Barriga vs. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 161784-86 April 26, 2005 FACTS: FACTS: On April 3, 2003, the Office of the Ombudsman submitted three Amended Informations to the Sandiganbayan against Virginio Villamor (Municipal Mayor) and Dinah Barriga (Municipal Accountant) of the Municipality of Carmen, Cebu. The First Amended Information charged Barriga and Villamor with Malversation of Public Funds. Funds. The facts of this information stated that on or about January 1996, the said acccused had in their possession and custody public funds amounting to P23,047.20 intended for the payment of 5 rolls of Polyethelene pipes to be used in the Corte-Canumong Water Water System Project of the Municipality of Carmen, Cebu. Being public officers, they were held accountable for the funds. However, by this same capacity, the said accused misappropriated, took, embezzled, and converted the said amount for their own personal use and benefit . The second and third Amended Informations charged Villamor and Barriga with Illegal Use of Public Funds. Funds. The facts of the Second Information stated that on or about November 1995, the said accused had in their possession and control public funds amounting to P1305.00, representing a portion of the CVWSP Fund intended and appropriated for the Construction of Deep Well and Spring Box (Level I projects) and Water Works System (Level II projects) of specific brgy beneficiaries and recipients. By reason of the duties of their office, they are held accountable for the said funds. However, by such capacity, they connived, confederated and helped each other to disburse the said amount for the Spring Box of Brgy. Natimo-an, Carmen, Cebu. - a brgy not included as a recipient of the CVWSP Trust Fund. Thus, the accused used the said fund to a public purpose different from which it was intended or appropriated. The facts of the Third Information stated that on or about January 1997, the accused had in their possession P267, 537.96 from the CVWSP Fund intended for the same purpose as that in the 2nd Information. However, the accused disbursed the said amount for the construction & expansion of Brgy. Cantucong Water System, a level II project, thus the public funds were used for a public purpose different from that which it was intended or appropriated.
ISSUES: 1. WON the Sandiga Sandiganbayan nbayan has has jurisdiction jurisdiction over over the crimes crimes charged. charged. 2. If the court court has jurisdicti jurisdiction, on, WON Barriga Barriga should should also also be held liable: liable: A. Despite the Amended Informations' failure to show the intimate relations between the crimes charged and her official duties? B. Despite being only of SG 24? C. Despite the fact that she is not an accountable officer since, as Municipal Accountant, the funds in the Amended Informations were not under her control of administration?
HELD: 1. Yes. Based on the allegations in the Amended Informations and RA 8249, the Sandiganbayan has original jurisdiction over the crimes of Malversation and Illegal Use of Public Funds. RA 8249 -SB has orig jurisdiction over crimes and felonies committed by public officers and employees, at least one of whom belongs to any of the five categories thereunder enumerated at the time of the commission of such crimes. 2 classes of public office-related crimes under Sec.4(b), RA 8249: a. Public office is constituent element - offense cannot exist without office b. Intimately connected with public office - perpetrated by p.o./employee while in exercise of functions The Sandiganbayan has original jurisdiction over criminal cases involving crimes and felonies under the first classification. The Sandiganbayan likewise has original jurisdiction over criminal cases involving crimes or felonies committed by the public officers and employees enumerated in Section(a)(1) to (5) under the second classification if the Information contains specific factual
allegations showing the intimate connection between the offense charged and the public office of the accused, and the discharge of his official duties or functions - whether improper or irregular. The public office of the accused Municipal Mayor Virginio Villamor is a constituent element of malversation and illegal use of public funds or property. Accused mayor’s position is classified as SG 27. Since the Amended Informations alleged that the petitioner conspired with her co-accused in committing the said felonies, the fact that her position as municipal accountant is classified as SG 24 and as such is not an accountable officer is of no moment; the Sandiganbayan still has exclusive original jurisdiction over the cases lodged against her. 2. Yes. A. Considering that the public office of the accused is by statute a constituent element of the crime charged, there is no need for the Prosecutor to state in the Information specific factual allegations of the intimacy between the office and the crime charged, or that the accused committed the crime in the performance of his duties. B. The classification of the petitioner’s position as SG 24 is of no moment. moment. The determinative fact is that the position of her co-accused, the municipal mayor, is classified as SG 27, and under the last paragraph of Section 2 of Rep. Act No. 7975, if the position of one of the principal accused is classified as SG 27, the Sandiganbayan has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the offense. D. Under Section 474 of the Local Government Code, she is not obliged to receive public money or property, nor is she obligated to account for the same; hence, she is not an accountable officer within the context of Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code. Under the said article, an accountable public officer is one who has actual control of public funds or property by reason of the duties of his office. Even then, it cannot thereby be necessarily concluded con cluded that tha t a municipal accountant can never be convicted for malversation under the Revised Penal Code. The name or relative importance of the office or employment is not the controlling factor. The nature of the duties of the public officer or employee is the factor which determines whether or not malversation is committed committed by the accused public officer or employee. Hence, a mere clerk in the provincial or municipal government may be held guilty of malversation if he or she is entrusted with public funds and misappropriates the same. It must be stressed that a public officer who is not in charge of public funds/ property by virtue of her official position, or even a private individual, may be liable for malversation or illegal use of public funds or property if such public officer/private individual conspires with an accountable public officer to commit malversation or illegal use of public funds or property. The Court has also ruled that one who conspires with the provincial treasurer in committing six counts of malversation is also a co-principal in committing those offenses, and that a private person conspiring with an accountable public officer in committing malversation is also guilty of malversation (People v. Sendaydiego, G.R. Nos. L-33252 to L-33254).
