People v Pantaleon

People of the Philippines v Pantaleon

GR No. 158694-96, 13 Mar. 2009

Brion,. J:

FACTS:

                In 1998, Mayor Teofilo Pantaleon, Jr. and Municipal Treasurer Jaime conspired to illegally disburse and misappropriate the public funds of Castillejos, Zambales by falsifying the supporting documents relating to 3 fictitious or "ghost" construction projects.  It further alleged that the vouchers were not signed by municipal accountant and budget officer; that the SB did not adopt a resolution authorizing Mayor Teofilo Pantaleon, Jr. to enter into a contract with La Paz Construction and/or Ken Swan Tiu; and that no project was actually undertaken.

                Appellants pleaded not guilty. Prosecution presented the following witnesses:

Engr. Ramos:

                He was acting municipal engineer; he prepared 3 programs of work upon the instruction of Vallejos but never implemented any for it was already implemented by previous engineer, hence, disbursement not needed.  Appellant instructed him to place dates earlier than Mar. 1998 although he prepared them on Mar. 1998.

SB Member Aurelio:

                No market stall was constructed in the public market in 1998 and 1999, and no infrastructure project could have been made in January 1998 because it was an election period.

Bookkeeper Nida:

                She reviewed vouchers in question only after the indicated amounts had been paid. A voucher is certified by the local budget officer and by the municipal accountant, and that without her signature, a voucher is defective.

Ken Swan Tiu:

                Owner of La Paz Construction. He did not enter into any contract with Castillejos, and his company never received any payment. The signatures were not his.

DEFENSE:

Vallejos:

                He paid the vouchers despite the absence of the accountant's signature because the projects were already completed and the sub-contractor was already demanding payment and was threatening to sue him if he would not pay.

                He signed the vouchers because the municipal accountant and budget officer refused, without any valid or legal reason, to sign them.

Pantaleon:

                He signed the vouchers and allowed the treasurer to pay the amounts stated because the accountant and the budget officer were reluctant to sign; and that the signatures of the accountant and budget officer were not important.  He approved the money because the treasure told him that there was an appropriation in the approved annual budget.

                Admitted that the SB did not adopt a resolution authorizing him to enter into a contract.  Also admitted that he entered into a contract with Baquilat without inquiring if he was authorized by La Pa Cons.

                Sandiganbayan convicted the appellants of complex crime of malversation of public funds through falsification of public documents (Art. 217, 171, and 48).

ISSUE:

                W/N the appellants committed the complex crime of malversation of public funds through falsification of public documents.

HELD:

                Yes.  Falsification of public documents is a necessary means to commit the crime of malversation.

Elements of Malversation (Art. 217) [P-CAM]

1. Offender be a public officer;

Appellants were mayor and municipal treasurer

• He had the custody of funds or property by reason of the duties of his office;

Any disbursement and release of public funds require their approval

• The funds or property were public funds or property for which he was accountable;

The funds disbursed belongs to the municipality and were under the collective custody of the officials who had to act together to disburse the funds for their intended municipal use.

• He appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented or, through abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take them.

The project was never implemented.

                The appellants were guilty under Art. 171, pars. 2 and 5. Par. 2 is committed when (a) the offender causes it to appear in a document that a person or persons participated in an act or a proceeding; and (b) that such person or persons did not in fact so participate in the act or proceeding.  Vallejos filled up the spaces for the voucher number and the accounting entry which were required to be filled up by Nida as the municipal accountant.

                For par 5, Pantaleon and Vallejos instructed Engr. Ramos to place the dates January 5, 1998 on the first and third programs of work, and January 14, 1998 on the second program of work, although he prepared the programs only in March 1998.

                Vallejos’ defense that Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over him because he is SG 24 is immaterial.  The critical factor in determining the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction is the position of his co-accused, the municipal mayor, who occupies an SG 27 position.  Under Section 4 of Republic Act No. 8249, if the position of one or more of the accused is classified as SG 27, the Sandiganbayan has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the offense.

                 Since appellant committed a complex crime, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed in its maximum period.