FACTS:

This case involves petitions filed by different parties questioning the interlocutory order, decision, and resolution of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 25673 for malversation of public funds. The accused in this case are Melchor M. Mallare, the Municipal Mayor, and Elizabeth M. Gosudan, the Municipal Treasurer of Infanta, Pangasinan. The accused are charged with misappropriating public funds amounting to P1,487,107.40 through unlawful personal loans, payments without appropriation, and cash withdrawals. The trial consisted of the presentation of documents and testimonies by both the prosecution and the defense, which resulted in a decision on September 17, 2001, finding Mallare and Gosudan guilty of malversation. Mallare and Gosudan filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. They also filed a motion to reopen proceedings, arguing that their counsel committed a misjudgment by not presenting Mallare as a witness. The Sandiganbayan granted the motion and allowed the reception of Mallare's testimony. Petitions were filed questioning the Sandiganbayan's resolution granting the motion to reopen proceedings and the decision finding Mallare and Gosudan guilty of malversation.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the motion to reopen the proceedings was proper.

2. Whether or not the motion to reopen the proceedings tolled the running of the period to appeal.

3. Whether or not the respondent court had jurisdiction over the case when it granted the motion to reopen the proceedings.

4. Whether or not the respondent court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction for granting the motion to reopen the proceedings.

5. Whether the Sandiganbayan's decision convicting Mallare and Gosudan of the crime of Malversation of Public Funds was based on a misapprehension of the evidence.

6. Whether Mallare conspired with Gosudan and whether the money he received was used for a public purpose.

7. Whether full restitution was made within a reasonable time.

8. Whether Mallare and Gosudan are accountable for the public funds or property

9. Whether Mallare and Gosudan misappropriated or permitted another person to take the funds

10. Whether Gosudan is guilty of malversation of public funds for extending unofficial and unauthorized loans to municipal officials and employees.

11. Whether Mallare is guilty of malversation of public funds for accepting the loan amount from Gosudan without any supporting official voucher.

12. Whether conspiracy exists between Gosudan and Mallare in the illegal disbursement of the loan amounts.

13. Whether Zacaria A. Candao and Abas A. Candao are guilty of malversation of public funds for co-signing checks issued without required disbursement vouchers.

14. Whether the supposed disbursement vouchers presented by Mallare are spurious, fabricated, and/or falsified.

15. Whether restitution of the misappropriated funds can exonerate Mallare and Gosudan from the crime charged.

16. Whether the payment of malversed funds by the accused exempts him from liability for the crime of malversation of public funds.

RULING:

1. The Sandiganbayan ruled that the motion to reopen the proceedings was proper and did not violate any procedural rules. The court also ruled that the motion to reopen the proceedings did not toll the running of the period to appeal. The accused failed to appeal in accordance with the Rules of Court after the denial of their motion for reconsideration. The Sandiganbayan affirmed its original decision convicting the accused of the crime of Malversation of Public Funds beyond reasonable doubt, and found no cogent reason to disturb its previous decision. Therefore, the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion in granting the motion to reopen the proceedings.

2. The only standing issue is whether the Sandiganbayan was correct in finding Mallare and Gosudan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Malversation of Public Funds. The Court reviewed the records and found no reason to disturb the Sandiganbayan's decision of conviction against Mallare and Gosudan. They were found guilty of the crime of Malversation of Public Funds.

3. Mallare and Gosudan are accountable for the public funds or property. As municipal mayor and treasurer, respectively, they had the sworn duty to safely keep the funds and disburse them in accordance with standard procedure because the funds belong to the municipality and must only be used for the benefit of the municipality. They had control and responsibility over the funds of the municipality, making them accountable for any unlawful disbursement or misappropriation.

4. There was more than enough evidence to prove that Gosudan misappropriated the funds when she gave out loans to several co-employees including herself. Gosudan failed to produce the missing funds and explain the shortage in the accounting of municipal funds. She admitted that these loans were not covered by supporting vouchers signed by the Municipal Mayor nor officially entered in the cash book as official cash advances.

5. Gosudan is guilty of malversation of public funds for extending unofficial and unauthorized loans. The Sandiganbayan correctly ruled that the loans were nothing but personal loans taken from the cash account of the Municipality of Infanta, Pangasinan.

6. Mallare is guilty of malversation of public funds for accepting the loan amount from Gosudan without any supporting official voucher.

7. Conspiracy exists between Gosudan and Mallare in the illegal disbursement of the loan amounts.

8. Zacaria A. Candao and Abas A. Candao are guilty of malversation of public funds for co-signing checks issued without required disbursement vouchers.

9. The supposed disbursement vouchers presented by Mallare are spurious, fabricated, and/or falsified.

10. Restitution of the misappropriated funds does not exonerate Mallare and Gosudan from the crime charged.

11. The payment of malversed funds by the accused does not exempt him from liability for the crime of malversation of public funds. Payment of the amount malversed only serves as a mitigating circumstance akin to voluntary surrender.

PRINCIPLES:

• A motion to reopen proceedings may be proper if it is filed with valid grounds and does not violate procedural rules.

• The filing of a motion to reopen proceedings does not toll the running of the period to appeal, and parties should comply with the prescribed procedures for appeal in order to preserve their rights.

• To sustain a criminal conviction for the crime of Malversation of Public Funds, the following elements must be present: (1) the offender is a public officer; (2) he had custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his office; (3) those funds or property were public funds or property for which he was accountable; and (4) he appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented or, through abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take them.

• The failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public fund or property with which he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly authorized officer, shall be prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or property to personal uses.

• Municipal mayors and treasurers are accountable for public funds or property of the municipality.

• Municipal treasurers are accountable officers who are responsible for the safekeeping and proper management of the funds of the local government unit.

• Municipal mayors, as chief executives, are responsible for all government funds pertaining to the municipality.

• The standard practice in the disbursement of public funds is that they cannot be released and disbursed without the signatures of the Mayor and the Treasurer.

• In malversation cases, all that is necessary for conviction is sufficient proof that the accountable officer had received public funds and that he or she could not satisfactorily explain his or her failure to possess the funds.

• Direct evidence of personal misappropriation is not necessary in malversation cases.

• Anomalous loans taken from public funds are considered malversation of public funds.

• Conspiracy can be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime.

• In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.

• Joint signatures on checks can make officials liable for illegal withdrawals and embezzlement of public funds.

• Spurious or fabricated documents have no probative value in court.

• Restitution of misappropriated funds does not exempt the guilty person from liability for the crime.

• Payment of malversed funds does not exempt the guilty person from liability for the crime of malversation of public funds.

• Payment of malversed funds may be considered as a mitigating circumstance akin to voluntary surrender.