View full case

SERGIO O. VALENCIA v. SANDIGANBAYAN

FACTS:

Sergio O. Valencia, the petitioner, filed a Petition for Certiorari seeking to reverse the Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan. The case involved alleged irregularities in the utilization and additional grant of Confidential and Intelligence Fund (CIF) to the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO), wherein the petitioner was the Chairman of the Board of Directors. After the presentation of evidence, the Sandiganbayan granted the petitioner's petition for bail. The petitioner then filed a Motion for Leave of Court to File Demurrer to Evidence, arguing that the elements of the crime of plunder were not established and that there was no evidence of conspiracy. In its April 6, 2015 Resolution, the Sandiganbayan denied the petitioner's Demurrer to Evidence. The court found enough evidence to convict the petitioner of malversation under the Revised Penal Code. The missing detail and supporting documents for the alleged confidential missions and assignments using CIF funds raised doubts as to where the funds went. Despite the petitioner's inability to produce these documents and certifications from relevant agencies stating they had no records of the projects, the court found sufficient evidence to convict the petitioner of malversation.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether there is sufficient evidence to hold the petitioner liable for malversation under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code.

  2. Whether the petitioner conspired with his co-accused.

  3. Whether the credit advices issued by the Commission on Audit (COA) are binding on the Ombudsman or the court.

RULING:

  1. The Sandiganbayan ruled that there is sufficient evidence to convict the petitioner of malversation under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code. Despite not being fully liable for plunder, as he did not amass an amount of at least P50 million, there was evidence that his cash advances for confidential and intelligence funds were irregular and could not be accounted for properly. The petitioner's repeated statements that supporting details and documents were in his possession, yet could not be produced, along with testimonies from law enforcement agencies that there were no records of any projects for which the funds were allegedly disbursed, led the court to conclude that there is sufficient evidence to convict him of malversation.

  2. The Sandiganbayan found that there was not enough evidence to prove that the petitioner conspired with his co-accused.

  3. The Sandiganbayan ruled that the credit advices issued by the COA were binding only on the COA and did not automatically absolve the petitioner of criminal responsibility. The court held that these credit advices only affected the petitioner's administrative accountability, but not his criminal liability.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A variance between the offense charged and the offense proved does not result in acquittal if the offense proved is included in the offense charged or necessarily includes the offense charged. (Section 4, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure)

  • Credit advices issued by the COA are binding only on the COA and do not automatically absolve an individual of criminal responsibility.