G.R. NO. 149613 - PAMELA CHAN, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the court hereby reconsiders its earlier verbal order granting the accused' Motion for Reinvestigation by denying it in view of the objection of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman (Visayas). If the accused believes that she has strong evidence in her favor, the better trial technique is to go to trial and not to educate his opponent. x x x On arraignment, petitioner pleaded "not guilty." During the pendency of the case before the trial court, Bas remitted the amount of P60,787.00, while petitioner remitted P89,760.82 which, to her, satisfied her obligations to the government in relation to the present case, the balance of P182,812.00 after deducting the total remittances being chargeable to Bas. [4] By Judgment dated June 18, 1999, [5] the trial court found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, with the mitigating circumstance that she had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed. As the trial court credited petitioner's claim "that during the preliminary investigation, she was able to remit P150,000.00 to the government" and noted that such claim was not denied by the prosecution, it held that she had an unremitted balance of P183,360.00. The trial court accordingly sentenced petitioner to x x x an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to twelve (12) years of reclusion temporal as maximum and to suffer the penalty of perpetual special disqualification and to pay a fine equal to the amount malversed, which is P183,360.00. On appeal, the Sandiganbayan, by Decision dated July 4, 2001, [6] affirmed the conviction of petitioner. It found, however, that the amount totally remitted was P150,547.82, not P150,000.00 as found by the trial court, hence, it held petitioner to be liable for the unremitted balance of P182,812.18. The Sandiganbayan accordingly modified the penalty as follows: x x x imprisonment of 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum to 17 years, 4 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum, to suffer the penalty of perpetual special disqualification and pay the government P182,812.18, the amount malversed, as well as a fine equal to the said amount malversed by the accused. In the present petition for review, petitioner faults the Sandiganbayan to have erred: . . . IN NOT UPHOLDING THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF THE ACCUSED OF DUE PROCESS BY NOT ALLOWING A RE-EXAMINATION AND A RE-AUDIT OF THE ALLEGED SHORTAGE IN THE AMOUNT OF P333,360.00. . . . IN NOT DECLARING THAT THE EXAMINATION AND AUDIT REPORT PREPARED AND CONDUCTED BY THE EXAMINING AUDITOR IS CONTRARY TO LAW. . . . IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED BY HOLDING THE ACCUSED LIABLE FOR THE UNREMITTED COLLECTIONS OF ANOTHER ACCOUNTABLE OFFICER DESIGNATED BY THE SUPERIOR OF THE ACCUSED. [7] Claiming that her right to due process was violated by the denial of her plea for the conduct of a re-audit of her accountabilities, petitioner cites Tinga v.