7/28/2019 Violeta Bahilidad vs People of Thephilippines

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/violeta-bahilidad-vs-people-of-thephilippines 1/2

 

VIOLETA BAHILIDAD VS PEOPLE OF THEPHILIPPINES 

G.R. No. 185195, March 17, 2010 

Malversation of Public Funds 

Facts:

Acting on a complaint filed by a

“Concerned Citizen of Sarangani Province” with the 

Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao against Mary AnnGadian, Amelia Carmela Zoleta, both assigned to

theOffice of the Vice-Governor, and a certain SheryllDesiree Tangan, from the Office of the

SangguniangPanlalawigan, for their alleged participation in thescheme of giving fictitious grants and

donations usingfunds of the provincial government, a special audit wasconducted in

Sarangani province. The Special AuditTeam, created for the purpose, conducted itsinvestigation from

June 1 to July 31, 2003. Included inthe list of alleged fictitious associations that benefitedfrom the

financial assistance given to certain Non-

Governmental Organizations (NGOs), People’s 

Organizations (POs), and Local Governmental Units(LGUs) was Women in Progress (WIP), which received

acheck in the amount of P20,000.00, issued in the nameof herein petitioner Bahilidad, as the Treasurer

thereof.Based on its findings, the Special Audit Teamrecommended the filing of charges of 

malversationthrough falsification of public documents against

theofficials involved. Issue: Is petitioner guilty of malversation of public funds?

Ruling:

NO.Inthe instant case, petitioner was found guilty of conspiring with Zoleta and other public officials in

thecommission of the crime of Malversation of Public Fundsthrough Falsification of 

Public Documents. The trial

7/28/2019 Violeta Bahilidad vs People of Thephilippines

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/violeta-bahilidad-vs-people-of-thephilippines 2/2

 

court relied on the dictum that the act of one is the actof all. It is necessary that a conspirator should

haveperformed some overt act as a direct or indirectcontribution to the execution of the

crimecommitted. The overt act may consist of activeparticipation in the actual commission of the crime

itself,or it may consist of moral assistance to his co-conspirators by being present at the commission of thecrime or by exerting moral ascendancy over the otherco-conspirators. Hence, the mere presence of 

anaccused at the discussion of a conspiracy, even approvalof it, without any active participation in the

same, is notenough for purposes of conviction.

In the instant case, we find petitio

ner’s participation in

the crime not adequately proven with moral certainty.Undeniably, petitioner, as a private individual,

had nohand in the preparation, processing or disbursement of the check issued in her name. A

cursory look at thedisbursement voucher (No. 101-2002-01-822) revealsthe following

signatures: signature of Board MemberTeodorico Diaz certifying that the cash advance isnecessary,

lawful and incurred under his directsupervision; signature of Provincial Accountant Camanaycertifying to

the completeness and propriety of thesupporting documents and to the liquidation of previouscash

advances; signature of Moises Magallona, Jr. overthe name of Provincial Treasurer Cesar M.

Cagangcertifying that cash is available; signature of Constantino, with the initials of Zoleta adjacent to

hisname, certifying that the disbursement is approved for

payment, and with petitioner’s signature as the payee. 

The Sandiganbayan faulted petitioner forimmediately encashing the check, insisting that she

should have deposited the check first. Such insistence isunacceptable. It defies logic. The check was

issued in

petitioner’s name and, as payee, she had the authority 

to encash it.

All told, there is reasonable doubtas to petitioner’s guilt. 

Where there is reasonabledoubt, an accused must be acquitted even though hisinnocence may not have

been fully established. Whenguilt is not proven with moral certainty, exonerationmust be granted as

a matter of right.