View full case

ALOYSIUS DAIT LUMAUIG v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

Aloysius Dait Lumauig (petitioner) was the former Municipal Mayor of Alfonso Lista, Ifugao. In August 1994, he received a cash advance of P101,736.00 for the payment of insurance coverage for twelve (12) motorcycles to be donated to the municipality. However, instead of motorcycles, he acquired two buses and five patrol cars. COA Auditor Paguirigan discovered the unliquidated cash advance during an examination of the municipality's records in January 1998. She claimed to have prepared two letters to inform the petitioner of the unliquidated cash advance, but they were not sent because his exact address was unknown. On June 4, 2001, the petitioner paid the cash advance before the treasurer of the municipality. The petitioner admitted to receiving the cash advance but claimed that he was neither informed nor received any demand from COA to liquidate the amount. He argued that he paid the cash advance in 2001 when he discovered the unliquidated amount while claiming for separation pay. The Sandiganbayan convicted the petitioner of Failure of Accountable Officer to Render Accounts under Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code, while acquitting him of the anti-graft charge. The petitioner argues that his exoneration in the anti-graft case should absolve him of further liability in the present case.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether a prior notice or demand for liquidation of cash advances is a condition sine qua non before an accountable public officer may be held liable under Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code.

  2. Whether the acquittal of the petitioner in the anti-graft case is a bar to his conviction for failure to render an account in the present case.

RULING:

  1. A prior notice or demand for liquidation of cash advances is not a condition sine qua non before an accountable public officer may be held liable under Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code. The court affirmed the conviction of the petitioner for failure to render accounts as he failed to liquidate the cash advance for a period of two months after such account should have been rendered, as required by law.

  2. The acquittal of the petitioner in the anti-graft case is not a bar to his conviction for failure to render an account in the present case. The court held that the exoneration in the anti-graft case does not extend to the present case as the elements and offenses charged in each case are different.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A prior notice or demand for liquidation of cash advances is not required for an accountable public officer to be held liable under Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code.

  • The same act may give rise to separate and distinct charges, and the exoneration in one case does not automatically extend to another case.

  • The elements of the offense under Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 are different from the elements of the felony under Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code.