Estevez
Jaca v People (2013) Petitioners: Edna Jaca, Alan Gaviola, Eustaquio Cesa Brion The petitioners occupied appointive positions in the different divisions of the Cebu City overn!ent: Gaviola " City Ad!inistrator Cesa " the City Treasurer Bacas!as " Chief Cashier of the Cash #ivision, $hich is under the %ffice of t he City Treasurer, and Jaca " City Accountant &teps follo$ed in the rant of cash advances to a pay!aster in the Cebu City Govern!ent: '( Pay!as Pay!aster ters s request request for cash cash advanc advance e and prepar prepare e cash vouche vouchers rs )( C*+E CA&*+ECA&*+E- affi.es affi.es her her initials initials on Bo. A of the voucher voucher// for$ards for$ards to C+T0 T-EA&1-ET-EA&1-E2( C+T0 T-EA&1 T-EA&1-E-E- 3 Affi. Affi.es es sina sinatur ture e on Bo. Bo. A 4( 5oucher 5oucher is for$arde for$arded d to the C+T0 C+T0 ACC%16TA ACC%16TA6T 6T for for processin processin 7( C+T0 C+T0 ACC% ACC%16 16TA TA6T 6T sins sins Bo. Bo. B 8( 5oucher 5oucher is is returned returned to the C*+E C*+E CA&*+ECA&*+E- for for preparati preparation on of the the chec9 chec9 ( C+T0 C+T0 T-E T-EA& A&11-EE- si sins ns the the che chec9 c9 ;( C+T0 A#<+6 A#<+6+&T +&T-A -AT% T%- approve approves s the voucher voucher,, sins sins B%= C •
City Auditor Ariesa created a tea! of auditors to conduct a surprise audit accounts by officers assined at the Cash #ivision, %ffice of the City Treasurer(
•
A!on these $as pay!aster -osalina G( BA#A6A >in chare of payin the salaries of the e!ployees in ; different depart!ents?
•
@hile Badana Badana reported reported for for $or9 in in the early early !ornin !ornin she i!!ediat i!!ediately ely left upon learni learnin n of the the surprise surprise audit audit and and has not not reported for $or9 since(
•
The audit tea! reported that Badana incurred a cash shortae of P18M++.
•
Based on the the procedure procedure in the the processin processin of cash cash advances, advances, the audit audit tea! found found out that the the failure failure of the petitioner petitioners s to observe the rules overnin the rant, rant, utilization and liquidation of cash advances under different different C%A circulers circulers facilitated the co!!ission of !alversation of public funds(
Sandiganbayan found found the petitioners and Bacas!as uilty • •
*eld the petitioners solidarily liable to the Cebu City overn!ent for P';,7),'2('( All ele!ents under Sec 3(e) o! "# 301$ $ere established: '( )( 2( 4( 7(
Petitio Petitioner ners s are are all public public offici officials als The public public officials officials co!!itted co!!itted the prohibi prohibited ted acts durin durin the perfor!a perfor!ance nce of their their official official duties duties 1ndue inury inury suffered suffered by by the overn!ent overn!ent a!ounted a!ounted to P';(7< P';(7< 3 the a!ount a!ount of Badana Badanas s accu!ulated accu!ulated shortae shortae// Petitioners Petitioners ave ave un$arranted un$arranted benefits benefits to Badana, Badana, $hich resulted resulted in undue undue inury inury to the overn!ent, overn!ent, by illeally illeally allo$in allo$in her to obtain cash advances Petitioners Petitioners acted acted $ith ross ine.cusa ine.cusable ble nelie nelience nce in the the perfor!ance perfor!ance of of their duties( duties(
+&&1E: @D6 the petitioners petitioners are uilty uilty of violatio violation n of "# 301$ Sec 3(e)
0E&
-AT+%: •
A 2 petitioners put up the defense of G%%# A+T* in affi.in their sinatures to the disburse!ent vouchers( They A deny 9no$lede of Badanas shortaes until after t he surprise audit $as conducted
&C 1nder Sec '0 o! *% the City Treasurer is tas9ed $ith the ff duties: '( to ta9e custody custody of and and e.ercise e.ercise proper proper !anae!ent !anae!ent of of the funds funds of the G1 G1 2. ta9e chare of the disburse!ent of all local overn!ent funds and such other 1nder GC, City Treasure Treasurers rs cease to be funds the custody of $hich !ay be entrusted to hi! by la$ or other co!petent an approvi approvin n author authority ity in the rant of authority( cash advances( %esa (%ity &reasurer) *e si!ply adhered to the procedure lon observed prior to his assu!ption of office
Estevez
+t is the City Accountant $ho can approve By certifyin that the cash advances $ere Fnecessary and la$ful and incurred under his or disapprove cash advances or direct supervision,F Cesa cannot escape the obliation to deter!ine $hether Badana disburse!ents( co!plied $ith Section 8$ o! P, -o. 1'' >no cash advance unless for a leally authorized specific purpose? , EVEN IF the same requirement would have to be ultimately determined by the City Accountant. +n vie$ of the clear duty of the City Treasurer to e.ercise proper !anae!ent of the funds of the local overn!ent, Cesas insistence that he !erely follo$ed the established Fprocedures and syste!sF " neated his defense of ood faith(
Jaca (%ity #ccountant) &trict co!pliance $ith prior and co!plete liquidation of Badanas previous cash advances is Fi!practical and unrealistic(F About half of the Cebu City overn!ents e!ployees are $ee9ly"paid and the rest are paid at the !iddle and at the end of the !onth >quincena basis? " -esulted in a situation $here, before she can process the previous cash advance, another request already co!es in &o to avoid delay in salaries she affi.ed his sinature on Bo. B of the disburse!ent vouchers, as a !inisterial duty
*aviola (%ity #dinistrator) *e affi.ed his sinature on Bo. C of the vouchers because the City Accountant had earlier certified that Badanas previous cash advances $ere liquidated and accounted for( The approval of vouchers $as a !inisterial act +nvo9ed Arias v Sandiganbayan: @e $ould be settin a bad precedent if a head of office is suddenly s$ept into a conspirancy conviction si!ply because he did not e.a!ine every sinle detail, painsta9inly trace every sinle step in a transaction before affi.in his sinature as the final approvin authorityH
&C Jaca practically ad!itted havin sined B%= B even if she 9ne$ that Badanas previous cash advances had not yet been liquidated, and, that she did not bother to infor! the C%A that the accountin tools >inde. card and subsidiary leder? did not accurately !onitor cash advances( #uties of a City Accountant under *% ''/ '( install and !aintain an internal audit syste! )( revie$ supportin docu!ents before the preparation of vouchers 2( prepare state!ents of cash advances, liquidation, salaries, allo$ances, etc 4( prepare state!ents of ournal vouchers and liquidation of the sa!e 7( post individual disburse!ents to the subsidiary leder and inde. cards/ and 8( !aintain individual leders for officials and e!ployees of the local overn!ent unit pertainin to payrolls and deductions &C is 6%T convinced $ith her aru!ent that she $as !erely avoidin any delay in the pay!ent of salaries of local overn!ent e!ployees 3 As the City Accountant, fore!ost of her duties is to ensure that the local funds out of $hich the salaries of local overn!ent e!ployees $ould be paid are properly accounted for
&C The Arias rulin squarely applies $here, in the perfor!ance of his official duties, the *EA# of an office is bein held to ans$er for his act of relyin on the acts of his subordinate( +6 T*+& CA&E: The petitioners are heads of three +6#EPE6#E6T offices( The offices involved in the processin of cash advances are technically independent of each other/ one office does not for! part of, or is strictly under, another( " %ffice of the City Treasurer " %ffice of the City Accountant " %ffice of the City Ad!insitrator Each has independent functions to perfor! to ensure that the funds of the local overn!ent are disbursed properly and are $ell accounted for &%: Cant rely on Arias v Sandiganbayan
Gaviolas failure to inquire further before affi.in his sinature despite the absence of the Fparticulars of pay!entF in the disburse!ent vouchers I 6EG+GE6CE B1T *is additionally affi.in his sinature despite the lac9 of supportin docu!ents I G-%&& A6# +6E=C1&ABE #+&-EGA-# % T*E C%6&E1E6CE& % *+& ACT A& APP-%5+6G A1T*%-+T0
%-SP"#% •
The petitioners are all heads of their respective offices that perfor! interdependent functions in the processin of cash advances(
•
Their attitude of buc9"passin in the face of the irreularities in the voucher >and the absence of supportin docu!ents?, and their indifference to their individual and collective duties to ensure that la$s and reulations are observed in the disburse!ent of the funds of the local overn!ent of Cebu can only lead to a findin of conspiracy of silence and inaction
•
The separate acts or o!issions of all the accused in the present case contributed in the end result of defraudin the overn!ent(
Since each of the accused contributed to attain the end goal it can be concluded that their acts ta!en collectively satisfactorily "rove the e#istence of cons"iracy among them.
