerroneous
comprehensionofthechargeagainsthim.Thatnosuchprejudicewasoccasionedonpetitioner
[33]
norwashebeleagueredinhisdefenseisapparentfromtherecordsofthiscase. (Emphasis
supplied.)
Under Article 217, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, the penalty of
reclusiontemporalinitsmaximumperiodtoreclusionperpetuashallbeimposediftheamount
involvedexceedsP22,000.00,inadditiontofineequaltothefundsmalversed.Consideringthat
neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstance attended the crime charged, the maximum
imposable penalty shall be within the range of the medium period of reclusion temporal
maximum to reclusion perpetua, or eighteen (18) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to
twenty (20) years. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum penalty, which is
one degree lower from the maximum imposable penalty, shall be within the range of prision
mayormaximumtoreclusiontemporalmedium,orten(10)yearsandone(1)daytoseventeen
[34]
(17)yearsandfour(4)months. ThepenaltyimposedbytheSandiganbayanonpetitioners
needs therefore to be modified insofar as the maximum penalty is concerned and is hereby
reduced to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal medium, for each
count.
WHEREFORE,thepetitionforreviewoncertiorariisDENIEDforlackofmerit. The
Decision dated October 29, 2008 in Criminal Case Nos. 24569 to 24574, 24575, 24576 to
24584, 24585 to 24592, 24593, 24594, 24595 to 24620 finding petitioners guilty beyond
reasonabledoubtofthecrimeofMalversationofPublicFundsunderArticle217,paragraph4of
the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and the Resolution dated February 20, 2009 of the
Sandiganbayan (First Division), denying petitioners motion for reconsideration are
AFFIRMEDwithMODIFICATIONSinthatpetitionersareinsteadaccordinglysentencedto
suffer an indeterminate prison term of ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor
maximum, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal
medium,asmaximum,ineachoftheabovenumberedcriminalcases.
In addition to the payment of the fine ordered by the Sandiganbayan, and by way of
restitution,thepetitionersarelikewiseorderedtopay,jointlyandseverally,theRepublicofthe
Philippines through the ARMMRegional Treasurer, the total amount of P21,045,570.64
malversedfundsasfinallydeterminedbytheCOA.
Intheserviceoftheirrespectivesentences,thepetitionersshallbeentitledtothebenefit
ofthethreefoldruleasprovidedinArticle70oftheRevisedPenalCode,asamended.
Withcostsagainstthepetitioners.
SOORDERED.

MARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:
RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice
Chairperson
LUCASP.BERSAMIN MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice
MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
AssociateJustice
CERTIFICATION
PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIofthe1987Constitution,Icertifythattheconclusionsinthe
aboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriterof
theopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice

* Designated additional member per Raffle dated October 17, 2011 vice Associate Justice Teresita J. LeonardoDe Castro who
recusedherselffromthecaseduetoprioractionintheSandiganbayan.
[1]
Rollo,pp.74124.PennedbyAssociateJusticeRodolfoA.PonferradawithPresidingJusticeDiosdadoM.Peralta(nowaMember
ofthisCourt)andAssociateJusticeAlexanderG.Gesmundoconcurring.
[2]
Id.at125131.PennedbyAssociateJusticeRodolfoA.PonferradawithAssociateJusticesNorbertoY.GeraldezandAlexander
G.Gesmundoconcurring.
[3]
ExhibitsAtoZZ,SandiganbayanRecords.
[4]
SBRecords,Vols.1,510,1220,29,3156.
[5]
Id.,Vols.2128and30.
[6]
Id.,Vol.11.
[7]
RecentlyappointedCommissioneroftheCommissiononAudit.
[8]
TSN,October13,1998,pp.3,726.
[9]
Id.at2734,4041.
[10]
Id.at4152,7374.
[11]
TSN,May20,2004,pp.1524.
[12]
Id.at2542.
[13]
TSN,April26,2005,pp.622.
[14]
Id.at2440.
[15]
TSN,June8,2006,pp.512.
[16]
Id.at1315.
[17]
TSN,August27,2004,pp.317SBRecords(Vol.II),pp.467481.
[18]
Id.at1721id.at481485.
[19]
Id.at2122id.at485486.
[20]
Rollo,pp.104123.
[21]
Id.at100.
[22]
Id.at48.
[23]
LUISB.REYES,TheRevisedPenalCode,BookTwo,2008Edition,p.426.
[24]
Sec.405,GovernmentAuditingandAccountingManual.
[25]
Sec.430,GovernmentAuditingandAccountingManual.
[26]
Bernardinov.People,G.R.Nos.170453and170518,October30,2006,506SCRA237,252,citingDadov.People,440Phil.
521,537(2002).
[27]
Davalos,Sr.v.People,G.R.No.145229,April24,2006,488SCRA85,92,citingSarigumba v. Sandiganbayan,G.R. Nos.
15423941,February16,2005,451SCRA533,554.
[28]
Peoplev.Pajaro,G.R.Nos.16786065,June17,2008,554SCRA572,586,citingPeoplev.Garcia,Jr.,G.R.No.138470,April
1,2003,400SCRA229,238239.
[29]
ArticleVII,Sec.24(e)ofR.A.No.6734entitledAnActProvidingforanOrganicActFortheAutonomousRegioninMuslim
Mindanao,providesthat:NofundsorresourcesshallbedisbursedunlessdulyapprovedbytheRegionalGovernororbyhisduly
authorizedrepresentative.This provision was retained under R.A. No. 9054 amending the Organic Act, Art. VII, Sec. 24 (e)
thereof.
[30]
Art.IX,Sec.2.
[31]
Art.IV,Section3(d)and(j).
[32]
G.R.No.93885,May14,1991,197SCRA94.
[33]
Id.at103.
[34]
Cabarlov.People,G.R.No.172274,November16,2006,507SCRA236,246.

Candao v. People, G.R. Nos.186659-710, October 19, 2011, 659 SCRA 696

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Candao v. People, G.R. Nos.186659-710, October 19, 2011, 659 SCRA 696

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FIRSTDIVISION

On August 5, 1993, Chairman Pascasio S. Banaria of the Commission on Audit (COA)

1. THE SANDIGANBAYAN...COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR IN CONVICTING

Art.217.Malversation of public funds or property Presumption of malversation. Any

3. Thepenaltyofprisionmayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its

4. That he appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented or, through abandonment or

As to the liability of petitioners Zacaria A. Candao and Abas A. Candao, the

As the Regional Governor of ARMM, petitioner Zacaria A. Candao cannot exonerate

Moreover, as such accountable officers, petitioners Zacaria A. Candao and Abas A.

You might also like