AFTER allowing Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile, who is accused of plunder, to post bail out of compassion, the Supreme Court showed no mercy in the case of a lady Sarangani official when it imposed a maximum of 18 years imprisonment for her for malversation of public funds amounting to P20,000.
In a 13-page decision penned by Associate Justice Arturo Brion, the SC’s Second Division denied the petition filed by Amelia Carmela Constantino-Zoleta, executive assistant of the Sarangani vice governor, seeking the reversal of a November 5, 2008 ruling issued by the Sandiganbayan.
In said decision, the anti-graft court found her guilty of malversation of public funds by falsification of public documents, defined and penalized under Article 217 in relation to Article 71 (2) and Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code.
Zoleta, the daughter of the late Sarangani Vice Gov. Felipe Katu Constantino, and private individual Violita Bahilidad, were earlier sentenced to a maximum of 16 years’ imprisonment for conspiring to dupe the provincial government.
Zoleta was also perpetually disqualified from holding any public office.
The Sandiganbayan held that the vice governor conspired with her daughter and the other accused in using a dummy organization, Women in Progress, headed by the petitioner, to facilitate the malversation of P20,000.
Aside from Zoleta and Bahilidad, others accused in the case were provincial accountant Maria Camanay and provincial board member Teodorico Diaz.
The case against the vice governor was dismissed after he died in a vehicular accident, while Camanay and Diaz remained at large.
Bahilidad was earlier acquitted by the SC in a separate petition questioning her conviction.
“The connivance between the accused is made more glaring by the fact that the entire transaction—from the letter-request, to the approval of the disbursement voucher, until the processing and release of the check was completed in only one day,” the Court pointed out.
It also noted that the disbursement had been approved even without the required supporting documents, such as the Articles of Cooperation and Certificate from the Cooperative Development Authority.
The SC also denied the claim of petitioner that she was denied due process when the Sandiganbayan convicted her of malversation through consent, abandonment, or negligence because this allegation was not contained in the information.
“All that is necessary for conviction is sufficient proof that the accountable officer had received public funds, that he did not have them in his possession when demand therefor was made, and that he could not satisfactorily explain his failure to do so,” the Court explained.
“Direct evidence of personal misappropriation by the accused is hardly necessary as long as the accused cannot explain satisfactorily the shortage in his accounts,” it added.
However, the SC modified the Sandiganbayan ruling when it increased the maximum term of the penalty imposed on the petitioner from 16 years, five months and 11 days to 18 years, two months and 21 days.
Concurring with the ruling were Associate Justices Antonio Carpio, Jose Catral Mendoza, Estela Perlas-Bernabe and Marvic Leonen.