CASE DIGEST : People of the Philippines v. Tito S. Sarion G.R. Nos. 243029-30, August 22, 2022 GAERLAN

 

FACTS

Tito S. Sarion, then Municipal Mayor of Daet, Camarines Norte, entered into a contract with Markbilt Construction for the Phase II construction of the Daet Public Market. During the implementation of the project, Markbilt claimed payment for price escalation under the contract. Sarion approved the disbursement voucher and signed the Land Bank check authorizing the payment despite the absence of a specific appropriation and despite the failure to comply with the requirements for price escalation under the Government Procurement Reform Act (Republic Act No. 9184). As a result, criminal charges for Malversation of Public Funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and Violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) were filed against him.

The Sandiganbayan found Sarion guilty of both offenses, holding that he was an accountable public officer who, through gross inexcusable negligence, facilitated the unlawful release of government funds. It ruled that the payment of the price escalation lacked both legal appropriation and compliance with the statutory procurement requirements. Sarion elevated the case to the Supreme Court through a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, arguing that the Sandiganbayan erred in appreciating the evidence and that he acted in good faith. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed his conviction.

Sarion then filed a Motion for Reconsideration, asserting that he was denied his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation because the Information allegedly referred only to the absence of a Certificate of Availability of Funds (CAF) and not to the absence of an appropriation or other procurement irregularities. He likewise maintained that he did not act with gross inexcusable negligence and that the payment was supported by the municipal appropriation ordinance. The Supreme Court examined whether these arguments warranted a reversal of its earlier ruling.

The Court also reviewed the legal requirements governing the disbursement of public funds, particularly Section 61 of R.A. No. 9184 on price escalation, Section 86 of Presidential Decree No. 1445 (Government Auditing Code) requiring a prior specific appropriation and certification of available funds before any government expenditure may be authorized, as well as the elements of Article 217 of the RPC and Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019.

---

ISSUE

Whether Sarion's conviction for Malversation of Public Funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code and for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 should be reversed on the ground that he did not commit gross inexcusable negligence and that his constitutional right to be informed of the accusation was violated.

Whether the payment of the contractor's price escalation claim was valid despite the alleged absence of a prior appropriation and the non-compliance with Section 61 of Republic Act No. 9184 and Section 86 of Presidential Decree No. 1445 governing the lawful disbursement of public funds.

Whether the issues raised by Sarion involved reviewable questions of law under Rule 45 or merely factual matters already conclusively determined by the Sandiganbayan.

---

HELD

The Supreme Court DENIED the Motion for Reconsideration and affirmed Sarion's conviction. It ruled that the issues he raised remained questions of fact, which are generally beyond the scope of a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. None of the recognized exceptions allowing the Court to review factual findings were present. The Court further held that Sarion merely reiterated arguments that had already been fully considered and rejected in its earlier Decision.

The Court sustained the finding that Sarion committed gross inexcusable negligence, an essential element both of Malversation under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code and Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. As Municipal Mayor, he was an accountable officer charged with safeguarding public funds. By approving the payment of the contractor's price escalation despite the absence of a prior specific appropriation, and despite the failure to comply with Section 61 of R.A. No. 9184, which allows price escalation only under limited conditions prescribed by law, Sarion facilitated the unlawful release of public funds. The Court emphasized that Section 86 of P.D. No. 1445 expressly prohibits government expenditures without a prior appropriation and certification of available funds, rendering the price escalation clause unenforceable insofar as it lacked legal funding.

The Supreme Court likewise rejected Sarion's claim that his constitutional right to be informed of the accusation had been violated. It held that the Information sufficiently alleged the essential facts constituting the offenses charged, enabling him to understand the accusations and prepare his defense. The Court explained that the absence of a valid appropriation and the failure to comply with procurement laws were matters necessarily connected with the illegal disbursement of public funds and were adequately litigated during trial. Good faith could not be appreciated because a prudent public official occupying the highest executive position in the municipality should have verified compliance with the procurement law and the Government Auditing Code before approving the payment.

Accordingly, the Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan's ruling that Sarion was criminally liable for Malversation of Public Funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code and Violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019. It reiterated that public officials must strictly observe the safeguards imposed by R.A. No. 9184 and P.D. No. 1445 before authorizing the expenditure of government funds, as failure to exercise the required diligence constitutes gross inexcusable negligence and gives rise to both criminal and anti-graft liability