REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

QUEZON CITY

SEVENTH DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff-Appellee, Grim. Case No. SB-18-A/R-0002
For: Malversation ofPublic Funds

Present:
- versus - Gomez-Estoesta, J., Chairperson^
Trespeses, J. and
Hidalgo, J.

HELENA.RAMOS,
Accused-Appellant. Promulgated:

a.%

DECISION

TRESPESES,/.:

This is an Appeal from the Decision dated 20 April 2018^ of the

Regional Trial Court ofSan Fernando City,La Union,Branch 66,in Criminal
Case No. 11128, finding accused-appellant Helen A. Ramos guilty of the
crime of Malversation of Public Funds penalized under Art. 217 of the
Revised Penal Code,the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, accused HELEN A.

RAMOS is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt ofthe crime
ofMalversation ofPublic Funds defined and penalized under Article 217 of
the Revised Penal Code, and accused is hereby sentenced, to suffer an
indeterminate prison term of four (4) years of prision correccional as
minimum to eight(8) years ofprision mayor as maximum with perpetual
special disqualification. Accused is also ordered to pay a fine in the amount
ofP143,320.00.

SO ORDERED.
y-
'Record, pp. 0007-0013.
/
r
DECISION
Crim. Case No. 18-A/R-0002
People V. Ramos
Page 2 of 18
X X

On 21 May 2018, accused-appellant filed a notice of appeal.

The Antecedents

Accused-appellant Ramos was charged with Malversation of Public

Funds defined and penalized under Art. 217 ofthe Revised Penal Code in an
Information^ which reads:

That from December 2007 to December 2010, or sometime prior or

subsequent thereto, in San Femando City, La Union, Philippines, and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused HELEN A. RAMOS, a
public officer, being then the Barangay Treasurer of Barangay Biday, San
Femando La Union,and as such,accountable for public funds received and/or
entrusted to her by reason of her office, taking advantage of her official
position and committing the offense in relation to her office, did then and
there, willfully, unlawfiilly and feloniously take, misappropriate and convert
to her personal use and benefit, or through abandonment or negligence permit
another to take public funds under her charge or custody, amounting to One
Hundred Forty Three Thousand Three Hundred Twenty Pesos(P143,320.00)
representing the unremitted cash collections ofthe barangay for the period of
December 2007 to December 2010, which amount accused failed to account
for, and retum despite demand by the Commission on Audit, to the damage
and prejudice ofthe government in the aforesaid amount.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

On 19 August 2015,the court a quo found probable cause and a warrant

of arrest was issued against accused-appellant Ramos. On 28 August 2015,
she posted cash bond for her provisional liberty.

Upon arraignment on 10 September 2015, accused-appellant, assisted

by counsel de oficio, pleaded not guilty to the offense charged against her.
After the pre-trial was terminated, trial ensued.

The Prosecution's Evidence

The prosecution presented three witnesses, namely: Sharon Dulay

(Dulay) and Evelyn Nisperos (Nisperos) of the Commission on Audit, and
Barangay Chairperson Federico Valdez(Valdez).

The prosecution's version of the facts of the case is based on the

documentary evidence offered and the testimonies of the three witnesses
summarized, as follows:
^ *

y'
^ Record,p.0004-0006. ^
DECISION
Crim. Case No. 18-A/R-0002
People V. Ramos
Page 3 of 18

Accused-appellant Ramos was the Barangay Treasurer of Barangay

Biday, San Fernando City, La Union,from December 2007 to August 2010.

Commission on Audit (COA) State Auditors Dulay and Nisperos

conducted a cyclical audit on the accounts of Barangay Biday for the period
December 2007 to December 2010. They secured from the City Treasurer's
Office a list of the official receipts^ received by Barangay Biday. The list
showed that Barangay Biday was issued a total of 47 booklets of official
receipts.

On 5 October 2010, during the cash examination conducted by COA

Auditors, accused-appellant turned over the barangay cash boold and 29
booklets of official receipts. The COA auditors reconciled the recorded
official receipts ofthe barangay issued by accused-appellant as against the list
secured from the City Treasurer's Office, and found that aside from the 29
booklets, there were 18 official receipt booklets^ that were not recorded and
deposited. Prosecution witness Dulay testified that the unrecorded official
receipts subject of this case were submitted to them by Acting Barangay
Treasurer Cherilyn G. Lachica. The amount indicated in the unrecorded
receipts were also not reflected in the Bank Statement issued by the Landbank
ofthe Philippines.^

Per Cash Exam Report,^ there was a cash shortage in the amount of
PI43,320.00, representing the unremitted collection of accused-appellant
from January 2009 to August 2010. Attached to the report was the breakdown
ofthe unrecorded and unremitted collections.^

A demand letter dated 22 October 2010^ was sent to accused-appellant

Ramos requiring her to produce the missing fimds and to explain the shortage.
Despite receipt of the demand, accused-appellant failed to return the amount
and to give any explanation.In a letter dated 15 July 2011,^® accused-appellant
stated that she is taking full responsibility of the shortage amounting to
PI43,320.00 and agreed to restitute the same on a staggered basis. On even
date, accused-appellant and Auditor Nisperos entered into an amicable
settlements^ in die barangay wherein accused-appellant agreed to settle her
obligation within one month therefrom. However, no restitution was made.

3 Exhs. P,P-l, Q,Q-2,R,R-2, S, T,T-2, U and V.

-^Exh-M.
5Exh.NtoN-849
® Exh. W and series.
^Exh. G.
y"
8Exh.F.
^ExkH.
'«Exh.I..
"Exh. O (previously marked as Exh. M).
DECISION
Crim. Case No. 18-A/R-0002
People V. Ramos
Page 4 of 18
X X

Evidence for the Defense

The evidence for the defense is based solely on the testimony of

accused-appellant Helen A. Ramos.

Accused-appellant admitted that she assumed the position ofBarangay

Treasurer ofBarangay Biday from December 2007 until 30 August 2010. She
testified that in the latter part of August 2010, she and her children went to
Saudi Arabia to visit her husband. While in Saudi, she received messages on
her Facebook account telling her that she could no longer serve as barangay
treasurer because of her cash shortage. When she returned to the Philippines
on 29 September 2010, she was not allowed to assume her position. She was
told to just wait for the case that will be filed against her.

Accused-appellant questioned the audit because she was not present

when it was conducted. She also explained that based on the regular
procedure, ifthe issued booklets are already consumed,the accounting office
will make a balance ofthe receipts. The amount collected based on the receipts
will be deposited to the bank. The deposit slips will be brought to the
accounting office again for the balancing ofthe receipts and the deposit slips
before they are issued new receipts. Accused-appellant claimed that all
collections based on the deposit slips dated 14 January 2009 to 1 March 2010
were deposited,and copies ofthe deposit slips were in her files in the barangay
hall.

Accused-appellant also admitted having executed a letter dated 15 July

2011 but claimed that the contents were only dictated to her by Barangay
Chairperson Valdez so that everything will be over. Present during that time
were COA Auditors Dulay and Nisperos, Barangay Chairperson Valdez, and
members of the barangay council. Accused-appellant also disputed the
amicable settlement entered in the barangay. She claimed that prior to 5
October 2010,there were audits conducted and no shortage was reported.

After the trial,the court a quo rendered its Decision dated 20 April 2018
finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Malversation of Public Funds. The Decision was promulgated on 16 May
2018, copy furnished the parties and their counsels. On accused-appellant's
motion, she was allowed provisional liberty under the same bail she posted
pending finality ofthe Decision.

Accused-appellant did not file any motion for reconsideration. On 21

May 2018, accused-appellant filed before the court a quo a Notice of Appeal
praying that the records of the case be elevated to the Court of Appeals.^^

Record, pp. 141-143. 7

1r
DECISION
Crim. Case No. 18-A/R-0002
People V. Ramos
Page 5 of 18
X X

Considering that it was seasonably perfected,the appeal was given due course
in the Order dated 23 May 2018 by the court a quo?^

Thereafter, accused-appellant filed a Manifestation with Motion

alleging that her counsel inadvertently filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court
of Appeals instead of a Notice of Appeal to the Sandiganbayan.^"^ Thus, she
prayed that correction be made and that the previously filed notice be
considered as her Notice ofAppeal to the Sandiganbayan.

On 20 June 2018, there being no objection on the part of the

prosecution, the court a quo granted accused-appellant's motion and ordered
the records ofthe case forwarded to the Sandiganbayan.^^

Assignment of Errors

Accused avers that the court a quo erred in finding her guilty of the
crime charged based on the following grounds:

1. THAT THE LOWER COURT COMMITTED A

REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT RULED THAT
ACCUSED-APPELLANT WAS GUILTY OF
MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS;

2. THE LOWER COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE

ERROR WHEN IT RULED THAT ACCUSED-
APPELLANT MISAPPROPRIATED PUBLIC FUNDS
FOR HER PERSONAL USE.

Accused-appellant disputes the findings that the public funds in her

custody were appropriated, taken, misappropriated or consented or through
abandonment or negligence, permitted to be taken by another person. She
argues that all the funds collected were fully receipted and deposited to the
City Treasurer's Office and thus, she questions how the COA auditors came
up with the cash shortage. Further, the breakdown of unrecorded and
undeposited collection prepared by the COA auditors is self-serving.

There was also no proof that accused-appellant made the collection of

various amounts totaling to P143,320.00. The documents which were the
bases for the cash exam such as the Official Receipts,List ofOfficial Receipts

Id. at 144.
Record, pp. 503-504.
'Md.at505.
SB Records, p.65.

f
DECISION
Crim. Case No. 18-A/R-0002
People V. Ramos
Page 6 of 18
X X

issued to Barangay Biday and bank statements were not presented and
identified by the prosecution witnesses.^^

She asserts that the court a quo should not have dwelt on the
handwritten letter dated 15 July 2011 for being inadmissible in evidence, the
same having been executed through force and intimidation. She claims that
she was not assisted by a counsel of her choice when the letter was made,
which was a clear violation ofher constitutional rights.^^

Plaintiff-appellee, on the other hand, refutes the appeal and avers that
the evidence for the prosecution clearly established the presence of all the
elements of malversation ofpublic document.

Further, evidence shows that there were 47 booklets issued by the City
Treasurer's Office to accused-appellant firom 2007 to 2010.However,only 29
booklets were submitted by accused-appellant during the cash exam and the
remaining 18 booklets were unaccoimted. Prosecution witness explained that
the cash shortage was detected after the official receipts were counterchecked
with the collections and deposits reflected in the cashbook, and with the
deposits shown in the bank statement.

Plaintiff-appellee also argues that the settlement letter signed by

accused-appellant was an offshoot of the audit examination which is an
administrative proceeding. Hence, there is no need for accused-appellant to
be assisted by a counsel.^^

Finally, plaintiff-appellee alleges that direct proof of misappropriation

of fund is not necessary as long as accused cannot explain satisfactorily the
shortages in his/her accoimts.^®

Ruling

There is no merit to the appeal.

To justify conviction of accused-appellant charged with the crime of

malversation ofpublic funds under Article 217 ofthe Revised Penal Code,the
prosecution is burdened to prove the following elements:

1.) that the offender be a public officer;

2.) that he had custody or control offunds or property by reason ofthe duties
of his office;

"Id. at 66.
'8 Id. at 67. I'
"SB records, p.92.
20
y
Id.
DECISION
Crim. Case No. 18-A/R-0002
People V. Ramos
Page 7 of 18
X X

3.) that those funds or property were public funds or property for which he
was accountable; and

4.) that he appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented, or through

abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take them.

The Court agrees with the lower court that all the above-mentioned
elements are present in this case.

First element

At the time ofthe commission ofthe offense, accused-appellant was the

Barangay Treasurer of Barangay Biday evidenced by her Appointment,^^
Panunumpa sa Katungkulan^^ and the Certification issued by Punong
Barangay Federico Valdez^^ certifying that accused-appellant held the
position from December 2007 to August 2010. Therefore, being the barangay
treasurer, she was considered a public officer.

Second element

The lower court was also correct when it held that by reason of the
duties of her office, accused-appellant Ramos had custody and control of
public funds for which she was accountable. The duties of accused-appellant
as barangay treasurer are laid down in Sec. 395(e)ofRepublic Act No. 7160,
otherwise known as the Act Providing for the Local Government Code of
1991, which reads:

(e)The barangay treasurer shall:

(1)Keep custody ofbarangayfunds and properties',

(2) Collect and issue official receipts for taxes, fees, contributions,
monies, materials, and all other resources accruing to the barangay
treasury and deposit the same in the account of the barangay as
provided under Title Five, Book 11 ofthis Code;

XXX(Emphasis supplied)

Verily, accused-appellant was an accountable officer pursuant to Sec.

101(1)ofPD No. 1445,^'^which defines an accoxmtable officer as an officer

Exh. B.
22Exh. C.
23 Exh.D.
2^ Presidential Decree No. 1445, Ordaining and Instituting a Government Auditing Code ofthe Philippines.

i'
11
DECISION
Crim. Case No. 18-A/R-0002
People V. Ramos
Page 8 of 18
X X

of a government agency whose duties require the possession or custody of

government funds or property. Thus, accused-appellant was accountable for
the amount ofP143,320.00 representing the collections made from January
2009 until August 2010.

Third element

The collections of barangay fees and other charges are undeniably

public funds for which accused-appellant was accountable.

Fourth element

The prosecution sufficiently

established the cash shortage
ofaccused-appellant

In the crime of malversation of public funds, all that is necessary for

conviction is proofthat the accountable officer had received the public funds
and that he failed to accoimt for the said funds upon demand without offering
ajustifiable explanation for the shortage.^^

Accused-appellant argues that the lower committed error when it ruled

that she was guilty of malversation of public funds since there was no
sufficient proof that she indeed made various collections totaling to
P143,320.00. She avers that the documents presented by the prosecution
were not identified by the persons who issued the said documents.

Contrary to accused-appellant's assertion, the Court finds that the

prosecution was able to sufficiently establish accused-appellant's control
and custody of the F143,320.00 by reason of her office, and that the said
funds were public for which she was accountable.

To prove the cash shortage, the prosecution presented various

barangay official receipts issued from January 2009 to August 2010 marked
as Exh.N and series, as well as the lists of official receipt booklets issued to

Sec. XaX. Accountable officers; bond requirement.

1. Every officer of any government agemy whose duties permit or require the
possession or custody ofgovernmentfunds or property shall be accountable ther^or
and for the safekeeping thereofin conformity with law.

2. Every accountable officer shall be properly bonded in accordance with law.

^ Venezuela v. People, G.R.No.205693,14 February 2018. i'

u
DECISION
Crim. Case No. 18-A/R-0002
People V. Ramos
Page 9 of 18
X X

Barangay Biday marked as Exhs. P, Q, R, S, T, U and Record shows

that the said exhibits were duly identified by prosecution witness Dulay as
the same documents they obtained and examined in the course oftheir cash
examination.^^ Exhs. P, Q, R, S, T, U, and V are certified copies of the
"certified xerox copy" of the list of official receipt booklets issued to
Barangay Biday, the original copy of which is in the custody of the City
Treasurer. The certification on each and every page, verified and signed by
City Treasurer Edmar C. Luna renders the documents admissible without
further authentication.
I

The prosecution likewise presented Exh. M,which consists ofentries

in the cash book entered by the barangay treasurer, accused-appellant
Ramos, who at the time ofrecording was a public officer. It was certified by
Acting Barangay Treasurer Cherilyn G.Lachica, who has custody ofthe said
record. While it was identified by COA Auditor Dulay,^^ Sec. 44, Rule 130
ofthe Revised Rules of Court provides that entries in official records made
in the performance of his duty by a public officer, or by a person in the
performance ofa duty specifically enjoined by law,are primafacie evidence
of the facts therein stated. As an an exception to the hearsay rule, it does
away with the need for presenting as witness the public officer or person
performing a duty specially enjoined by law who made the entryHence,it
is admissible even if it was not identified by the person who made the
recording following the rule on presumption ofregularity in the performance
ofduty. Besides, accused-appellant failed to dispute the contents ofthe cash
book.

With respect to Exhs. N and series, record shows that accused-

appellant offered in evidence Exhs. N to N-850, which were admitted by the
court a quo?^ The transcript of stenographic notes reflects that during the
proceedings before the trial court, prosecution witness Dulay identified
several sets of official receipts which were requested to be marked as Exhs.
N to N-149,N-150 to N-299,N-300 to N-449,N-450 to N-599,N-600 to N-
749, N-750 to N-849, and N-850.^^ Official receipts were attached to the
record but the Court notes that the markings were only up to Exhs. N to N-
149. The rest remains unmarked.

Notwithstanding the lack of markings, the Court considers Exhs. N-

150 to N-850 since they were identified, presented, offered and admitted in
evidence. They can readily be identified as the official receipts issued to

26 Exhs.P,Q,R,s,T,U and V.
2'TSN,23 Febraaiy 2016,pp. 19-25.
28 Id. at 25.
29 DST Movers Corp. v. People's GeneralInsurance Corp.y G.R. No. 198627,13 January 2016.
2° Case Record, p. 102.
21 TSN,23 February 2016,pp. 19-24.

tf
DECISION
Crim. Case No. 18-A/R-0002
People V. Ramos
Page 10 of 18

Barangay Biday by the City Treasurer's Office per list of official receipts^^
identified by witness Dulay.

The foregoing exhibits for the prosecution clearly demonstrated how

the cash shortage was determined. Prior to the conduct ofcash examination,
the COA auditors have already secured a list ofall official receipts issued to
Barangay Biday. The said list confirmed that the unrecorded official receipts
were indeed issued to Barangay Biday by the Office of the City Treasurer.
To illustrate:

1. Exh. P shows that booklets of official receipts with control

numbers 3658301-3658350,3658351-3658400 and 3660301-
3660350 were issued to Barangay Biday. The unrecorded
official receipts under the said series were marked as Exhs.N
toN-149.

2. Exh. Q shows that booklets of official receipts with control

numbers 3691001-3691050, 4132951-4133000, and
4311451-4311500 were issued to Barangay Biday. The
unrecorded official receipts under the said series were
requested to be marked as Exhs. N-150 to N-299.

3. Exh. R shows that booklets of official receipts with control

numbers 4514451-4514500,4623901-4623950 and 4627101-
4627150 were issued to Barangay Biday. The unrecorded
official receipts under the said series were requested to be
marked as E?dis. N-300 to N-449.

4. Exh. S shows that booklets of official receipts with control

numbers 4681701-4681750,4681751-4681800 and 4681801-
4681850 were issued to Barangay Biday. The unrecorded
official receipts under the said series were requested to be
marked as E^dis. N-450 to N-599.

5. Exh. T shows that booklets of official receipts with control

numbers 4686651-4686700, 4686701-4686750, 4690601-
4690650 were issued to Barangay Biday. The unrecorded
official receipts under the said series were requested to be
marked as N-600 to N-749.

6. Exh. U shows that a booklet of official receipts with control

numbers 5021251-5021300 was issued to Barangay Biday.
The unrecorded official receipts under he said series were
requested to be marked as Exhs. N-750 to N-849.

32 Exhs.P,Q,R,S,T,UandV.
y'
DECISION
Crim. Case No. 18-A/R-0002
People V. Ramos
Page 11 of 18
X X

7. Exh. V shows that a booklet of official receipts with control

numbers 3688201-3688250 was issued to barangay Biday.
The unrecorded official receipt was requested to be marked as
Exh. N-850. The rest of the official receipts under the said
series were missing.
\

A review ofthe official receipts show that they were issued during the
time that accused-appellant was the barangay treasurer for which she was
accountable. They were surrendered to the COA Auditors by Acting
Barangay Treasurer Lachica. A countercheck ofthe subject official receipts^^
as against the official receipt numbers reflected in the cash book^'^ reveals
that they were not recorded.

Accused-appellant denies the cash shortage. She alleges that all the
funds she collected were fully receipted and deposited to the City Treasurer
without, however, presenting any evidence to support such allegation.
Following the basic rule that mere allegation is not equivalent to evidence,
the finding on the cash shortage therefore, remains unrebutted.

Failure to produce the missing

funds despite demand creates
prima facie presumption that it
was put to personal use

Accused-appellant further claims that the lower court erred when it

ruled that she misappropriated public funds for her personal use.

In the crime ofmalversation ofpublic funds,the prosecution bears the

burden to prove beyond reasonable doubt, either by direct or circumstantial
evidence,that the public officer appropriated, misappropriated or consented,
or through abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take
public property or public funds under his custody. Absent such evidence,the
public officer cannot be held criminally liable for malversation.^^ Mere
absence of funds is not sufficient proof of conversion. Neither is the mere
failure ofthe public officer to turn over the funds at any given time sufficient
to make even the prima facie case. Conversion must be affirmatively
proved.^^

However, Art. 217 of the Revised Penal Code, provides that "(t)he
failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or

Exh. N and series.

3^Exh,M. ^
Legrama v. Sandiganboyan,G.R. No. 178626,13 June 2012.
p/

f\
DECISION
Crim. Case No. 18-A/R-0002
People V. Ramos
Page 12 of 18
X— X

property with which he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly authorized

officer, shall be primafacie evidence that he has put such missing funds or
property to personal uses."

Therefore, an accountable public officer may be found guilty of

malversation even if there is no direct evidence because the law establishes
a presumption that mere failure of an accountable officer to produce public
flmds which have come into his hands, on demand by an officer duly
authorized to examine his accounts, is prima facie case of conversion.^^
Hence, the presumption arises as long as accused cannot explain
satisfactorily ihe shortage in his or her accounts.

In Legrama v. Sandiganbayan,the Supreme Court said that:

X X X a presumptioii was installed that upon demand by any duly

authorized officer,the failure ofa public officer to have duly forthcoming
any public funds or property — with which said officer is accountable —
should be prima facie evidence that he had put such missing funds or
properties to personal use. When these circumstances are present, a
"presumption oflaw" arises that there was malversation of public funds
or properties as decreed by Article 217. To be sure, this presumption is
disputable and rebuttable by evidence showing that the public officer had
fiilly accounted for the alleged cash shortage.

In the instant case, it is undisputed that accused-appellant, as Barangay

treasurer is an accountable officer by the inherent function ofher public office
A demand letter dated 22 October 2010^^ was sent to accused-appellant
requiring her to produce the missing funds and to submit a written explanation
why the shortage occurred. Her failure to account for the missing funds and
to submit an explanation required by the COA auditor prompted the latter to
follow up the demand letter. It was only after eight months, or on 15 July
2011, that accused-appellant executed a letter^^ stating that she is taking full
responsibility of the matter thus, agreeing to restitute the unremitted
collections. At the same time, accused-appellant entered into an amicable
settlement"^® with the COA represented by Evelyn Nisperos, where she agreed
to settle her obligation within one month fi*om said date. However, accused-
appellant failed to comply with her commitment to return the unremitted
collections.

Accordingly, the lower court did not err in declaring that there was
primafacie presumption that accused-appellant had put the missing funds to
her personal use.

Perez v. People^ G.R. No. 164763,12 February 2008.

38Exh. H.
^^'Exh.I
^OExh.M y'
u
DECISION
Crim. Case No. 18-A/R-0002
People V. Ramos
Page 13 of 18

While the presumption is rebuttable,accused-appellant failed to present

evidence despite the opportunity during trial that she,in fact, did not put said
funds to personal use. Worse, her defense that she was not given an
opportunity to explain her side was belied by her own testimony:

PROS. ANDRES(Cross-examination)

Q Is it not a fact Madam Witness,that in connection with this case,

regarding the shortage ofPhpl43,320.00,is it not a fact that you
received a letter of demand from Ms. Evelyn Nisperos prior to
the filing ofthe case against you?

A Yes, sir.

Q Will you confirm that this Exhibit"H" is the letter of demand

that you received from Ms. Evelyn Nisperos?

A Yes, sir.

Q So, it is clear in this letter that there was a shortage amounting

to Php143,320.00 correct?

A Yes, sir

Q And this is being attributed to you,correct?

A Yes, sir.

Q And is it not afact thatyou made an explanation,you made a

reply to this letter ofdemand?

A Idid not sir.

Q You did not make any explanation?

A Yes sir.

Q So, it is not really true that you were not given a chance to
explain your side as you were claiming when you were asked
by Atty. LapeAa,correct?

A (No answer)

COURT:

No Answer.

PROS. ANDRES:

No answer. May we put that on record Your Honor."^^

(Emphasis supplied)

TSN,26 July 2017, pp. 19-20. /•

/
/
DECISION
Grim. Case No. 18-A/R-0002
People V. Ramos
Page 14 of 18
X X

Obviously, accused-appellant chose not to submit her explanation.

Her defense that she was not given the chance to explain must, therefore,
cannot be given any credence by the Court.

The constitutional right to

counsel does not apply to
accused-appellant because she
was not under custodial
investigation

Accused-appellant also avers that the handwritten letter she executed

wherein she admitted the cash shortage and promised to pay the same, is
inadmissible in evidence. Accused-appellant seeks to exclude the said letter
alleging that it was executed without the assistance ofa counsel of her own
choice to explain the consequences of her actions, in violation of Art. HI,
Sec. 12 ofthe Constitution.'^^

It is settled that the right to counsel under Art. m. Sec. 12 of the

Constitution may be invoked only when accused is under "custodial
investigation" or is "in custody investigation.'"^^ According to People v.
Cabanada y Rosauro, citing People v. Marra,^ custodial investigation
involves any questioning initiated by law enforcement authorities after a
person is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his jfreedom of action
in any significant manner.

In this case, accused-appellant was not in the custody ofthe police or

other law enforcement office when the alleged letter was executed. She
contended that when she wrote the letter, she was with the barangay officials
and COA auditors. However,the audit examiner, barangay chairperson and

Art III. Section 12.

(1)Any person under investigationfor the commission ofan offense shall have the right to
be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel
prtferably ofhis own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be
provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of
counsel.

(2)No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free
will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other
similar forms of detention are prohibited.

(3)Any confession or admission obtained in violation ofthis or Section 17 hereofshall be

inadmissible in evidence against him.

(4)The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations ofthis section as well as
compensation to and rehabilitation of victims oftorture or similar practices, and their femilies.

Ernesto Navallo v. Hon. Sandiganbayan (Second Division), et al, G.R. No.97214,18 July 1994.
^ G.R. No.221424,19 July 2017.

/
r
DECISION
Crim. Case No. 18-A/R-0002
People V. Ramos
Page 15 of 18
X X

barangay councilors are not deemed law enforcement officers for purposes
of applying the provision of Sec. 12, Art. HI of the Constitution. Thus, it
cannot be successfully claimed that her letter admitting responsibility on the
cash shortage is inadmissible in evidence.

Accused-appellant voluntarily
executed the letter dated 15
July 2011

Accused-appellant also claims that she was forced, deceived or

intirhidated into executing the letter dated 15 July 2011"^^ and thus, it cannot
be said that it was voluntarily made. We are not convinced.

Other than her bare allegation, there was no other evidence presented
to support her claim that the letter was executed through coercion. Accused
testified that on 15 July 2011,a police officer went to their house and invited
her to go to the Police Station. There she met Barangay Chairperson Valvez
and Kagawad Rodolfo Flores, and they proceeded to the barangay hall.
However, when she executed the subject letter, only the barangay officials
and the audit team members were present and the police officer was no
longer with them."^^

That she was told by the barangay chairperson to execute a promissory

note, cannot at all be considered a threat or intimidation sufficient to
successfully claim vitiated consent. On the contrary, accused-appellant
revealed her real purpose in executing the said letter. Accused-appellant thus
testified:

ATTY.LAPENA (Direct-examination)

Q So what happened in the Barangay Hall, Madam Witness?

A When we were there at the Barangay Hall together with the audit
team and the Barangay Officials, they told me to make a
promissory note.

Q So, what did you do if any Madam Witness?

A At that time ma'am, I was confused and disturbed because of

family problem and then this problem arose, so I was really not
myself,at that time.

Q What is that family problem. Madam Witness?

« Exh. 1.
"^TSN,26 July 2017, p. 14.
DECISION
Crim. Case No. 18-A/R-0002
People V. Ramos
Page 16 of 18
X X

A Because of that issue, their accusations, ma'am, they messaged

my husband and they told him many things about me,that's the
reason why we got separated.

Q Madam Witness, when they told you to make a promissory note,

what did you do,if any?

A I was not able to make one ma'am, because I have so many

problems that time. They just dictated the contents of the
promissory note ma'am,so that everything will be over.

Q So Madam Witness, they dictated to you the contents of this

letter?

A Yes, ma'am.

Q So,did you follow them. Madam Witness?

A Because Ijust really want to get outfrom that situation,Ijust

followed them ma'anu (Emphasis supplied)

It appears that in executing the subject letter, accused-appellant was

compelled by her own personal circumstances and not by any act attributable
to the COA auditors and barangay officials present. Accused-appellant failed
to prove that she was deprived of her free will and choice or that the
execution ofthe letter was tainted with deceit or coercion. Her allegation that
she was confused and disturbed and thus, was forced to execute the letter to
get put ofthe situation does not amoimt to vitiated consent.

Accused-appellant likewise failed to adduce competent evidence that

she was threatened to execute the letter. It must be remembered that for
intimidation to vitiate consent, the following requisites must be present:(1)
that the intimidation caused the consent to be given;(2)that the threatened
act he unjust or unlawful;(3)that the threat be real or serious, there being
evident disproportion between the evil and the resistance which all men can
offer, leading to the choice of doing the act which is forced on the person to
do as the lesser evil; and (4)that it produces a well-grounded fear from the
factthat the person from whom it comes has the necessary means or ability
to inflict the threatened injury to his person or property^^.

In this case,the alleged threat offiling ofa criminal complaint should

she fail to settle the amount would not in itself vitiate consent as it is a
recourse on the part ofthe barangay to enforce a just or legal claim through
competent authority. Therefore, die claim that she was forced to execute the
letter for fear ofcriminal prosecution cannot serve as legal basis to conclude
that she did not voluntarily sign the letter.

Doble, Jr. v. ABB,Inc., G.R. No.215627,5 June 2017. *

'f\
DECISION
Crim. Case No. 18-A/R-0002
People V. Ramos
Page 17 of 18
X X

In sum,the lower court correctly found accused-appellant guilty ofthe

crime of Malversation ofPublic Funds.

WHEREFORE,the assailed Decision of the Regional Trial Court of

San Fernando City, La Union, Branch 66, convicting accused-appellant
Helen A. Ramos in Criminal Case No. 11128 ofthe crime of Malversation
of Public Funds under Art. 217 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) is
AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED.

Quezon City,Philippines.

W^RESPESES
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

MA.THERESA DOLCj^S C.GOMEZ-ESTQESTA

Associate Justice
Chairperson

L
GEORGINAD.HIDALGO
Associate Justice
DECISION
Crim. Case No. 18-A/R-0002
People V. Ramos
Page 18 of 18
X- -X

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in

consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.

MA.THERESA DOLORES C.GOMEZ-ESTOESTA

Chairperson, Seventh Division

CERTIFICA TION

Pursuant to Ardcle VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, and the

Division Chairman's Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in
the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned
to the writer ofthe opinion ofthe Court's Division.

'MlPAROjyL.pffiQTAJE-'
Fresmmg Justice