G.R. No. 171437 - HERMES E. FRIAS, SR.*, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, proceeding from the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused HERMES E. FRIAS, Sr. GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code. In the absence of any attendant modifying circumstances and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, he is hereby sentenced to: (a) suffer the penalty of imprisonment for a minimum of eight (8) months and eleven (11) days to a maximum of one (1) year, eight (8) months and twenty (20) days; (b) suffer all the appropriate accessory penalties consequent thereto; (c) indemnify the Government in the amount of One Million Pesos (Php1,000,000.00); and (d) pay the costs. [24] Petitioner moved for reconsideration but it was denied. Thus, this petition. Petitioner asserts that he was deprived of due process because the Information against him failed to identify his acts or omissions which constituted a violation of Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code. [25] Moreover, the Sandiganbayan failed to establish that he, a municipal mayor, was an accountable officer [26] and to identify the particular law or regulation which required him to render an account. [27] Lastly, he assailed the restitution of P1,000,000 to the Government for lack of legal basis. [28] We affirm the decision of the Sandiganbayan, with modification. ACCUSED WAS NOT DEPRIVED O F D U E P R O C E S S We note that it is only now that petitioner is questioning the sufficiency of the Information against him. It is too late. The right to question the sufficiency of an Information is not absolute. An accused is deemed to have waived this right if he fails to object upon his arraignment [29] or during trial. [30] In either case, evidence presented during trial can cure the defect in the Information. [31] Petitioner waived his right to assail the sufficiency of the Information when he voluntarily entered a plea when arraigned and participated in the trial. At any rate, the Information (quoted above) adequately informed petitioner of the charges against him. It clearly stated the elements which constituted the violation of Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code. PETITIONER IS AN ACCOUNTABLE P U B L I C O F F I C E R Under the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines, an accountable public officer is a public officer who, by reason of his office, is accountable for public funds or property. [32] The Local Government Code expanded this definition with regard to local government officials. Section 340 thereof provides: Section 340. Persons Accountable for Local Government Funds. -- Any officer of the local government unit whose duty permits or requires the possession or custody of local government funds shall be accountable and responsible for the safekeeping thereof in conformity with the provisions of this title. Other local officials, though not accountable by the nature of their duties, may likewise be similarly held accountable and responsible for local government funds through their participation in the us