Candao v. People

G.R. No. 186659-710 (February 1, 2012)

Facts:

The case involves petitioners Zacaria A. Candao, Abas A. Candao, and Israel B. Haron, who were convicted of malversation of public funds under Article 217, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code. The conviction stemmed from their involvement in the misappropriation of public funds amounting to P21,045,570.64. The Sandiganbayan found them guilty beyond reasonable doubt and imposed penalties that included imprisonment and a fine equivalent to the amount malversed.

The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration against the decision of the Supreme Court dated October 19, 2011, which affirmed the Sandiganbayan's ruling with modifications. The petitioners contended that the penalties imposed were erroneous, particularly regarding the computation of the indeterminate sentence.

Legal Issues:

1. Whether the penalties imposed by the Sandiganbayan were correct, particularly the computation of the indeterminate sentence.
2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that could affect their sentence.

Arguments:

• Petitioners' Arguments: The petitioners argued that the maximum of the indeterminate sentence was incorrectly fixed at 17 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal medium. They contended that the proper computation should consider the nature of the penalty for malversation, which ranges from reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua, and that the absence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances should be duly recognized in the computation of their sentence.

• Respondents' Arguments: The People of the Philippines and the Sandiganbayan maintained that the penalties imposed were in accordance with the law. They argued that the Sandiganbayan correctly applied the provisions of the Revised Penal Code and the Indeterminate Sentence Law in determining the penalties for the crime of malversation.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The Supreme Court denied the petitioners' motion for reconsideration, affirming the Sandiganbayan's decision with modifications regarding the computation of the indeterminate sentence. The Court clarified that the penalty for malversation, when the amount involved exceeds P22,000.00, is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua. The Court explained that since the penalty is not composed of three periods, it must be divided into three equal portions as per Article 65 of the Revised Penal Code.

The Court established the following periods for the penalty:

• Minimum period: 17 years, 4 months, and 1 day to 18 years, 8 months
• Medium period: 18 years, 8 months, and 1 day to 20 years
• Maximum period: Reclusion perpetua

The Court found no aggravating or mitigating circumstances that would affect the sentence. Consequently, the maximum of the indeterminate sentence was taken from the medium period, resulting in a range of 18 years, 8 months, and 1 day to 20 years for the maximum penalty. The minimum penalty was determined to be one degree lower, ranging from 10 years and 1 day to 17 years and 4 months.

The Court also ordered the petitioners to pay restitution of the total amount of malversed funds to the Republic of the Philippines, emphasizing the importance of accountability in public service.

Significant Legal Principles or Doctrines Established:

1. The proper computation of penalties for malversation of public funds must adhere to the provisions of the Revised Penal Code and the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
2. The absence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances must be duly considered in determining the appropriate penalty.
3. The Court reaffirmed the principle of accountability for public officials in the handling of public funds, emphasizing the need for restitution in cases of malversation.