VIOLETA BAHILIDAD VS PEOPLE OF THEPHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 185195, March 17, 2010

Malversation of Public Funds

Facts:

Acting on a complaint filed by a Concerned Citizen of Sarangani Province with the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao against Mary AnnGadian, Amelia Carmela Zoleta, both assigned to theOffice of the Vice-Governor, and a certain SheryllDesiree Tangan, from the Office of the SangguniangPanlalawigan, for their alleged participation in thescheme of giving fictitious grants and donations usingfunds of the provincial government, a special audit wasconducted in Sarangani province. The Special AuditTeam, created for the purpose, conducted itsinvestigation from June 1 to July 31, 2003. Included inthe list of alleged fictitious associations that benefitedfrom the financial assistance given to certain NonGovernmental Organizations (NGOs), Peoples Organizations (POs), and Local Governmental Units(LGUs) was Women in Progress (WIP), which received acheck in the amount of P20,000.00, issued in the nameof herein petitioner Bahilidad, as the Treasurer thereof.Based on its findings, the Special Audit Teamrecommended the filing of charges of malversationthrough falsification of public documents against theofficials involved. Issue: Is petitioner guilty of malversation of public funds?

Ruling: NO.Inthe instant case, petitioner was found guilty of conspiring with Zoleta and other public officials in thecommission of the crime of Malversation of Public Fundsthrough Falsification of Public Documents. The trial

court relied on the dictum that the act of one is the actof all. It is necessary that a conspirator should haveperformed some overt act as a direct or indirectcontribution to the execution of the crimecommitted. The overt act may consist of activeparticipation in the actual commission of the crime itself,or it may consist of moral assistance to his co-conspirators by being present at the commission of thecrime or by exerting moral ascendancy over the otherco-conspirators. Hence, the mere presence of anaccused at the discussion of a conspiracy, even approvalof it, without any active participation in the same, is notenough for purposes of conviction.

In the instant case, we find petitio ners participation in the crime not adequately proven with moral certainty.Undeniably, petitioner, as a private individual, had nohand in the preparation, processing or disbursement of the check issued in her name. A cursory look at thedisbursement voucher (No. 101-2002-01-822) revealsthe following signatures: signature of Board MemberTeodorico Diaz certifying that the cash advance isnecessary, lawful and incurred under his directsupervision; signature of Provincial Accountant Camanaycertifying to the completeness and propriety of thesupporting documents and to the liquidation of previouscash advances; signature of Moises Magallona, Jr. overthe name of Provincial Treasurer Cesar M. Cagangcertifying that cash is available; signature of Constantino, with the initials of Zoleta adjacent to hisname, certifying that the disbursement is approved for payment, and with petitioners signature as the payee. The Sandiganbayan faulted petitioner forimmediately encashing the check, insisting that she

should have deposited the check first. Such insistence isunacceptable. It defies logic. The check was issued in petitioners name and, as payee, she had the authority to encash it. All told, there is reasonable doubtas to petitioners guilt. Where there is reasonabledoubt, an accused must be acquitted even though hisinnocence may not have been fully established. Whenguilt is not proven with moral certainty, exonerationmust be granted as a matter of right.