SECONDDIVISION

[G.R.Nos.16178486.April26,2005]

DINAH C. BARRIGA, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN(4THDIVISION)andTHEPEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,respondents.

DECISIONCALLEJO,SR.,J.:

ThisisapetitionforcertiorariunderRule65oftheRulesofCourtforthenullificationoftheResolution[1]oftheSandiganbayaninCriminalCaseNos.27435to27437denyingthemotiontoquash the Informations filedbyoneof theaccused,DinahC.Barriga, and theResolutiondenyinghermotionforreconsiderationthereof.

TheAntecedents

OnApril3,2003,theOfficeoftheOmbudsmanfiledamotionwiththeSandiganbayanforthe admission of the three Amended Informations appended thereto. The first AmendedInformation docketed as Criminal CaseNo. 27435, charged petitioner DinahC. Barriga andVirginio E. Villamor, the Municipal Accountant and the Municipal Mayor, respectively, ofCarmen,Cebu,withmalversationoffunds.Theaccusatoryportionreads:

ThatinoraboutJanuary1996orsometimepriororsubsequentthereto,intheMunicipalityofCarmen,ProvinceofCebu,PhilippinesandwithinthejurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,abovenamedaccusedVIRGINIOE.VILLAMORandDINAHC.BARRIGA,bothpublicofficers,beingthentheMunicipalMayorandMunicipalAccountant,respectively,oftheMunicipalityofCarmen,Cebu,andassuch,hadintheirpossessionandcustodypublicfundsamountingtoTWENTYTHREETHOUSANDFORTYSEVENAND20/100PESOS(P23,047.20),PhilippineCurrency,intendedforthepaymentofFive(5)rollsofPolyethylenepipestobeusedintheCorteCantumogWaterSystemProjectoftheMunicipalityofCarmen,Cebu,forwhichtheyareaccountablebyreasonofthedutiesoftheiroffice,insuchcapacityandcommittingtheoffenseinrelationtooffice,connivingandconfederatingtogetherandmutuallyhelpingeachother,didthenandtherewillfully,unlawfullyandfeloniouslymisappropriate,take,embezzleandconvertintotheirownpersonaluseandbenefitsaidamountofP23,047.20,anddespitedemandsmadeuponthemtoaccountforsaidamount,theyhavefailedtodoso,tothedamageandprejudiceofthegovernment.

CONTRARYTOLAW.[2]

The inculpatory portion of the secondAmended Information, docketed asCriminalCaseNo.27436,chargingthesaidaccusedwithillegaluseofpublicfunds,reads:

ThatinoraboutthemonthofNovember1995,orsometimepriororsubsequentthereto,inthe

MunicipalityofCarmen,ProvinceofCebu,Philippines,andwithinthejurisdictionoftheHonorableCourt,abovenamedaccusedVIRGINIOE.VILLAMORandDINAHC.BARRIGA,bothpublicofficers,beingthentheMunicipalMayorandMunicipalAccountant,respectively,oftheMunicipalityofCarmen,Cebu,andassuch,hadintheirpossessionandcontrolpublicfundsintheamountofONETHOUSANDTHREEHUNDREDFIVEPESOS(P1,305.00)PhilippineCurrency,representingaportionoftheCentralVisayasWaterandSanitationProjectTrustFund(CVWSPFund)intendedandappropriatedfortheprojectsclassifiedunderLevelIandIIIparticularlytheconstructionofDeepWellandSpringBoxforLevelIprojectsandconstructionofwaterworkssystemforLevelIIIprojectsofspecifiedbarangaybeneficiaries/recipients,andforwhichfundaccusedareaccountablebyreasonofthedutiesoftheiroffice,insuchcapacityandcommittingtheoffenseinrelationtooffice,connivingandconfederatingtogetherandmutuallyhelpingeachother,didthenandthere,willfullyunlawfullyandfeloniouslydisburseandusesaidamountofP1,305.00fortheSpringBoxofBarangayNatimaoan,Carmen,Cebu,abarangaywhichwasnotincludedasarecipientofCVWSPTrustFund,thus,accusedusedsaidpublicfundtoapublicpurposedifferentfromwhichitwasintendedorappropriated,tothedamageandprejudiceofthegovernment,particularlythebarangayswhichwereCVWSPTrustFundbeneficiaries.

CONTRARYTOLAW.[3]

Theaccusatoryportionof thethirdAmendedInformation,docketedasCriminalCaseNo.27437,chargedthesameaccusedwithillegaluseofpublicfunds,asfollows:

ThatinoraboutthemonthofJanuary1997,orsometimepriororsubsequentthereto,intheMunicipalityofCarmen,ProvinceofCebu,Philippines,andwithinthejurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,abovenamedaccusedVirginioE.VillamorandDinahC.Barriga,bothpublicofficers,beingthentheMunicipalMayorandMunicipalAccountant,respectively,oftheMunicipalityofCarmen,Cebu,andassuch,hadintheirpossessionandcontrolpublicfundsintheamountofTWOHUNDREDSIXTYSEVENTHOUSANDFIVEHUNDREDTHIRTYSEVENand96/100(P267,537.96)PESOS,representingaportionoftheCentralVisayasWaterandSanitationProjectTrustFund(CVWSPFund),intendedandappropriatedfortheprojectsclassifiedunderLevelIandLevelIII,particularlytheconstructionofSpringBoxandDeepWellforLevelIprojectsandconstructionofwaterworkssystemforLevelIIIprojectsofspecifiedbarangaybeneficiaries/recipients,andforwhichfundaccusedareaccountablebyreasonforthedutiesoftheiroffice,insuchcapacityandcommittingtheoffenseinrelationtooffice,connivingandconfederatingtogetherandmutuallyhelpingeachother,didthenandtherewillfully,unlawfullyandfeloniouslydisburseandusesaidamountofP267,537.96fortheconstructionandexpansionofBarangayCantucongWaterSystem,aprojectfallingunderLevelIIofCVWSP,thus,accusedusedsaidpublicfundstoapublicpurposedifferentfromwhichitwasintendedandappropriated,tothedamageandprejudiceofthegovernment,particularlythebarangaybeneficiariesofLevelsIandIIIofCVWSP.

CONTRARYTOLAW.[4]

The Sandiganbayan granted the motion and admitted the Amended Informations. Thepetitioner filed aMotion toQuash the said Amended Informations on the ground that underSection 4 ofRepublic ActNo. 8294, theSandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over the crimescharged. She averred that theAmended Informations failed to allege and show the intimaterelationbetweenthecrimeschargedandherofficialdutiesasmunicipalaccountant,whichareconditionssine qua non for the graft court to acquire jurisdiction over the said offense. Sheaverred that the prosecution and the Commission on Audit admitted, and no less than thisCourt held in Tan v. Sandiganbayan,[5] that a municipal accountant is not an accountable

officer.Sheallegedthatthefeloniesofmalversationandillegaluseofpublicfunds,forwhichshe is charged, are not included inChapter 11, Section 2, TitleVII, Book II, of theRevisedPenalCodehence,theSandiganbayanhasnojurisdictionoverthesaidcrimes.Moreover,herpositionasmunicipalaccountantisclassifiedasSalaryGrade(SG)24.

ThepetitioneralsopositedthatalthoughtheSandiganbayanhasjurisdictionoveroffensescommittedbypublicofficialsandemployeesinrelationtotheiroffice,themereallegationintheAmendedInformationsthatshecommittedtheoffenseschargedinrelationtoherofficeisnotsufficient as the phrase is merely a conclusion of law controlling are the specific factualallegationsintheInformationsthatwouldindicatethecloseintimacybetweenthedischargeofherofficialdutiesandthecommissionoftheoffensescharged.Tobolsterherstance,shecitedthe rulings of this Court in People v. Montejo,[6]Soller v. Sandiganbayan,[7] and Lacson v.ExecutiveSecretary.[8]ShefurthercontendedthatalthoughtheAmendedInformationsallegedthatsheconspiredwithhercoaccusedtocommitthecrimescharged,theyfailedtoallegeandshowherexactparticipationintheconspiracyandhowshecommittedthecrimescharged.Shealsopointedout that the fundssubjectof thesaidAmendedInformationswerenotunderhercontroloradministration.

OnOctober9,2003, theSandiganbayanissuedaResolution[9]denyingthemotionof thepetitioner. Themotion for reconsideration thereof was, likewise, denied, with the graft courtholdingthattheapplicablerulingofthisCourtwasMontillav.Hilario,[10]i.e.,thatanoffenseiscommitted in relation to public office when there is a direct, not merely accidental, relationbetween the crime charged and the office of the accused such that, in a legal sense, theoffense would not exist without the office in other words, the office must be a constituentelementofthecrimeasdefinedinthestatute.Thegraftcourtfurtherheldthattheofficesofthemunicipal mayor and themunicipal accountant were constituent elements of the felonies ofmalversationandillegaluseofpublicfunds.ThegraftcourtemphasizedthattherulingsofthisCourtinPeoplev.Montejo[11]andLacsonv.ExecutiveSecretary[12]applyonlywheretheofficeheld by the accused is not a constituent element of the crimes charged. In such cases, theInformationmustcontainspecificfactualallegationsshowingthatthecommissionofthecrimescharged is intimately connected with or related to the performance of the accused publicofficerspublicfunctions.Infine,thegraftcourtopined,thebasicruleisthatenunciatedbythisCourtinMontillav.Hilario,andtherulingofthisCourtinPeoplev.Montejoistheexception.

The petitioner thus filed the instant petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules ofCourt,seekingtonullifytheaforementionedResolutionsoftheSandiganbayan.Thepetitionerclaimsthatthegraftcourtcommittedgraveabuseofitsdiscretionamountingtoexcessorlackofjurisdictioninissuingthesame.

Initscommentonthepetition,theOfficeoftheSpecialProsecutoraverredthattheremedyof filing a petition forcertiorari, from a denial of amotion to quash amended information, isimproper. Itposits thatanyerrorcommittedby theSandiganbayan indenying thepetitionersmotiontoquashismerelyanerrorofjudgmentandnotofjurisdiction.ItassertsthatasruledbytheSandiganbayan,whatappliesistherulingofthisCourtinMontillav.HilarioandnotPeoplev. Montejo. Furthermore, the crimes of malversation and illegal use of public funds areclassifiedascrimescommittedbypublicofficersinrelationtotheiroffice,whichbytheirnaturefallwithin the jurisdictionof theSandiganbayan. It insists that there is nomoreneed for theAmendedInformationstospecificallyallegeintimacybetweenthecrimeschargedandtheofficeoftheaccusedsincethesaidcrimescanonlybecommittedbypublicofficers.Itfurtherclaimsthat the petitioner has been charged of malversation and illegal use of public funds inconspiracywithMunicipalMayorVirginioE.Villamor,whooccupiesapositionclassifiedasSG

27 and even if the petitioners position asmunicipal accountant is only classified asSG24,underSection4ofRep.ActNo.8249, theSandiganbayanstill has jurisdictionover thesaidcrimes.TheOfficeoftheSpecialProsecutorfurtheraversthatthepetitionersclaim,thatsheisnotanaccountableofficer,isamatterofdefense.

TheRulingoftheCourt

Thepetitionhasnomerit.We agree with the ruling of the Sandiganbayan that based on the allegations of the

Amended Informations andRep.ActNo. 8249, it has original jurisdiction over the crimes ofmalversationand illegaluseofpublic fundscharged in theAmended Informationssubjectofthispetition.

Rep.ActNo.8249,[13]whichamendedSection4ofPresidentialDecreeNo.1606,provides,interalia, thattheSandiganbayanhasoriginal jurisdictionovercrimesandfeloniescommittedbypublicofficersandemployees,at leastoneofwhombelongs toanyof the fivecategoriesthereunderenumeratedatthetimeofthecommissionofsuchcrimes.[14]Therearetwoclassesofpublicofficerelatedcrimesundersubparagraph(b)ofSection4ofRep.ActNo.8249:first,thosecrimesorfeloniesinwhichthepublicofficeisaconstituentelementasdefinedbystatuteandtherelationbetweenthecrimeandtheoffenseissuchthat, inalegalsense,theoffensecommitted cannot exist without the office[15] second, such offenses or felonies which areintimatelyconnectedwiththepublicofficeandareperpetratedbythepublicofficeroremployeewhileintheperformanceofhisofficialfunctions,throughimproperorirregularconduct.[16]

The Sandiganbayan has original jurisdiction over criminal cases involving crimes andfelonies under the first classification. Considering that the public office of the accused is bystatuteaconstituentelementofthecrimecharged,thereisnoneedfortheProsecutortostateintheInformationspecificfactualallegationsoftheintimacybetweentheofficeandthecrimecharged,or that theaccusedcommittedthecrimeintheperformanceofhisduties.However,the Sandiganbayan likewise has original jurisdiction over criminal cases involving crimes orfeloniescommittedby thepublicofficersandemployeesenumerated inSection (a) (1) to (5)under thesecondclassification if theInformationcontainsspecific factualallegationsshowingtheintimateconnectionbetweentheoffensechargedandthepublicofficeoftheaccused,andthe discharge of his official duties or functions whether improper or irregular.[17] TherequirementisnotcompliedwithiftheInformationmerelyallegesthattheaccusedcommittedthecrimechargedinrelationtohisofficebecausesuchallegationismerelyaconclusionoflaw.[18]

Two of the felonies that belong to the first classification are malversation defined andpenalized by Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, and the illegal use of public funds orproperty defined and penalized by Article 220 of the same Code. The public office of theaccusedisaconstituentelementinbothfelonies.

For the accused to be guilty of malversation, the prosecution must prove the followingessentialelements:

(a)Theoffenderisapublicofficer

(b)Hehasthecustodyorcontroloffundsorpropertybyreasonofthedutiesofhisoffice

(c)Thefundsorpropertyinvolvedarepublicfundsorpropertyforwhichheisaccountableand

(d)Hehasappropriated,takenormisappropriated,orhasconsentedto,orthroughabandonmentornegligence,permittedthetakingbyanotherpersonof,suchfundsorproperty.[19]

For theaccused tobeguiltyof illegal useof public fundsorproperty, theprosecution isburdenedtoprovethefollowingelements:

(1)Theoffendersareaccountableofficersinbothcrimes.

(2)Theoffenderinillegaluseofpublicfundsorpropertydoesnotderiveanypersonalgainorprofitinmalversation,theoffenderincertaincasesprofitsfromtheproceedsofthecrime.

(3)Inillegaluse,thepublicfundorpropertyisappliedtoanotherpublicuseinmalversation,thepublicfundorpropertyisappliedtothepersonaluseandbenefitoftheoffenderorofanotherperson.[20]

We agree with the ruling of the Sandiganbayan that the public office of the accusedMunicipalMayorVirginioE.Villamorisaconstituentelementofmalversationandillegaluseofpublicfundsorproperty.AccusedmayorspositionisclassifiedasSG27.SincetheAmendedInformationsallegedthatthepetitionerconspiredwithhercoaccused,themunicipalmayor,incommittingthesaidfelonies,thefactthatherpositionasmunicipalaccountantisclassifiedasSG24andassuchisnotanaccountableofficerisofnomomenttheSandiganbayanstillhasexclusive original jurisdiction over the cases lodged against her. It must be stressed that apublicofficerwhoisnotinchargeofpublicfundsorpropertybyvirtueofherofficialposition,orevenaprivateindividual,maybeliableformalversationorillegaluseofpublicfundsorpropertyifsuchpublicofficerorprivateindividualconspireswithanaccountablepublicofficertocommitmalversationorillegaluseofpublicfundsorproperty.

InUnitedStatesv.Ponte,[21]theCourt,citingViada,hadtheoccasiontostate:

Shallthepersonwhoparticipatesorintervenesascoperpetrator,accompliceorabettorinthecrimeofmalversationofpublicfunds,committedbyapublicofficer,havethepenaltiesofthisarticlealsoimposeduponhim?Inoppositiontotheopinionmaintainedbysomejuristsandcommentators(amongothersthelearnedPacheco)wecanonlyanswerthequestionaffirmatively,forthesamereasons(mutatismutandis)wehavealreadyadvancedinQuestionIofthecommentaryonarticle314.Frenchjurisprudencehasalsosettledthequestioninthesamewayonthegroundthatthepersonguiltyofthecrimenecessarilyaidstheotherculpritintheactswhichconstitutethecrime.(Vol.2,4thedition,p.653)

ThereasoningbywhichGroizardandViadasupporttheirviewsastothecorrectinterpretationoftheprovisionsofthePenalCodetouchingmalversationofpublicfundsbyapublicofficial,isequallyapplicableinouropinion,totheprovisionsofActNo.1740definingandpenalizingthatcrime,andwehaveheretofore,inthecaseoftheUnitedStatesvs.Dowdell(11Phil.Rep.,4),imposedthepenaltyprescribedbythissectionofthecodeuponapublicofficialwhotookpartwithanotherinthemalversationofpublicfunds,althoughitwasnotalleged,andinfactclearlyappeared,thatthosefundswerenotinhishandsbyvirtueofhisoffice,thoughitdidappearthattheywereinthehandsofhiscoprincipalbyvirtueofthepublicofficeheldbyhim.[22]

TheCourthasalsoruledthatonewhoconspireswiththeprovincialtreasurerincommitting

sixcountsofmalversationisalsoacoprincipalincommittingthoseoffenses,andthataprivatepersonconspiringwithanaccountablepublicofficerincommittingmalversationisalsoguiltyofmalversation.[23]

We reiterate that theclassificationof thepetitionerspositionasSG24 isofnomoment.Thedeterminativefactisthatthepositionofhercoaccused,themunicipalmayor,isclassifiedasSG27,andunderthelastparagraphofSection2ofRep.ActNo.7975,ifthepositionofoneoftheprincipalaccusedisclassifiedasSG27,theSandiganbayanhasoriginalandexclusivejurisdictionovertheoffense.

WeagreewiththepetitionerscontentionthatunderSection474oftheLocalGovernmentCode,sheisnotobligedtoreceivepublicmoneyorproperty,norissheobligatedtoaccountforthe same hence, she is not an accountable officer within the context of Article 217 of theRevisedPenalCode. Indeed,under thesaidarticle,anaccountablepublicofficer isonewhohasactualcontrolofpublicfundsorpropertybyreasonofthedutiesofhisoffice.Eventhen,itcannot therebybenecessarilyconcludedthatamunicipalaccountantcanneverbeconvictedformalversationundertheRevisedPenalCode.Thenameorrelativeimportanceoftheofficeoremployment isnot thecontrollingfactor.[24]Thenatureof thedutiesof thepublicofficeroremployee,thefactthataspartofhisdutieshereceivedpublicmoneyforwhichheisboundtoaccountandfailedtoaccountforit,isthefactorwhichdetermineswhetherornotmalversationiscommittedbytheaccusedpublicofficeroremployee.Hence,amereclerkintheprovincialormunicipalgovernmentmaybeheldguiltyofmalversation ifheorshe isentrustedwithpublicfundsandmisappropriatesthesame.

IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. Costsagainstthepetitioner.

SOORDERED.Puno,(Chairman),AustriaMartinez,Tinga,andChicoNazario,JJ.,concur.

[1]PennedbyAssociateJusticeGregoryS.Ong,withAssociateJusticesRodolfoG.Palattao(retired)andNorbertoY.Geraldez,concurring.

[2]Rollo,pp.4849.[3]Id.at5152.[4]Id.at5455.[5]G.R.Nos.8847596,5August1993,225SCRA156.[6]108Phil.613(1960).[7]G.R.Nos.14426162,9May2001,357SCRA677.[8]G.R.No.128096,20January1999,301SCRA298.[9]Rollo,pp.3340.[10]90Phil.49(1951).[11]Supra.

[12]Supra.[13]Jurisdiction.TheSandiganbayanshallexerciseexclusiveoriginaljurisdictioninallcasesinvolving:

a.ViolationsofRepublicActNo.3019,asamended,otherwiseknownastheAntiGraftandCorruptPracticesAct,RepublicActNo.1379,andChapterII,Section2,TitleVII,BookIIoftheRevisedPenalCode,whereoneor more of the accused are officials occupying the following positions in the government, whether in apermanent,actingorinterimcapacity,atthetimeofthecommissionoftheoffense:

(1)Officialof theexecutivebranchoccupying thepositionsof regionaldirectorandhigher,otherwiseclassifiedasGrade27andhigher,oftheCompensationandPositionClassificationActof1989(RepublicActNo.6758),specificallyincluding:

(a) Provincial governors, vicegovernors, members of the sangguniang panlalawigan, and provincial treasurers,assessors,engineers,andotherprovincialdepartmentheads

(b)Citymayors,vicemayors,membersof thesangguniangpanlungsod,city treasurers,assessors,engineersandothercitydepartmentheads

(c)Officialsofthediplomaticserviceoccupyingthepositionofconsulandhigher

(d)Philippinearmyandairforcecolonels,navalcaptains,andallofficersofhigherrank

(e)OfficersofthePhilippineNationalPolicewhileoccupyingthepositionofprovincialdirectorandthoseholdingtherankofseniorsuperintendentorhigher

(f)Cityandprovincialprosecutorsandtheirassistants,andofficialandprosecutorsintheOfficeoftheOmbudsmanandspecialprosecutorand

(g)Presidents,directorsortrustees,ormanagersofgovernmentownedorcontrolledcorporations,stateuniversitiesoreducationalinstitutionsorfoundations.

(2)MembersofCongressandofficials thereofclassifiedasGrade2andupunder theCompensationandPositionClassificationActof1989

(3)MembersofthejudiciarywithoutprejudicetotheprovisionsoftheConstitution

(4)ChairmenandmembersofConstitutionalCommissions,withoutprejudice to theprovisionsof theConstitutionand

(5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade 27 and higher under the Compensation and PositionClassificationActof1989.

b.Otheroffensesor felonieswhethersimpleorcomplexedwithothercrimescommittedbythepublicofficialsandemployeesmentionedinsubsection(a)ofthissectioninrelationtotheiroffice.

c.CivilandcriminalcasesfiledpursuanttoandinconnectionwithExecutiveOrderNos.1,2,14and14A,issuedin1986.

In cases where none of the accused are occupying positions corresponding to Salary Grade 27 or higher, asprescribed in the said Republic Act No. 6758, or military and PNP officers mentioned above, exclusiveoriginaljurisdictionthereofshallbevestedintheproperregionaltrialcourt,metropolitantrialcourt,municipaltrialcourt,andmunicipalcircuittrialcourt,asthecasemaybe,pursuanttotheirrespectivejurisdictionsasprovidedinBatasPambansaBlg.129,asamended.

[14]Indingv.Sandiganbayan,G.R.No.143047,14July2004,434SCRA388.[15]Montillav.Hilario,supra.[16]Peoplev.Montejo,supra.[17]Ibid.[18]Lacsonv.ExecutiveSecretary,supra.

[19]Sarigumbav.Sandiganbayan,G.R.No.15423941,16February2005.[20]Reyes,TheRevisedPenalCode,BookII,13thed.,p.378.[21]20Phil.379(1911).[22]Id.at384385.[23]Peoplev.Sendaydiego,G.R.Nos.L33252toL33254,20January197881SCRA120.[24]Quionv.People,G.R.No.136462,19September2002389SCRA412.