Bahilidad v People of the Philippines
GR No. 185195 March 17, 2010
Facts:
Acting on a complaint filed by a “Concerned Citizen of Sarangani Province” with the Office of
the Ombudsman-Mindanao against Mary Ann Gadian, Amelia Carmela Zoleta, both assigned to
the Office of the Vice-Governor, and a certain Sheryll Desiree Tangan, from the Office of the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan, for their alleged participation in the scheme of giving fictitious
grants and donations using funds of the provincial government, a special audit was conducted
in Sarangani Province. The Special Audit Team, created for the purpose, conducted its
investigation from June 1 to July 31, 2003. Included in the list of alleged fictitious associations
that benefited from the financial assistance given to certain Non-Governmental Organizations
(NGOs), People’s Organizations (POs), and Local Governmental Units (LGUs) was Women in
Progress (WIP), which received a check in the amount of P20,000.00, issued in the name of
herein petitioner Bahilidad, as the Treasurer thereof. Based on its findings, the Special Audit
Team recommended the filing of charges of malversation through falsification of public
documents against the officials involved.
Issue:
Is petitioner guilty of malversation of public funds?
Ruling:
No. Well-settled is the rule that findings of fact of the trial court are given great respect. But
when there is a misappreciation of facts as to compel a contrary conclusion, the Court will not
hesitate to reverse the factual findings of the trial court. In such a case, the scales of justice
must tilt in favor of an accused, considering that he stands to lose his liberty by virtue of his
conviction. The Court must be satisfied that the factual findings and conclusions of the trial
court, leading to an accused’s conviction, must satisfy the standard of proof beyond reasonable
doubt.
In the instant case, petitioner was found guilty of conspiring with Zoleta and other public
officials in the commission of the crime of Malversation of Public Funds through Falsification of
Public Documents. The trial court relied on the dictum that the act of one is the act of all. It is
necessary that a conspirator should have performed some overt act as a direct or indirect
contribution to the execution of the crime committed. The overt act may consist of active
participation 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 the crime or by exerting moral
ascendancy over the other co-conspirators. Hence, the mere presence of an accused at the
discussion of a conspiracy, even approval of it, without any active participation in the same, is
not enough for purposes of conviction.
In the instant case, we find petitioner’s participation in the crime not adequately proven with
moral certainty. Undeniably, petitioner, as a private individual, had no hand in the preparation,
processing or disbursement of the check issued in her name. A cursory look at the
disbursement voucher (No. 101-2002-01-822) reveals the following signatures: signature of
Board Member Teodorico Diaz certifying that the cash advance is necessary, lawful and
incurred under his direct supervision; signature of Provincial Accountant Camanay certifying to
the completeness and propriety of the supporting documents and to the liquidation of previous
cash advances; signature of Moises Magallona, Jr. over the name of Provincial Treasurer Cesar
M. Cagang certifying that cash is available; signature of Constantino, with the initials of Zoleta
adjacent to his name, certifying that the disbursement is approved for payment, and with
petitioner’s signature as the payee.
The Sandiganbayan faulted petitioner for immediately encashing the check, insisting that she
should have deposited the check first. Such insistence is unacceptable. It defies logic. The check
was issued in petitioner’s name and, as payee, she had the authority to encash it. There was no
showing that petitioner had foreknowledge of any irregularity committed in the processing and
disbursement of the check, or that the COA Rules required that the check had to be deposited
in the bank first, or that an evaluation report from the provincial agriculturist had to be
submitted. Evil intent must unite with the unlawful act for a crime to exist. Actus non facit
reum, nisi mens sit rea. There can be no crime when the criminal mind is wanting. As a general
rule, ignorance or mistake as to particular facts, honest and real, will exempt the doer from
felonious responsibility.
All told, there is reasonable doubt as to petitioner’s guilt. Where there is reasonable doubt, an
accused must be acquitted even though his innocence may not have been fully established.
When guilt is not proven with moral certainty, exoneration must be granted as a matter of
right.
Time and time again, this Court has emphasized the need to stamp out graft and corruption in
the government. Indeed, the tentacles of greed must be cut and the offenders punished.
However, this objective can be accomplished only if the evidence presented by the prosecution
passes the test of moral certainty. Where doubt lingers, as in this case, the Court is mandated
to uphold the presumption of innocence guaranteed by our Constitution to the accused.
