6.1386 (Padaca) - Appellant's Brief - June 9 - CONTROL (CLEAN)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
SUPREME COURT
MANILA
Second Division
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Plaintiff-Appellee,
-versus-
MARIA GRACIA CIELO M. PADACA

Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 253470

(Criminal Case No. SB-11-CRM-0282)
APPELLANT’S BRIEF
9 June 2021
ANGARA ABELLO CONCEPCION REGALA & CRUZ

Counsel for Accused-Appellant Maria Gracia Cielo M. Padaca
22nd Floor, ACCRALAW Tower
2nd Avenue corner 30th Street
Crescent Park West, Bonifacio Global City
1635 Taguig, Metro Manila
Telephone No. (632) 8830-8000
Facsimile Nos. (632) 403-7007 and (632) 403-7009
SUBJECT INDEX
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.....................................................................iv
NATURE OF THE CASE...........................................................................1
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS....................................................................2
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS.................................................................2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE...................................................................6
ISSUES........................................................................................................15
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE APPEAL/DISCUSSION.....15
I. ACCUSED-APPELLANT WAS NOT AN ACCOUNTABLE
OFFICER UNDER ARTICLE 217 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE.
SHE HAD NO CUSTODY OR CONTROL OVER THE PUBLIC
FUNDS INVOLVED BY REASON OF THE DUTIES OF HER
OFFICE. MOREOVER, ACCUSED-APPELLANT DID NOT
PARTICIPATE IN THE USE OR APPLICATION OF THE
PHP25,000,000.00 BY EDWINLFI............................................................17
II. ACCUSED-APPELLANT WAS DULY AUTHORIZED BY THE
SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN OF ISABELA TO
NEGOTIATE AND ENTER INTO THE MOA WITH EDWINLFI.
THE MOA WAS EXPRESSLY AND UNQUALIFIEDLY RATIFIED
BY THE SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN....................................21
III. APPLYING THE STANDARD OF ORDINARY DILIGENCE,
ACCUSED-APPELLANT EXERCISED REASONABLE CARE AND
CAUTION IN EXECUTING THE MOA WITH EDWINLFI. THERE IS
NO MERIT TO THE CONCLUSION THAT SHE ALLOWED THE
TAKING OF PUBLIC FUNDS THROUGH GROSS NEGLIGENCE.
AMONG OTHERS, THE MOA CONTAINED SUFFICIENT
SAFEGUARDS TO ENSURE THE PROPER DISBURSEMENT AND
ACCOUNTING OF FUNDS. ALSO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT
ADEQUATELY PROVED THAT THE FARMER-BENEFICIARIES
WERE ABLE TO AVAIL OF LOANS UNDER THE PROGRAM. IN
CONTRAST, THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO PROVE GROSS
NEGLIGENCE AND CRIMINAL INTENT ON THE PART OF
ACCUSED-APPELLANT..........................................................................26
IV. THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO ESTABLISH ALL THE
ELEMENTS OF MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS UNDER
ARTICLE 217 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT. GIVEN THIS, THE CONSTITUTIONAL
ii
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE IN FAVOR OF ACCUSED-
APPELLANT MUST PREVAIL................................................................32
RELIEF.........................................................................................................38
iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
STATUTES/RULES
CIVIL CODE, ARTICLE 1396

22
PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE III, SECTION 14 (1)
32
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7160, SECTION 465 (b) (3) (iii), Section 470 (d) (2)
(3), Section 340 4, 18, 19, 23-24
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9184, SECTION 53.11
5
REVISED PENAL CODE, ARTICLE 217 17-19, 21, 24,
30
JURISPRUDENCE
Board of Liquidators v. Heirs of M. Kalaw
G.R. No. L-18805, 14 August 1967, 20 SCRA 987 22
Corpuz v. People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 241383, 8 June 2020 18, 20
Malillin v. People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 172953, 30 April 2008, 553 SCRA 619 37
Mesina v. People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 162489, 17 June 2015, 758 SCRA 639 27
Ocampo v. People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 156547-51, 3 February 2008, 534 SCRA 847 23, 24
Orencio v. Valeriano
G.R. No. 185559, 2 August 2017, 833 SCRA 649 31
Patula v. People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 164457, 11 April 2012, 669 SCRA 135 37
People of the Philippines v. Dramayo

G.R. No. L-21325, 29 October 1971, 42 SCRA 59 32, 33
iv
People of the Philippines v. Esquivel
82 Phil. 453, 459 (1948) 33
People of the Philippines v. Frago

G.R. Nos. 104492-93, 31 May 1994, 232 SCRA 653 33
People of the Philippines v. Guarnes

G.R. No. 65175, 15 April 1988, 160 SCRA 552, 532 33
People of the Philippines v. Guinto

G.R. No. 198314, 24 September 2014, 736 SCRA 431 37
People of the Philippines v. Maraorao

G.R. No. 174369, 20 June 2012, 674 SCRA 151 34
People of the Philippines v. Mejia

G.R. Nos. 118940-41 and 119407, 7 July 1997, 275 SCRA 127 32
Rueda v. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 129064, 29 November 2000, 346 SCRA 341 35
Tabuena v. Sandiganbayan
G.R. Nos. 103501-03, 17 February 1997, 268 SCRA 332 30
TESDA v. Commission on Audit,

G.R. No. 204869, 11 March 2014, 718 SCRA 402 27
The Missionary Sisters of Our Lady of Fatima v Alzona

G.R. No. 224307, 6 August 2018, 876 SCRA 309 25
Torres v. People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 175074, 31 August 2011, 656 SCRA 485 17
Tria v. People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 204755, 17 September 2014, 735 SCRA 569 36
University of Mindanao v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas

G.R. No. 194964-65, 11 January 2016, 778 SCRA 458 22
Venezuela v. People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 205693, 14 February 2018, 885 SCRA 331 18, 20,
34
v
Zafra v. People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 190749, 25 April 2012, 671 SCRA 396 37
Zoleta v. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 185224, 29 July 2015, 764 SCRA 110 20
vi
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G.R. No. 253470

(For: Malversation of Public
-versus- Funds under Article 217 of the
Revised Penal Code; Criminal
Case No. SB-11-CRM-0282)
MARIA GRACIA CIELO M.

PADACA
Accused-Appellant.
x-------------------------------------x
APPELLANT’S BRIEF
Accused-Appellant, MARIA GRACIA CIELO M. PADACA,

(“Accused-Appellant” or “Governor Padaca”) by counsel,
respectfully states:1
NATURE OF THE CASE
1. This is an appeal from the Decision dated 15 November

2019 (“Assailed Decision”)2 and Resolution dated 23 June 2020
1
On 15 March 2021, Accused-Appellant received a copy of this Honorable Court’s Notice
of Resolution dated 23 February 2021 directing the parties to submit their respective
Briefs thirty (30) days from notice. Under the Supreme Court’s Administrative Circular
Nos. 22-2021 and 29-2021, the time for filing and service of pleadings and motions during
imposition of the Enhanced Community Quarantine (“ECQ”) and Modified Enhanced
Community Quarantine (“MECQ”) is suspended and shall resume seven (7) calendar
days counted from the first day of physical reopening of this Honorable Court. On 4 May
2021, Accused-Appellant filed a Motion for Extension of Time to file Brief of even date
requesting for a period of thirty (30) days from 10 May 2021, or until 9 June 2021, within
which to submit her Brief. Thus, this Brief is timely filed.
(“Assailed Resolution”)3 of the Sandiganbayan Third Division
(“Sandiganbayan” or “court a quo”) in Criminal Case No. SB 11-CRM-
0282.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS
2. Accused-Appellant respectfully makes the following

assignment of errors:
2.1. The court a quo erred in holding that Accused-

Appellant was an accountable officer under Article
217 of the Revised Penal Code.
2.2. The court a quo erred in ruling that Accused-

Appellant entered into the Memorandum of
Agreement without authority of the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan of Isabela.
2.3. The court a quo erred in holding that Accused-

Appellant committed malversation by allowing the
taking of public funds through gross negligence.
2.4. The court a quo erred in convicting Accused-

Appellant because the prosecution failed to prove
all the elements of malversation of public funds
under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
3. The Province of Isabela is one of the most productive rice

producing provinces in the Philippines, comprised of vast irrigated
farmlands. With the proper government support and rice yielding
technology, Isabela presents untapped potential to further increase
rice production for the country.
4. Accused-Appellant, Governor Ma. Gracia Cielo M.

Padaca, was Governor of the Province of Isabela where she served for
two (2) terms: from 2004 to 2007; and from 2007 to 2010.
5. In Accused-Appellant’s first year as Governor, she

implemented a price subsidy program for both the rice and corn
2
A certified true copy of the Decision dated 15 November 2019 (“Assailed Decision”) is
attached as Annex “A” and made an integral part hereof.
3
A certified true copy of the Resolution dated 23 June 2020 (“Assailed Resolution”) is
attached as Annex “B” and made an integral part hereof.
2
farmers of Isabela. The Provincial Government of Isabela partnered
with the National Food Authority to increase the buying price of
Isabela farmers’ produce by up to Php 2.00 per kilo. This became the
centerpiece of Governor Padaca’s administration. The endeavor
proved very successful and benefitted thousands of Isabelino
farmers; even winning a Galing Pook Award, then the most
prestigious local government award which recognized innovative
practices by local government units.
6. However, not all farmers could participate in the price

subsidy program. Some farmers were forced to bring their produce to
rice traders who would extend farm production loans to the farmers
at exorbitant interest rates. For this reason, with the authorization of
the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Isabela (“Sangguniang
Panlalawigan”), Governor Padaca launched the Priority Hybrid Rice
Program (the “Program”).
7. The Program’s thrust is to introduce new technologies

and the adoption of innovative farming methods intended to produce
higher yields, which would consequently increase the income derive
of small and medium scale farmers in Isabela.4 One of the major
aspects of the Program is a Supervised Credit Facility wherein the
farmers of Isabela could obtain loans at reasonable rates of interest to
increase their productivity.5
8. To implement the Program, Governor Padaca requested

funding from the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. The funds were
primarily meant to be used as loans to the farmer-beneficiaries, with
the goal of increasing harvest productivity and protecting farmers
from the usurious interest rates of private financiers.6
9. In response to her request, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan

issued Resolution No. 061 dated 13 December 2005 (“Resolution No.
061”)7 authorizing Governor Padaca to negotiate and obtain a loan of
Thirty-Five Million Pesos (PhP 35,000,000.00) from the Development
Bank of the Philippines (“DBP”) for the purpose of implementing the
Program.
4
Prosecution’s Formal Offer of Evidence dated 12 December 2016, Exhibit “M”, Records, Vol.
V, pp. 591-592.
5
Judicial Affidavit of Flordeluna A. Arriola dated 3 October 2017 (“Ms. Arriola”), Records,
Vol. VI, pp. 313-786; Vol. VII, pp. 1-895; Vol. VIII, pp. 1-743; Vol. IX, pp. 1-717; Vol. X, pp.
1-778; Vol. XI, pp. 1-774; Vol. XII, pp. 1-896; Vol. XIII, pp. 1-748; Vol. XIV, pp. 1-388.
6
Transcript of Stenographic Notes (“TSN”) dated 8 August 2017, p. 11.
7
Counter-Affidavit of Maria Gracia Cielo M. Padaca dated May 2007, Annex “A”, Records,
Vol. I, pp. 57-60.
3
10. After Governor Padaca had successfully obtained the loan
of Thirty-Five Million Pesos (PhP 35,000,000.00) from the DBP, which
was specifically earmarked for the Program, the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan authorized her to “negotiate and enter into a
Memorandum of Agreement with people’s organizations or non-
governmental organizations (“NGOs”) for the purpose of
implementing the Rice Program.”8 This was to ensure that an
organization composed of persons with technical, financial, and
managerial expertise would effectively manage and implement the
Supervised Credit Facility and other aspects of the Program.9
11. On 8 January 2006, pursuant to the authority given to her

by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan in Resolution No. 09,10 Governor
Padaca entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (“MOA”) with the
Economic Development for Western Isabela and Northern Luzon
Foundation, Inc. (“EDWINLFI”) on behalf of the Province of Isabela.
In entering into the MOA, Governor Padaca acted within the scope of
her powers as governor to enter into contracts with third parties,
including NGOs.11 The Sangguniang Panlalawigan ratified the MOA
in Resolution No. 03.
12. Pursuant to the MOA, EDWINLFI volunteered its

technical, financial, and managerial expertise to properly implement
and monitor the Supervised Credit Aspect of the Program. This
involved the grant of loans to the farmers from the Province of
Isabela through EDWINLFI, acting as the conduit or implementing
arm of the Province of Isabela.
13. Under the MOA, Twenty-Five Million Pesos (PhP

25,000,000.00) was transferred to EDWINLFI to provide “the funds
needed for the Supervised Credit Aspect of the Provincial Rice
Program”12 and “the funds needed for the operational requirements
of the Provincial Rice Program.”13 Likewise, the MOA had various
safeguards to protect the integrity of the funds and ensure their
proper disbursement for the intended purpose of giving loans to the
farmers, including, among others, EDWINLFI’s obligation to
8
V, pp. 591-592.
9
Prosecution’s Formal Offer of Evidence dated 12 December 2016, Exhibit “N”, Records, Vol.
V, pp. 593-595.
10
V, pp. 591-592.
11
REP. ACT NO. 7160 (1991), Sec. 465 (b).
12
V, pp. 593-595.
13
V, pp. 593-595.
4
establish and maintain an efficient accounting, management, and
internal auditing system.14
14. In selecting EDWINLFI as the implementing NGO,

Governor Padaca’s primary reason was EDWINLFI’s previous
extensive networking experience with the farmers.15 Relatedly,
Governor Padaca dispensed with the conduct of public bidding since,
under Section 53.11 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of
Republic Act No. (“RA”) 9184 or the “Government Procurement
Reform Act,” the execution of a memorandum of agreement with an
NGO is expressly authorized when a law or ordinance specifically
earmarks funds for an NGO, as in the case of EDWINFLI. In
addition, the services of EDWINLFI under the MOA were rendered
without any compensation.
15. Under the MOA, the Provincial Government of Isabela

undertook to provide EDWINFLI with the funding requirement to
implement the Program, particularly the Supervised Credit Aspect
and other operational requirements.16 In turn, EDWINFLI
implemented the Supervised Credit Aspect of the Program by
administering a system for the proper receipt, custody, release and
disbursement of the funds; ultimately extending loans to the farmers-
beneficiaries, the intended recipients of the program.17
16. Notably, Governor Padaca did not receive any public

funds for which she was to be held responsible or accountable for.
After execution of the MOA, Governor Padaca no longer had any
participation—she had no hand in the use or application of the
amount of PhP Twenty-Five Million Pesos (Php 25,000,000.00); much
less any custody thereof. The management and disbursement of the
said funds devolved on the Provincial Treasurer who is in charge of
the disbursement and proper management of the funds of the
Provincial Government. Governor Padaca’s participation was
confined to executing and signing the MOA on behalf of the
Provincial Government of Isabela.
17. Thousands of farmer-beneficiaries availed of, and

received, loans under the Program.18 These farmers benefited from
14
V, pp. 593-595.
15
TSN dated 5 September 2017, p. 5.
16
V, pp. 593-595.
17
Formal Offer of Evidence dated 22 November 2017, Exhibits “8” to “1053”, Records, Vol.
XV, pp. 1-923; Vol. XVI, pp. 1-1109; Vol. XVII, pp. 1-1051; Vol. XVIII, pp. 1-1045; Vol. XIX,
pp. 1-1034; Vol. XX, pp. 1-1123.
18
TSN dated 10 October 2017, p. 30; Exhibits “8” to “1053”, Records, Vol. XV, pp. 1-923;
Vol. XVI, pp. 1-1109; Vol. XVII, pp. 1-1051; Vol. XVIII, pp. 1-1045; Vol. XIX, pp. 1-1034;
5
the Program as they were able to obtain loans, maximize their
respective harvests, and accordingly repay such loans at a low
interest rate of 1.5%.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
18. Governor Padaca, together with19 Provincial Legal Officer

Atty. Johnas M. Lamonera, Municipal Councilor Servando Soriano,
and Dionisio Pine, a private individual, was charged with violations
of (i) Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code (“RPC”) for Malversation
of Public Funds, and; (ii) Section 3 (e) of RA 3019, or the Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act.
19. The two (2) Informations respectively read as follows:
Criminal Case No. SB-11-CRM-0282

(For Malversation of Public Funds)
“That on 23 February 2006, or sometime prior or

subsequent thereto, in Isabela, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused Maria
Gracia Cielo M. Padaca, a public officer, being the
Governor of the Province of Isabela, while in the
performance of her official functions, committing the
offense in relation to her office, and taking advantage of
her official position, and in grave abuse thereof, having
control of public funds in the amount of Twenty-Five
Million Pesos, Philippine Currency (PhP 25,000,000.00),
which was placed under her administration for said
amount of public funds pursuant ot (sic) Section 340 of
the Local Government Code acting together, conspiring
and confederating with Provincial Legal Officer, Atty.
Johnas M. Lamonera, Municipal Councilor Servando
Soriano and Dionisio Pine, a private individual, in their
respective capacities as Director, Chairman, and Manager,
respectively, of the Economic Development for Western
Isabela and Northern Luzon Foundation, Inc.
(EDWINLFI), a non-government organization, through
manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable
negligence, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously consent, or through abandonment or
negligence, permit said Economic Development for
Western Isabela and Northern Luzon Foundation, Inc.
Vol. XX, pp. 1-1123.
19
Governor Padaca is the only surviving accused.
6
(EDWINLFI) to take such amount of public funds under
the authority of the Memorandum of Agreement dated 08
January 2006 which had not been ratified until after 31
January 2007 for the implementation of the Provincial
Rice Program of Isabela, more particularly the Supervised
Credit Facility, without terms of repayment to the
Provincial Government of Isabela of the funds which
were not, in fact, awarded to the farmers of Isabela who
are the supposed recipients of its provincial rice program
as proved by the absence of any report of quantified
accomplishment or disbursement of the funds, and by
then and there transferring said public funds in the
amount of P25,000,000.00 in favor of EDWINLFI for
services yet to be rendered.”20
Criminal Case No. SB-11-CRM-0283

(For Violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019)

subsequent thereto, in Isabela, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, Maria
Garcia Cielo M. Padaca, a public officer, being the
Governor of the Province of Isabela, committing the crime
in the discharge of her official functions, acting together,
conspiring, and confederating with Provincial Legal
Officer Atty. Johnas M. Lamonera, Municipal Councilor
Servando Soriano, and Dionisio Pine, a private
individual, in their respective capacities as Director,
Chairman, and Manager, respectively, of the Economic
Development for Western Isabela and Northern Luzon
Foundation, Inc. (EDWINLFI), a non-government
organization, through manifest partiality, evident bad
faith, or gross inexcusable negligence, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and criminally give unwarranted
benefits and advantage to EDWINLFI, by then and there
directly contracting under the authority of the
Memorandum of Agreement dated 08 January 2006
which had not been ratified until after 31 January 2007,
the services of EDWINLFI to manage, administer and
implement the Provincial Rice Program of Isabela, more
particularly the Supervised Credit Facility, thereby
dispensing with the conduct of public bidding in
violation of the provisions of Republic Act No. 9184,
20
Records, Vol. 1, pp. 1-2.
7
otherwise known as the Government Procurement
Reform Act, and by then and there transferring public
funds in the amount of Twenty-Five Million Pesos,
Philippine Currency (PhP 25,000,000.00) in favor of
EDWINLFI for services yet to be rendered.”21
20. On 22 October 2013, Governor Padaca was arraigned and

pleaded not guilty to both Informations.
21. On 7 March 2016, the parties submitted their Joint

Stipulation of Facts dated 4 March 2016.22 With the joinder of facts, the
Sandiganbayan issued the Pre-Trial Order dated 7 March 2016.23
Thereafter, trial ensued.
22. On 11 February 2016,24 9 March 2016,25 20 April 2016,26 28

June 2016,27 26 July 2016,28 29 September 2016,29 the Prosecution
presented its witnesses, namely: Nenita A. Azurin, Hortencia B.
Galapon, Atty. Gerardo del Rosario, Juanita A. Capili, Pete Gerard L.
Javier, Manuel R. Santos, Olivia T. Cureg, and Atty. Cesar C.
Purugganan. The Prosecution then filed its Formal Offer of Evidence
dated 12 December 2016,30 which the Sandiganbayan admitted in its
Minute Resolution dated 24 January 2017.31
23. Thereafter, Accused-Appellant presented her witnesses

on the following dates and for the following purposes:
a) Accused-Appellant herself was presented on 8 August

2017.32 She testified on the following matters,33 among
others:
i. That all her actions subject of the criminal charges

against her was done in accordance with the
resolutions of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan;34
21
Records, Vol. 2, pp. 4-5
22
Joint Stipulation of Facts dated 4 March 2016, Records, Vol. IV, pp. 28-514.
23
Pre-Trial Order dated 7 March 2016, Records, Vol. V, pp. 7 to 405.
24
TSN dated 11 February 2016.
25
TSN dated 9 March 2016.
26
TSN dated 20 April 2016.
27
TSN dated 28 June 2016.
28
TSN dated 26 July 2016.
29
TSN dated 29 September 2016.
30
Formal Offer of Evidence dated 12 December 2016, Records, Vol. XIV, pp. 399-419;Vol. XV,
pp. 1-923; Vol. XVI, pp. 1-1109; Vol. XVII, pp. 1-1051; Vol. XVIII, pp. 1-1045; Vol. XIX, pp.
1- 1034; Vol. XX, pp. 1-1123.
31
Minute Resolution dated 24 January 2017, Records, Vol. VI, p. 42.
32
TSN dated 8 August 2017.
33
34
8
ii. She did not overstep her authority in so executing
the acts authorized by the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan;35
iii. She entered into a MOA with EDWINLFI, in behalf

of the province of Isabela, in connection with the
flagship program “to help improve the lives of poor
farmers”36 and to “increase the productivity by
helping [the] famers with production support”;37
iv. The Resolution No. 061 authorized Governor

Padaca to negotiate and obtain a loan of PhP
35,000,000.00 earmarked for the provincial rice
program of the province of Isabela;38
v. Governor Padaca, in behalf of the province of

Isabela, was authorized by Resolution No. 061 to
obtain the loan from the DBP in December 2005
while the MOA with EDWINLFI was entered into
on 8 January 2006;39
vi. Her authority to enter into the MOA was supported

by Resolution No. 03 of the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan which was duly ratified;40
vii. The PhP 25,000,000.00 money entrusted to

EDWINLFI was earmarked for the supervised
facility to benefit the farmers of Isabela and
Governor Padaca’s sole participation was entering
into the MOA in behalf of the Province of Isabela;41
and
viii. While the loan obtained from the DBP amounted to

PhP 35,000,000.00, only PhP 25,000,000.00 was
earmarked for the farmers as a prudent measure
considering that it was the first time for the
Province of Isabela to launch the Program.42
35
36
37
38
TSN dated 8 August 2017, pp. 11 & 13.
39
TSN dated 8 August 2017, p. 24.
40
TSN dated 8 August 2017, pp. 25-26.
41
42
9
b) Elmer G. Credo (“Mr. Credo”) was presented on 10
October 2017.43 He testified on the following matters,44
among others:45
i. He was one of the farmers from Isabela who availed

of the Program and was able to acquire PhP 35,000
worth of farm inputs composed of insecticide,
fertilizers, and hybrid rice seeds; and
ii. He understood that the Program was aimed at

helping farmers by providing loans with a low
interest rate of 1.5% and that once the loan has been
paid, a farmer may re-avail another loan.
c) Tolentino Bareng (“Mr. Bareng”) was presented on 10

October 2017.46 He testified on the following matters,47
among others: 48
i. He was one of the farmers from Canan,

Cabanatuan, Isabela who availed of the Program of
the Province of Isabela;
ii. In 2007, he was granted a loan worth PhP 14,000 49 of

farm inputs composed of six (6) sacks of fertilizer,
one (1) bottle of insecticide, and two (2) bags of
hybrid seeds; and
iii. Because of the fruitful harvest, he was able to pay

back the loan of PhP 14,000.00.
d) Rogelio A. Panduyos (“Mr. Panduyos”) was presented on

10 October 2017.50 He testified on the following matters,51
among others: 52
43
TSN dated 10 October 2017.
44
Sinumpaang Salaysay ni Elmer G. Credo dated 3 October 2017, Records, Vol. VI, pp. 273-
279.
45
Translated from Filipino to English.
46
47
Sinumpaang Salaysay ni Tolentino Bareng dated 3 October 2017, Records, Vol. VI, pp. 287-
293.
48
49
Sinumpaang Salaysay ni Tolentino Bareng dated 3 October 2017, Records, Vol. VI, pp. 287-
293.
50
51
Sinumpaang Salaysay ni Rogelio A. Panduyos dated 3 October 2017, Records, Vol. VI, p.
280-286.
52
10
i. He was one of the farmers who availed of the loans
provided by the Program where he received PhP
14,000.00 worth of farm inputs consisting of six (6)
sacks of fertilizer, one (1) bottle of insecticide, and
two (2) bags of hybrid rice seeds; and
ii. That because of the good harvest with the help of

the loaned farm inputs, he was able to pay back the
loan amounting to PhP 14,000.00 inclusive of
interest.
e) Dionisio Pardua (“Mr. Pardua”) was presented on 10

October 2017. 53 He testified on the following matters, 54
among others: 55
i. He was a farmer who availed of the Program of the

Province of Isabela at least three times;
ii. In December 2006, he was able to acquire a loan of

farm inputs worth PhP 18,000 consisting of ten (10)
bags of urea, six (6) bags of 16-2-0 fertilizer and one
(1) bottle of insecticide;
iii. In March 2007, he was able to pay the first loan and
availed a second loan worth PhP 21,000.00 of farm
inputs consisting of ten (10) bags of urea, six (6)
bags of 16-20-0 fertilizer, two (2) bottles of
insecticide and one (1) bag of foliar fertilizer;
iv. In September 2007, Mr. Pardua was able to pay for

his second loan and availed once again for the third
time a loan of farm inputs composed of ten (10)
bags of urea, six (6) bags of 16-20-0 fertilizer, two (2)
bottles of insecticide and one (1) bag of foliar
fertilizer56 worth PhP 21,000.00; and
v. In March 2008, Mr. Pardua was able to pay his

third and final loan of PhP 21,000.00.
53
54
Sinumpaang Salaysay ni Rogelio A. Panduyos dated 3 October 2017, Records, Vol. VI, p.
280-286.
55
56
Sinumpaang Salaysay of Mr. Pardua dated 3 October 2017, Records, Vol. VI, pp. 294-301.
11
f) Flordeluna A. Arriola (“Ms. Arriola”) was presented on 7
November 2017.57 She testified on the following matters, 58
among others:
i. She is an Agronomist and Statistician of EDWINLFI

whose duties involve: (a) briefing the farmers by
educating them about the Program; (b) processing
and assessing the applications of the farmers; (c)
distributing and monitoring the farm inputs to the
farmers; (d) collecting the loans receivables due
from the farmers; and (e) receiving and collating all
the documents for proper filing and documentation;
ii. As a matter of procedure, she oversees the release of

application forms to farmers who are interested in
availing the loans. When the application form is
approved, EDWINLFI and the applicant-farmer
enters into a Kasunduan. Afterwards, the farm
inputs will be released upon the farmer’s
submission of a withdrawal slip;
iii. The EDWINLFI thereafter monitors the harvests of

the farmers and personally follows up whether the
farmers can already pay for the loans; and
iv. Once a farmer pays for the loan, an official receipt

will be issued.
24. Notably, during the 10 October 2017 trial, the Prosecution

manifested that “WE are willing to stipulate that the rest of the
farmers (“hundreds”) will give identical or the same testimony as the
witnesses (Elmer G. Credo, Tolentino Baring, Rogelio A. Panduyos
and Dionisio Pardua) that were presented during trial.”59 In view of
such stipulation, it is thus undisputed that hundreds of farmers
similarly benefited from the Program, and were able to pay back the
loan.
25. On 10 December, Accused-Appellant filed an Amended

Formal Offer of Evidence dated 3 December 2018.60 The Sandiganbayan
57
TSN dated 7 November 2017.
58
Judicial Affidavit of Flordeluna A. Arriola dated 3 October 2017, Records, Vol. VI, pp. 313-
786; Vol. VII, pp. 1-895; Vol. VIII, pp. 1-743; Vol. IX, pp. 1-717; Vol. X, pp. 1-778; Vol. XI,
pp. 1-774; Vol. XII, pp. 1-896; Vol. XIII, pp. 1-748; Vol. XIV, pp. 1-388.
59
60
Amended Formal Offer of Evidence dated 3 December 2018, Records, Vol. XXI, pp. 57-408.
12
admitted Accused-Appellant’s proffered exhibits in a Minute
Resolution dated 7 January 2019.61
26. In its Assailed Decision, the Sandiganbayan convicted

Governor Padaca of the crime of malversation of funds and violation
of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019:62
“WHEREFORE, the Court renders judgment as

follows:
(1) In Criminal Case No. SB-11-CRM-2082-
Accused Maria Gracia Cielo M. Padaca is hereby

found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
malversation of public funds under Article 217 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended. There being no
mitigating or aggravating circumstance present in this
case, she is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate
penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years, five (5)
months and eleven (11) days of reclusion temporal, as
minimum, to fourteen (14) years, ten (10) months and
twenty-one (21) days of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
Further, accused Padaca is ordered to suffer the

penalty of perpetual special disqualification from
holding public office and a fine equal to the amount of
PhP 18,000,000.00 which is the total amount still due to
the Province of Isabela from EDWINLFI.
Also, conformably with the teachings of the

Supreme Court in Mesina v. People, accused Padaca
should pay to the Province of Isabela the amount of PhP
18,000,000.00, plus interest thereon, at the rate of 6% per
annum, reckoned from the finality of the decision until
the amount if fully paid.
(2) In Criminal Case Nos. SB-11-CFRM-0283-
Accused Maria Gracia Cielo M. Padaca is hereby

found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
violation of Section 3 (e) or R.A. No. 3019, as amended.
Accordingly, she is hereby sentenced to suffer the
penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of
61
Minute Resolution dated 7 January 2019, Records, Vol. XXI, pp. 414-423.
62
Assailed Decision, pp. 55-56.
13
six (6) years and one (1) month, as minimum, to ten
years and six (6) months, as maximum, with perpetual
disqualification from holding public office.”63
27. On 2 December 2019, Accused-Appellant filed her Motion

for Reconsideration of even date64 (“Motion for Reconsideration”)
seeking for reconsideration of the Assailed Decision.
28. In its Assailed Resolution, the court a quo partially

granted the Motion for Reconsideration, acquitting Accused-
Appellant of the charges for violation of RA 3019 for failure of the
prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. However,
the court a quo still found Accused-Appellant guilty for malversation
of public funds, thus:65
“WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to:
1. DENY the Motion for Reconsideration dated

December 2, 2019 filed by Accused Maria Gracia Cielo M.
Padaca in Criminal Case No. SB-11-CRM-0282 for lack of
merit; and,
2. GRANT the Motion for Reconsideration dated

December 2, 2019 filed by accused Maria Gracia Cielo M.
Padaca, in Criminal Case No. SB-11-CRM-0283. Thus,
accused Padaca’s conviction for the crime of Violation of
Section 3 (e) of R.A. 3019 is hereby REVERSED and SET
ASIDE and she is hereby ACQUITTED of the said charge
for failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.
The Hold Departure Order issued in Criminal Case

No. SB-11-CRM-0283 is accordingly LIFTED. Likewise,
the bail bond she posted for her provisional liberty in the
same case is ORDERED RETURNED to her, subject to
the usual accounting and auditing requirements.”66
29. On 27 July 2020, Accused-Appellant filed a Notice of

Appeal of even date with the Sandiganbayan.67
63
Assailed Decision, pp. 55-56.
64
Motion for Reconsideration dated 2 December 2019, Records, Vol. XXI, pp. 596-618.
65
Assailed Resolution, p. 31.
66
67
Notice of Appeal dated 27 July 2020, Records, Vol. XXII, pp. 64 to 68.
14
30. On 15 March 2021, Accused-Appellant received this
Honorable Court’s Notice dated 23 February 2021, requiring the
parties to submit their briefs.68
31. On 10 May 2021, Accused-Appellant filed a Motion for

Extension to File Brief of even date, praying for a period of thirty (30)
days, or until 9 June 2021, within which to file her Appellant’s Brief.69
32. Hence, the present Appellant’s Brief which is timely filed.
ISSUES
33. Accused-Appellant respectfully proposes the following

issues for resolution by this Honorable Court in this appeal:
33.1. Whether Accused-Appellant is an accountable officer

under Article 217 of the RPC.
33.2. Whether Accused-Appellant had authority to enter

into the MOA based on the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan’s ratification of the same.
33.3. Whether Accused-Appellant committed malversation

of public funds through gross negligence.
33.4. Whether the Prosecution failed to prove all the

elements of malversation of public funds beyond
reasonable doubt.
ARGUMENTS
IN SUPPORT OF THE APPEAL
I.
ACCUSED-APPELLANT WAS NOT AN

ACCOUNTABLE OFFICER UNDER ARTICLE 217
OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE. SHE HAD NO
CUSTODY OR CONTROL OVER THE PUBLIC
FUNDS INVOLVED BY REASON OF THE
DUTIES OF HER OFFICE. MOREOVER,
ACCUSED-APPELLANT DID NOT
68
Notice dated 23 February 2021.
69
Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief dated 10 May 2021.
15
PARTICIPATE IN THE USE OR APPLICATION
OF THE PHP25,000,000.00 BY EDWINLFI.
II.
ACCUSED-APPELLANT WAS DULY

AUTHORIZED BY THE SANGGUNIANG
PANLALAWIGAN OF ISABELA TO
NEGOTIATE AND ENTER INTO THE MOA
WITH EDWINLFI. THE MOA WAS EXPRESSLY
AND UNQUALIFIEDLY RATIFIED BY THE
SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN.
III.
APPLYING THE STANDARD OF ORDINARY

DILIGENCE, ACCUSED-APPELLANT
EXERCISED REASONABLE CARE AND
CAUTION IN EXECUTING THE MOA WITH
EDWINLFI. THERE IS NO MERIT TO THE
CONCLUSION THAT SHE ALLOWED THE
TAKING OF PUBLIC FUNDS THROUGH
GROSS NEGLIGENCE. AMONG OTHERS, THE
MOA CONTAINED SUFFICIENT SAFEGUARDS
TO ENSURE THE PROPER DISBURSEMENT
AND ACCOUNTING OF FUNDS. ALSO,
ACCUSED-APPELLANT ADEQUATELY
PROVED THAT THE FARMER-BENEFICIARIES
WERE ABLE TO AVAIL OF LOANS UNDER THE
PROGRAM. IN CONTRAST, THE
PROSECUTION FAILED TO PROVE GROSS
NEGLIGENCE AND CRIMINAL INTENT ON
THE PART OF ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
IV.
THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO ESTABLISH

ALL THE ELEMENTS OF MALVERSATION OF
PUBLIC FUNDS UNDER ARTICLE 217 OF THE
REVISED PENAL CODE BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT. GIVEN THIS, THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PRESUMPTION OF
16
INNOCENCE IN FAVOR OF ACCUSED-
APPELLANT MUST PREVAIL.
DISCUSSION
I.
ACCUSED-APPELLANT WAS NOT AN

ACCOUNTABLE OFFICER UNDER ARTICLE 217
OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE. SHE HAD NO
CUSTODY OR CONTROL OVER THE PUBLIC
FUNDS INVOLVED BY REASON OF THE
DUTIES OF HER OFFICE. MOREOVER,
ACCUSED-APPELLANT DID NOT
PARTICIPATE IN THE USE OR APPLICATION
OF THE PHP25,000,000.00 BY EDWINLFI.
34. The court a quo ruled that Governor Padaca is an

accountable officer within the contemplation of Article 217 of the
RPC, primarily because of her “participation in the use or
application of public funds.”70 The court a quo gave credence to the
Prosecution’s arguments that Governor Padaca approved the
Disbursement Voucher authorizing the transfer of the PhP
25,000,000.00 to EDWINLFI, as well as the fact that she signed the
DBP check in favor of EDWINLFI.71 From here, the court a quo
concludes that Accused-Appellant “had control and responsibility
over the subject public funds” in her capacity as then provincial
governor.72
35. The Sandiganbayan committed grievous error.
36. This Honorable Court explained in the case of Torres v.

People of the Philippines73 that an accountable officer within the
purview of Article 217 of the RPC is one who has custody or control
of public funds or property by reason of the duties of his office:
“An accountable public officer, within the purview

of Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, is one who has
custody or control of public funds or property by reason
of the duties of his office.”74
70
71
72
Assailed Decision, p. 30.
73
G.R. No. 175074, 31 August 2011, 656 SCRA 485.
74
Ibid., at 495.
17
37. Indeed, among the elements of malversation is that the
person charged “had custody or control of funds or property by
reason of the duties of his or her office;” and that “those funds or
property were funds or property for which he or she was
accountable.”75 Moreover, in the crime of malversation of public
funds, it is necessary for conviction that “the accountable officer had
received the public funds and that such officer failed to account for
the said funds upon demand without offering a justifiable
explanation for the shortage.”76
38. In this case, Governor Padaca cannot be considered an

accountable officer within the purview of Article 217 of the RPC.
39. First, Governor Padaca did not have control or custody of

public funds involved herein by reason of the duties of her office;
hence, she was not accountable for the same.
40. Section 465 of the Local Government Code (“LGC”)

enumerates the duties and functions of the provincial governor.
Nowhere in the provision is the provincial governor empowered to
take control of, or have custody over, public funds. At most, the
provincial governor is tasked with ensuring that all taxes and other
revenues of the province are collected, and that provincial funds are
applied to the payment of expenses and settlement of obligations of
the province, in accordance with law or ordinance. 77 This is pursuant
to the provincial governor’s overarching mandate to “[i]nitiate and
maximize the generation of resources and revenues, and apply the
same to the implementation of development plans, program
objectives and priorities…particularly those resources and revenues
programmed for agro-industrial development and country-wide
growth and progress[.]”78
41. Meanwhile, under Section 470 of the LGC, it is the

provincial treasurer who, among others, is directly mandated to
“[t]ake custody of and exercise proper management of the funds of
the local government unit concerned”79 and “[t]ake charge of the
disbursement of all local government funds and such other funds
the custody of which may be entrusted to him by law or other
competent authority[.]”80
75
Corpuz v. People, G.R. No. 241383, 8 June 2020, citing Venezuela v. People, G.R. No.
205693, 14 February 2018, 855 SCRA 331, 345; emphasis and underscoring supplied.
76
Ibid.
77
REP. ACT NO. 7160 (1991), Section 465 (b) (3) (iii).
78
REP. ACT NO. 7160 (1991), Section 465 (b) (3); emphasis and underscoring supplied.
79
REP. ACT NO. 7160 (1991), Section 470 (d) (2); emphasis and underscoring supplied.
80
REP. ACT NO. 7160 (1991), Section 470 (d) (3); emphasis and underscoring supplied.
18
42. In the case at bar, Governor Padaca only transacted on
behalf of the Provincial Government of Isabela and never received
public money for which she was bound to account for. The MOA
was entered into by the Provincial Government of Isabela, through
Governor Padaca, with EDWINLFI. The fact that Governor Padaca
may have approved the Disbursement Voucher and signed the DBP
check as representative of the Provincial Government of Isabela, in
favor of EDWINLFI, did not automatically make her accountable for
the custody and control of the PhP25,000,000.00. Under the law, it is
clear that the responsibility for the custody, management, and
disbursement of funds devolved upon the provincial treasurer’s
office.
43. Second, even assuming that the “expanded” definition of

accountable officers under Section 340 of the LGC applies in
conjunction with Article 217 of the RPC, still, the said provision has
no bearing in the instant case.
44. Section 340 of the LGC provides in part that: “[o]ther

local officers who, 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 use or
application thereof.”81
45. However, in this case, Governor Padaca had no

participation in the use or application of the PhP 25,000,000.00.
Notably, the court a quo held that “the transfer of the amount of PhP
25,000,000.00 by the Province of Isabela to EDWINLFI could not
have been effected without the approval of [Accused-Appellant].”82
Although Governor Padaca may have approved the transfer of funds
to EDWINFLI by executing the MOA and signing the relevant
documents, she did not transfer the funds herself and did not
participate in the use or application of the public funds by
EDWINLFI.
46. In other words, the participation of Governor Padaca

was strictly limited to entering into the MOA with EDWINLFI. She
had no participation as to the use or application of the amount of
PhP 25,000,000.00. Upon the transfer of PhP 25,000,000.00 to
EDWINLFI, the task of monitoring and managing the disbursement
of funds by EDWINLFI devolved upon the provincial treasurer who
is tasked with the duty of managing the funds of the province. 83
81
Underscoring supplied.
82
Assailed Resolution, pp. 6-7; italics supplied.
83
REP. ACT NO. 7160 (1991), Sec. 340.
19
Indeed, a distinct line delineates the extent of Governor Padaca’s
participation.
47. While the court a quo relies on this Honorable Court’s

ruling in Zoleta v. Sandiganbayan (“Zoleta”),84 the case is not on all
fours with the one at hand.
48. Zoleta involved the complex crime of malversation of

public funds through falsification of public documents. The accused
were charged with malversation “by falsifying or causing to be
falsified the corresponding Disbursement Voucher No. 101-2002-01-
822 and its supporting documents, making it appear that financial
assistance had been sought by Women In Progress… when in truth
and in fact, the accused knew fully well that no financial assistance
had been requested by the said group[.]”85 Hence, the accused’s act
of signing the falsified disbursement vouchers and checks was
considered by this Honorable Court in holding them as accountable
officers. Their participation in the use or application of the public
funds is tied to the falsified disbursement vouchers and checks. Such
is not the case here.
49. Third, as mentioned, this Honorable Court has held that to

convict for malversation of public funds, it is necessary that “the
accountable officer had received the public funds and that such
officer failed to account for the said funds upon demand without
offering a justifiable explanation for the shortage.”86
50. Here, the Prosecution failed present any evidence to

prove that (i) Governor Padaca actually received the public funds;
(ii) that she failed to account for the money upon demand; and (iii)
when so demanded, she did not offer a justifiable explanation for
any purported shortage.
51. Hence, even assuming arguendo that Governor Padaca

was an accountable officer, the Prosecution failed to prove that she
in any way committed the crime of malversation of public funds
through gross negligence. It was EDWINFLI which received the
funds as the implementing arm of the Program. After execution of
the MOA, it devolved upon the provincial treasurer to account for
the money, as the officer who transferred the PhP 25,000,000 to
EDWINLFI and had the responsibility and duty of monitoring and
managing the funds. In addition, no demand was ever made upon
84
G.R. No. 185224, 29 July 2015, 764 SCRA 110.
85
Ibid., at 115.
86
Corpuz v. People, G.R. No. 241383, 8 June 2020, citing Venezuela v. People, G.R. No.
205693, 14 February 2018, 855 SCRA 331, 345; emphasis and underscoring supplied.
20
Governor Padaca to account for said funds (as she was not the
officer accountable for the same); thus, no opportunity for her to
provide any “justifiable explanation” arose.
52. Thus, the Sandiganbayan clearly erred in convicting

Governor Padaca with malversation of public funds as she cannot be
considered an accountable officer within the purview of Article 217
of the RPC.
II.
ACCUSED-APPELLANT WAS DULY

AUTHORIZED BY THE SANGGUNIANG
PANLALAWIGAN OF ISABELA TO
NEGOTIATE AND ENTER INTO THE MOA
WITH EDWINLFI. THE MOA WAS EXPRESSLY
AND UNQUALIFIEDLY RATIFIED BY THE
SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN.
53. The court a quo erroneously ruled that Accused-

Appellant entered into the MOA “without authority of the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan considering that when she signed the
same…she was not yet authorized by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan
to do so.”87 The court a quo similarly erred in holding that the
subsequent ratification of the MOA by the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan does not extinguish Governor Padaca’s criminal
liability.88
54. It bears emphasizing that Accused-Appellant was

authorized from the outset to negotiate and enter into the MOA with
EDWINLFI by the clear tenor of Resolution No. 09:
“RESOLVED, as it is hereby resolves: To authorize

the Hon. Maria Gracia Cielo M. Padaca, Provincial
Governor, to negotiate and enter into a Memorandum of
Agreement in behalf of the Province of Isabela with
Public Organizations or Non-Governmental
Organizations for purposes of implementing the priority
Hybrid Rice Program in the province.”89
87
88
89
V, pp. 593-595.
21
55. Nevertheless, assuming without conceding that there was
any lack of authority on Accused-Appellant’s part, it is a fact that the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan, through its Resolution No. 03, ratified
the MOA and cured it of all its defects:
“RESOLVED, as it hereby resolved to pass a

resolution ratifying the Memorandum of Agreement
entered by the Provincial Government of Isabela and
the Economic Development for Western Isabela and
Northern Luzon Foundation, Inc.”90
56. Article 1396 of the Civil Code expressly states that

“[r]atification cleanses the contract from all its defects from the
moment it was constituted.”91
57. This Honorable Court has described ratification as a

voluntary and deliberate confirmation or adoption of a previous
unauthorized act.92 Of note is the effect of ratification, as expounded
upon by this Honorable Court:
“[Ratification] cures the lack of consent at the time

of the execution of the contract entered into by the
representative, making the contract valid and
enforceable. It is, in essence, consent belatedly given
through express or implied acts that are deemed a
confirmation or waiver of the right to impugn the
unauthorized act. Ratification has the effect of placing the
principal in a position as if he or she signed the original
contract.”93
58. Moreover, ratification “relates back to the time of the act

or contract ratified, and is equivalent to original authority.”94
59. Given the well-settled concept and effects of ratification,

the Sangguniang Panlalawigan’s subsequent issuance of Resolution
No. 03 cured any supposed initial lack of authority on the part of
Accused-Appellant. To repeat, however, Accused-Appellant was
authorized to negotiate and enter into the MOA with EDWINLFI by
the clear tenor of Resolution No. 09.
90
Prosecution’s Formal Offer of Evidence dated 12 December 2016, Exhibit “O”, Records, Vol.
V, p. 596.
91
Emphasis and underscoring supplied.
92
University of Mindanao v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, G.R. No. 194964-65, 11 January
2016, 778 SCRA 458, 505.
93
Ibid.; emphasis and underscoring supplied.
94
Board of Liquidators v. Heirs of M. Kalaw, G.R. No. L-18805, 14 August 1967, 20 SCRA
987; emphasis and underscoring supplied.
22
60. In any case, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan expressly and
unqualifiedly ratified the MOA with EDWINLFI through Resolution
No. 03. The simple fact is that the Sangguniang Panlalawigan did
pass the necessary resolution, making the doctrine of ratification
relevant to this case. The delay in the ratification of the MOA is of no
legal consequence or significance. As long as the contract is ratified,
it is retroactively cleansed from the moment it was constituted.
61. The Sandiganbayan, however, opines that Governor

Padaca’s reliance on the case of Ocampo v. People95 (“Ocampo”) is
misplaced just because the MOA was ratified a year after it was
executed. The Sandiganbayan is incorrect.
62. The case of Ocampo is applicable by analogy to the instant

case. In the case of Ocampo, this Honorable Court pertinently ruled
that:
“There can be no malversation of public funds by

petitioner Ocampo in the instant cases since the loan
of P11.5 million transferred ownership and custody of the
funds, which included the sum of money allegedly
malversed, to LTFI for which Ocampo could no longer be
held accountable. Thus, contrary to the allegation of the
Office of the Special Prosecutor, petitioner Ocampo
cannot be held culpable for malversation committed
through negligence in adopting measures to safeguard
the money of the Province of Tarlac, since the same
were neither in his custody nor was he accountable
therefor after the loan to LTFI.”96
63. Applying the case of Ocampo, Governor Padaca similarly

could not be held liable for malversation of public funds as, in the
first place, Governor Padaca is not in custody of, and had no
participation in the use or application of the PhP 25,000.000.00.
Analogous to Ocampo, upon the transfer of PhP 25,000,000.00 to
EDWINLFI, Governor Padaca could not possibly be accountable for
the funds as the task of monitoring and managing the disbursement
of funds by EDWINLFI devolved upon the provincial treasurer who
is tasked with the duty of managing the funds of the province.97
64. It must likewise be noted that the court a quo clearly

overlooked that in the case of Ocampo, this Honorable Court brushed
95
G.R. No. 156547-51, 3 February 2008, 534 SCRA 847.
96
Ibid., at 506 ;Emphasis and underscoring supplied.
97
REP. ACT NO. 7160 (1991), Sec. 340.
23
aside the issue on the lack of authority of Governor Ocampo,
holding that “the MOA has been impliedly ratified by the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan as [the Sangguniang Panlalawigan]
has not directly impugned the validity of the contract despite
knowledge of the controversy.”98 It must be pointed that in Ocampo,
this Honorable Court did not make any qualifications as to when
and how such ratification is valid. As such, the court a quo went
beyond its authority by qualifying that the case of Ocampo is not
applicable just because the MOA in the present case was ratified
after a year. To reiterate, this Honorable Court, without
qualifications, explained that the MOA had been impliedly ratified
by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan thereby curing any lack of
authority of Governor Ocampo. There can be no other interpretation
other than that ratification cures the contract from any and all its
defects.
65. The court a quo also erroneously ruled that “[A]ccused

Padaca consented to the transfer of the PhP25,000,000.00 to
EDWINLFI without authority from the Sangguniang Panlalawigan.
Thus, from the precise moment that accused Padaca allowed
EDWINLFI to take possession of the subject funds, without
authorization from the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, together with the
attending circumstances, the crime of malversation of public funds
was already consummated.”99
66. With all due respect, the ruling of the court a quo is
wrong.
67. First, there is no malversation of public funds to speak of

and no consummation of the crime took place, because Governor
Padaca is not an accountable officer as contemplated under Article
217 of the RPC. As discussed, Governor Padaca cannot be
considered accountable for the funds involved in this case as she
never had control or custody of the same. Moreover, Governor
Padaca had no participation in the transfer or use of the funds
involved herein. Thus, the expanded definition of an accountable
officer under Section 340 of the LGC is likewise not applicable.
68. Second, Governor Padaca was authorized by the

Sangguniang Panlalawigan to negotiate and enter into the MOA
with EDWINLFI. It is absolutely incorrect to state that Governor
Padaca had no authority to enter into the MOA with EDWINLFI.
98
G.R. No. 156547-51, 3 February 2008, 534 SCRA 847, 511; emphasis and underscoring
supplied.
99
Assailed Resolution, pp. 18-19.
24
69. To recall, Governor Padaca was authorized to negotiate
and enter into the MOA with EDWINLFI through Resolution No. 09.
Thus, any preconceived lack of authority from Governor Padaca is
clearly factually and legally incorrect.
70. Third, it is likewise incorrect to state that “Governor

Padaca consented to the transfer of the PhP25,000,000.00 to
EDWINLFI without authority from the Sangguniang Panlalawigan,”
as the Sangguniang Panlalawigan expressly and unqualifiedly
ratified the MOA through Resolution No. 03.
71. To reiterate, ratification cleanses or purges the contract

from its defects from constitution or establishment, retroactive to
the day of its creation. By ratification, the infirmity of the act is
obliterated thereby making it perfectly valid and enforceable.100
72. Indeed, it is immaterial when such ratification took place

as the contract is cleansed of its defects retroactive to the day of its
creation. In other words, when a contract is ratified, it is as if it is
perfectly valid and enforceable from inception.
73. In this regard, in ruling that the subsequent ratification by

the Sangguniang Panlalawigan does not extinguish Governor
Padaca’s criminal liability, the Sandiganbayan already erroneously
prejudged that Governor Padaca is guilty of malversation of Public
funds by simply entering into the MOA with EDWINFLI.
Malversation of public funds cannot possibly be consummated by
the mere fact that a contract has been entered into. Moreover, in
ruling that Governor Padaca is guilty despite ratification of the MOA
for her lack of authority upon its execution, the court a quo deviated
from the settled rule and effects of ratification that it cleanses the
contract from any defect, including any supposed lack of authority.
101
74. In relation thereto, it must likewise be noted that the

Program has never been declared to be invalid, much less, illegal. On
the contrary, all the relevant offices of the Province of Isabela
recognize the validity of the MOA, and Governor Padaca’s authority
to negotiate and enter into the MOA. Absent any ruling from the
court declaring such resolution invalid and/or the MOA void, they
remain to be valid.
100
The Missionary Sisters of Our Lady of Fatima v Alzona, G.R. No. 224307, 6 August 2018,
876 SCRA 309, 312.
101
Ibid., at 325.
25
75. Based on the foregoing, the Sandiganbayan incorrectly
ruled that Governor Padaca entered into the MOA without authority
from the Sangguniang Panlalawigan as the MOA was ratified by the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan effectively cleansing the contract from
inception.
III.
APPLYING THE STANDARD OF ORDINARY

DILIGENCE, ACCUSED-APPELLANT
EXERCISED REASONABLE CARE AND
CAUTION IN EXECUTING THE MOA WITH
EDWINLFI. THERE IS NO MERIT TO THE
CONCLUSION THAT SHE ALLOWED THE
TAKING OF PUBLIC FUNDS THROUGH
GROSS NEGLIGENCE. AMONG OTHERS, THE
MOA CONTAINED SUFFICIENT SAFEGUARDS
TO ENSURE THE PROPER DISBURSEMENT
AND ACCOUNTING OF FUNDS. ALSO,
ACCUSED-APPELLANT ADEQUATELY
PROVED THAT THE FARMER-BENEFICIARIES
WERE ABLE TO AVAIL OF LOANS UNDER THE
PROGRAM. IN CONTRAST, THE
PROSECUTION FAILED TO PROVE GROSS
NEGLIGENCE AND CRIMINAL INTENT ON
THE PART OF ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
76. The court a quo erroneously ruled that Governor Padaca

“consented to and/or allowed the taking of public funds by
EDWINLFI through negligence.”102 Indeed, the court a quo gave
credence to the Prosecution’s allegation in the Information that
Accused-Appellant committed “gross inexcusable negligence.”
77. In particular, the court a quo wrongly concluded that

there was no way to ascertain whether EDWINLFI legitimately
loaned the funds to the farmer-beneficiaries and whether the farmer-
beneficiaries properly returned the money they received from
EDWINLFI.103 The court a quo also argued that Governor Padaca
“should have seen to it that the money…was amply protected”
conformably with her duties as provincial governor, and that, since
the MOA did not provide terms of repayment of the said amount,
Governor Padaca was therefore “grossly and inexcusably negligent
102
103
26
in allowing EDWINLFI to take public funds without any scheme for
repayment.”104
78. These are all patently false and erroneous conclusions.
79. The court a quo itself states that the test by which to
determine the existence of negligence is: “Did the defendant in doing
the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which
an ordinary prudent person would have used in the same situation?
If not, he is guilty of negligence.”105
80. Indeed, public officers are not held to the standard of

extraordinary diligence, but simply ordinary diligence, or the
diligence of a good father of a family.106
81. The fourth element of malversation of public funds is that

the person “appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented or,
through abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to
take [the public funds or property for which he is accountable].107
82. It cannot be over-emphasized that Accused-Appellant is

not an accountable officer herein. Applying the test of ordinary
diligence, it is evident that Accused-Appellant did not negligently
allow EDWINLFI, or anyone else for that matter, to appropriate the
public funds involved. Governor Padaca did not violate the
threshold of ordinary diligence required of her as a public officer.
83. First, as discussed, the ratification of the MOA by the

Sangguniang Panlalawigan cured the MOA from all its defects, if
any. Governor Padaca cannot be said to have negligently entered
into the MOA, since her act was authorized from the outset and,
even if it was not, was later ratified by the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan.
84. Second, Governor Padaca ensured that the MOA

contained enough safeguards to protect the integrity of the funds
and ensure their proper disbursement for the intended purpose of
giving loans to the farmers.
85. Under the MOA, EDWINLFI was required to implement

a system for the proper receipt, custody, release and disbursements
of EDWINLFI’s funds, inventory and other assets; to implement an
104
105
Assailed Decision, p. 35; emphasis and underscoring supplied.
106
TESDA v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 204869, 11 March 2014, 718 SCRA 402, 434.
107
Mesina v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 162489, 17 June 2015, 758 SCRA 639, 651;
underscoring supplied.
27
efficient accounting and management information system, to record
and monitor the transactions of EDWINLFI in relation to the
Program; establish and maintain an efficient internal auditing
system to ensure that assets are protected, accounting records are
reliable and accurate; and establish a system for the identification of
beneficiaries, loan evaluation, processing documentation, release
and collection, among others.108
86. Further, EDWINLFI was subject to audit by the

Commission on Audit (“COA”), and was bound to follow the
policies formulated by the Province of Isabela on identification of
beneficiaries, loan policies, and personnel policies, among others.109
87. As a result thereof, the Commission on Audit Report dated 2

October 2008110 shows that reports were indeed submitted by
EDWINLFI in accordance with the MOA.
88. Third, it is clear that EDWINFLI loaned the funds to the

farmer-beneficiaries, who, in fact, were able to make use of the same.
89. The testimonial and documentary evidence of Governor

Padaca indubitably shows that hundreds of Isabela farmers availed
the loans under the Program, and they, in fact, repaid the loans. 111
This was made possible due to the safeguards contained in the
MOA. To recall, the Prosecution stipulated that hundreds of farmers
will give identical or the same testimony as the following witnesses
of Governor Padaca: (a) Mr. Credo; (b) Mr. Bareng; (c) Mr.
Panduyos; and (d) Mr. Pardua,112 who all testified that they availed
of the loans under the Program and that they repaid their loans. In
particular, these witnesses testified that:
89.1. Mr. Credo was able to acquire PhP 35,000.00 worth

of farm inputs composed of insecticide, fertilizers, and hybrid
rice seeds.113
108
V, pp. 593-595.
109
V, pp. 593-595.
110
Prosecution’s Formal Offer of Evidence dated 12 December 2016, Exhibit “Y”, Records, Vol. V,
pp. 544-717.
111
Sinumpaang Salaysay of Mr. Credo dated 3 October 2017, Records, Vol. VI, pp. 273-279;
Sinumpaang Salaysay of Mr. Panduyos dated 3 October 2017, Records, Vol. VI, pp. 280-286;
Sinumpaang Salaysay of Mr. Bareng dated 3 October 2017, Records, Vol. VI, pp. 287-293;
112
TSN dated 10 October 2017, pp. 8-28.
113
Sinumpaang Salaysay of Mr. Credo dated 3 October 2017, Records, Vol. VI, pp. 273-279.
28
89.2. In 2007, Mr. Bareng was granted a loan worth PhP
14,000 of farm inputs composed of six (6) sacks of fertilizer, one
(1) bottle of insecticide, and two (2) bags of hybrid seeds.114
89.3. Mr. Panduyos received PhP 14,000.00 worth of farm

inputs consisting of six (6) sacks of fertilizer, one (1) bottle of
insecticide, and two (2) bags of hybrid rice seeds.115
89.4. Mr. Pardua was able to acquire a loan of farm

inputs at least three (3) times.116
90. Verily, that the amount of PhP 25,000,000.00 was actually

used as loans to the farmers remains unrebutted. Thus, there is no
factual basis to convict Governor Padaca with malversation as there
is no evidence to establish, much less prove that she
misappropriated the funds as the intended beneficiaries actually
benefited through the Program.
91. During cross-examination, the court a quo noted that the

Prosecution’s witness, Isabela COA State Auditor, Olivia T. Cureg,
confirmed that “[t]he audit did not anymore determine whether the
amount of PhP 25,000,000.00 was really distributed to the farmers as
it went only as far as the depository bank was concerned. They no
longer asked EDWINFLI who are the beneficiaries of the program.
Cureg cannot tell how many beneficiaries foundation had; she did
not conduct an exit conference…”117 Indeed, Governor Padaca
cannot possibly be convicted of malversation as the Prosecution’s
evidence is not only insufficient to establish the crime charged, but
even bolsters the factual position of the defense that the amount of
PhP 25,000,000.00 was actually distributed to the intended
beneficiaries.
92. Notably, the Prosecution’s witnesses from the COA never

testified nor produced a Notice of Disallowance to make the amount
of PhP 18,000,000.00 due and demandable from Governor Padaca.
Thus, Governor Padaca’s voluminous evidence remain
uncontroverted which conclusively shows that the funds in fact
reached the farmer-beneficiaries.
93. So also, one of Accused-Appellant’s witnesses, Ms.

Arriola, EDWINLFI’s Agronomist and Statistician, testified that she
processed the loan applications of the farmers and collected the
114
Sinumpaang Salaysay of Mr. Bareng dated 3 October 2017, Records, Vol. VI, pp. 287-293.
115
Sinumpaang Salaysay of Mr. Panduyos dated 3 October 2017, Records, Vol. VI, pp. 280-286.
116
117
29
loans receivables due from the farmers.118 This belies the court a quo’s
erroneous conclusion that the farmer-beneficiaries did not
legitimately avail of the loans nor repay the same.
94. Fourth, even assuming Accused-Appellant was negligent

(she was not), still, the Prosecution failed to prove that such
negligence amounted to criminal intent. In fact, Governor Padaca
conceptualized the Program in good faith, and her acts leading up to
and prior to the release of P25,000,000.00 to EDWINLFI were never
animated with criminal design. The centerpiece of Governor
Padaca’s administration had been agricultural developmental
projects. Governor Padaca pursued the Program in good faith. The
Prosecution has been unable to overcome the presumption of good
faith and regularity in the performance of her duties.
95. In Tabuena v. Sandiganbayan,119 which involved a charge of

malversation under Article 217 of the RPC, this Honorable Court held
that good faith “is a valid defense in a prosecution for
malversation for it would negate criminal intent on the part of the
accused.”120 Thus:
“[I]n the two (2) vintage, but significant malversation

cases of ‘US v. Catolico’ and ‘US v. Elvina,’ the Court
stressed that:
To constitute a crime, the act must, except in certain

crimes made such by statute, be accompanied by a
criminal intent, or by such negligence or
indifference to duty or to consequences as, in law, is
equivalent to criminal intent. The maxim is actus
non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea — a crime is not
committed if the mind of the person performing the
act complained of is innocent.
The rule was reiterated in ‘People v. Pacana,’ although

this case involved falsification of public documents and
estafa:
Ordinarily, evil intent must unite with an unlawful

act for there to be a crime. Actus non facit reum, nisi
mens sit rea. There can be no crime when the
criminal mind is wanting.
118
Judicial Affidavit of Ms. Arriola dated 3 October 2017, Records, Vol. VI, pp. 313-786; Vol.
VII, pp. 1-895; Vol. VIII, pp. 1-743; Vol. IX, pp. 1-717; Vol. X, pp. 1-778; Vol. XI, pp. 1-774;
Vol. XII, pp. 1-896; Vol. XIII, pp. 1-748; Vol. XIV, pp. 1-388.
119
G.R. Nos. 103501-03, 17 February 1997, 268 SCRA 332.
120
Ibid., at 356.
30
American jurisprudence echoes the same principle. It
adheres to the view that criminal intent in embezzlement
is not based on technical mistakes as to the legal effect of
a transaction honestly entered into, and there can be no
embezzlement if the mind of the person doing the act is
innocent or if there is no wrongful purpose. The
accused may thus always introduce evidence to show he
acted in good faith and that he had no intention to
convert. And this, to our mind, Tabuena and Peralta had
meritoriously shown.”121
96. It is an elementary rule that good faith is presumed and

that the burden of proving bad faith rests upon a party alleging the
same.122 In this case, the Prosecution failed to impute, much less,
prove bad faith on the part of Governor Padaca. On the other hand,
as noted by the court a quo, the “MOA was in connection with the
flagship programs of the province to help improve the lives of poor
farmers”,123 and “[t]o implement the program, she [Governor Padaca]
asked for funding from the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Isabela to
be lent to the farmer beneficiaries not only to increase the
productivity but also to protect them from private financiers who
were charging usurious interest”.124
97. Indeed, the Program’s main objective is to produce higher

yields, which would consequently increase the income derive of
small and medium scale farmers in Isabela. Clearly, the
implementation of the Program, which was ultimately for the benefit
of the Isabela Farmers cannot be considered coupled with criminal
intent. On the contrary, these shows that the Province of Isabela,
through Governor Padaca, only intended to provide assistance to
their farmers.
98. Thus, the implementation of the Program which was

primarily intended for the benefit of the Isabela Farmers, cannot be
considered as coupled with criminal intent. On the other hand, as
noted by the court a quo, the Program was implemented specifically
for the benefit of the farmer-beneficiaries.
99. All told, it is evident that Governor Padaca exercised

reasonable care and caution when she entered into the MOA with
EDWINLFI. In no way did she allow the misappropriation of funds
through “gross inexcusable negligence,” as alleged by the
121
Id. at 357, intext citations omitted.
122
Orencio v. Valeriano, G.R. No. 185559, 2 August 2017, 833 SCRA 649, 662.
123
124
31
Prosecution. In entering into the MOA, Governor Padaca did not
guarantee or warrant EDWINLFI’s strict or faithful performance of
its obligations under the MOA. Moreover, no proof of criminal intent
was recited in either the Assailed Decision or Assailed Resolution.
Indeed, it is not for Accused-Appellant to prove that she acted
without criminal intent, or that her supposed negligence, without
bad faith, amounted to criminal liability.
IV.
THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO ESTABLISH

ALL THE ELEMENTS OF MALVERSATION OF
PUBLIC FUNDS UNDER ARTICLE 217 OF THE
REVISED PENAL CODE BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT. GIVEN THIS, THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PRESUMPTION OF
INNOCENCE IN FAVOR OF ACCUSED-
APPELLANT MUST PREVAIL.
100. The court a quo denied Accused-Appellant’s Motion for

Reconsideration and maintained that Accused-Appellant is guilty of
malversation of public funds. With all due respect, the court a quo
gravely erred in convicting Accused-Appellant of malversation of
public funds in utter disregard of her constitutional right to be
presumed innocent until proven otherwise.
101. The Constitution provides that: “[I]n all criminal

prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the
contrary is proved[.]”125 The presumption of innocence is anchored
on the principle of justice; not to protect the guilty but to prevent the
conviction of one who is innocent.126 Accusation is not synonymous
with guilt.127
102. In People v. Mejia,128 this Honorable Court highlighted the

importance of the presumption of innocence:
“Enshrined in the Bill of Rights is the right of the

accused to be presumed innocent until the contrary is
proved. To overcome the presumption, nothing but proof
beyond reasonable doubt must be established by the
125
CONST., Art. III, Sec. 14(1).
126
See People v. Dramayo, G.R. No. L-21325, 29 October 1971, 42 SCRA 59.
127
Ibid., at 64.
128
People v. Mejia, G.R. Nos. 118940-41 and 119407, 7 July 1997, 275 SCRA 127.
32
prosecution. Save in certain circumstances as where, for
instance, the accused admits the commission of the acts
alleged to constitute a crime but interposes justifying
circumstances, the burden is never shifted to the accused
or diminished by the weakness of his defense. Indeed,
unless the prosecution successfully discharges that
burden, the accused need not even offer evidence in his
behalf.”129
103. Indeed, as further stressed by this Honorable Court in

People v. Frago,130 the prosecution must be able to proffer such
evidence that would satisfy the conscience to rule on a conviction, to
wit:
“The prosecution must draw its strength from its

own evidence. As has been oft-repeated, every
circumstance favoring the innocence of the accused
must be taken into account and the proof against him
must survive the test of reason. Only when the conscience
is satisfied that the crime has been committed by the
person on trial should the sentence be for conviction.”131
104. Under the Rules of Court, an accused is entitled to an

acquittal unless his or her guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. 132
Proof beyond reasonable doubt requires only moral certainty that
produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.133 This Honorable
Court has emphasized that it is the imperative duty of the
prosecution to prove a criminal charge beyond reasonable doubt.134
105. Additionally, this Honorable Court, in People v.

Dramayo,135 stressed how it must be clearly proven that the accused is
the perpetrator of the crime, thus:
“It is thus required that every circumstance

favoring his innocence be duly taken into account. The
proof against him must survive the test of reason; the
strongest suspicion must not be permitted to sway away
judgment. The conscience must be satisfied that on the
defendant could be laid the responsibility for the
129
Ibid., at 155.
130
G.R. Nos. 104492-93, 31 May 1994, 232 SCRA 653.
131
Ibid., at 662; emphasis and underscoring supplied.
132
RULES OF COURT, Rule 133, Sec. 2.
133
People v. Guarnes, G.R. No. 65175, 15 April 1988, 160 SCRA 552, 532.
134
People v. Esquivel, 82 Phil. 453, 459 (1948).
135
G.R. No. L-21325, 29 October 1971, 42 SCRA 59.
33
offense charged; that not only did he perpetrate the act
but that it amounted to a crime.”136
106. Most importantly, the prosecution must be able to prove

beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime charged and
the complicity or participation of the accused.137 The prosecution
failed in this regard which the court a quo neglected to rectify.
107. In Venezuela v. People,138 this Honorable Court discussed

the elements of malversation of public funds as follows:
a) The offender is a public officer; 139

b) He or she had custody or control of the funds or property
by reason of the duties of his office; 140
c) Those funds or property were public funds or property for
which he or she was accountable; 141 and
d) He or she appropriated, took, misappropriated, or
consented, or through abandonment or negligence,
permitted another person to take them.142
108. In this case, the Prosecution absolutely failed to prove

malversation of public funds as charged in the Information. The
Information reads:

subsequent thereto, in Isabela, Philippines, and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused
Maria Gracia Cielo M. Padaca, a public officer, being the
Governor of the Province of Isabela, while in the
performance of her official functions, committing the
offense in relation to her office, and taking advantage of
her official position, and in the grave abuse thereof,
having control of public funds in the amount of Twenty
Five Million Pesos, Philippine Currency (Php
25,000,000.00), which was placed under her
administration for said amount of public funds pursuant
to Section 340 of the Local Government Code acting
together, conspiring and confederating with Provincial
Legal Officer, Atty. Johnas M. Lamorena, Municipal
136
Ibid., at 64.
137
People v. Maraorao, G.R. No. 174369, 20 June 2012, 674 SCRA 151, 159.
138
G.R. No. 205693, 14 February 2018, 885 SCRA 331.
139
Ibid., at 345.
140
Id.
141
Id.
142
Id.
34
Councilor Servando Soriano and Dionisio Pine, a private
individual, in their respective capacities as Director,
Chairman, and Manager, respectively, of the Economic
Development for Western Isabela and Northern Luzon
Foundation, Inc. (EDWINLFI), a non-government
organization, through manifest partiality, evident bad
faith, or gross inexcusable negligence, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously consent, or
through abandonment or negligence, permit said
Economic Development for Western Isabela and
Northern Luzon Foundation, Inc. (EDWINLFI) to take
such amount of public funds under the authority of
Memorandum of Agreement dated 08 January 2006
which had not been ratified until after 31 January 2007
for the implementation of the Provincial Rice Program of
Isabela, more particularly the Supervised Credit Facility,
without terms of repayment to the Provincial
Government of Isabela of the funds which were not, in
fact, awarded to the farmers of Isabela who are the
supposed recipients of its provincial rice program as
proved by the absence of any report of quantified
accomplishment or disbursement of the funds, and by
then and there transferring said public funds in the
amount of P25,000,000.00 in favor of EDWINLFI for
services yet to be rendered.”
109. In the first place, as extensively discussed, Accused-

Appellant is not an accountable officer. A public officer who, in the
discharge of his office, receives money or property of the
government which he is bound later to account for is considered an
accountable officer.143 In determining whether the offender is a
public officer, what is controlling is the nature of his duties and not
his designation.144 Based on this definition, to be held accountable,
the public officer must receive the money or property and later fail
to account for it.145 When a public officer is asked to account for the
cash in his accountability, this necessarily means that he has to
produce the cash in bills, coins, and other cash items that he
received.146
143
Rueda v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 129064, 29 November 2000, 346 SCRA 341, 355.
144
Ibid., at 357.
145
Id.
146
Id.
35
110. Even the Prosecution admitted through its allegations in
the Information that Governor Padaca may only be held as an
accountable officer under the definition in Section 340 of the LGC.
The Prosecution failed to prove how Governor Padaca is directly
responsible for the accounting of the PhP 25,000,000.00, much less
that there was a demand (there was none) for her to account for the
cash that she received and held in custody (she did not). Besides,
even applying Section 340 of the LGC, the Prosecution failed to
establish how Accused-Appellant actually participated in the use or
application of said funds.
111. Clearly, Governor Padaca is not an accountable officer by

the nature of her duties as such. Her only participation in this case
was limited to entering into the MOA with EDWINLFI on behalf of
the Province of Isabela. She had no participation as to the use and
application of the PhP 25,000,000.00. Upon the transfer of the PhP
25,000,000.00, the duty to monitor and manage the funds devolved
upon the Provincial Treasurer. On this score alone, Governor Padaca
should not have been convicted of malversation of public funds.
112. The Prosecution also absolutely failed to prove that

Governor Padaca took advantage of her position as then governor of
the Province of Isabela. To recall, through Resolution No. 09,
Governor Padaca was authorized from the outset to negotiate and
enter into the MOA with EDWINLFI. Moreover, the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan also issued Resolution No. 03 which ratified the MOA
and cured it of all its defects, if any. The defense evidence showed
that, instead of taking advantage of her position, Governor Padaca
acted within the authority granted to her, and, more importantly,
acted out of a desire to improve the lives and livelihoods of the
Isabelino farmers.
113. Further, the crime of malversation presupposes that there

was, at the very least, misappropriation of public funds. To
misappropriate connotes the act of using or disposing another
property for a purpose other than that agreed upon.147 Here, no
misappropriation of any sort took place.
114. To recall, the Province of Isabela entered into the MOA

with EDWINLFI for the purposes of providing funds for the
Supervised Credit Aspect of the Program and its operational
requirements. Governor Padaca presented witnesses148 uniformly
147
See Tria v. People, G.R. No. 204755, 17 September 2014, 735 SCRA 569, 578.
148
See Sinumpaang Salaysay of Mr. Credo dated 3 October 2017, Records, Vol. VI, pp. 273-279;
36
attesting that they received farm inputs from the Program 149 and that
they were able to repay them in due time.150
115. The Prosecution failed to adduce any evidence that the

funds were not in fact awarded to the farmers of Isabela. This is the
crux of the crime of malversation. As mentioned, even the
Prosecution was willing to stipulate that over a hundred farmers of
Isabela will give the identical testimony that they received the farm
inputs from EDWINLFI and subsequently paid back the loans for the
same.151
116. It is the duty of the Prosecution to prove each and every

element of the crime charged in the information to warrant a finding
of guilt. The Prosecution must further prove the participation of the
accused in the commission of the offense.152 In this case, not only did
the Prosecution fail to prove the existence of all the elements of the
crime charged, the Prosecution likewise failed to prove the
participation of Governor Padaca in the use or application of the
amount of PhP 25,000,000.00, much less that she was impelled by
any criminal intent or bad faith in entering into the MOA with
EDWINLFI.
117. The demands of justice and fair play behoove this

Honorable Court to seriously consider Accused-Appellant’s defenses
in this case, as they clearly show that the court a quo made erroneous
findings of fact and legal conclusions. Accused-Appellant
respectfully submits that the evidence on record does not establish,
much less prove beyond reasonable doubt, facts and circumstances
justifying a finding of conviction against her for malversation of
public funds. When moral certainty as to culpability hangs in the
balance, acquittal on reasonable doubt inevitably becomes a
matter of right.153 Consistent with the time-honored principle of pro
reo, it is thus the bounden duty of this Honorable Court to reverse
149
150
151
TSN dated 10 October 2017, pp. 8-28.
152
Patula v. People, G.R. No. 164457, 11 April 2012, 669 SCRA 135, 150.
153
People v. Guinto, G.R. No. 198314, 24 September 2014, 736 SCRA 431, 475 citing Zafra v.
People, G.R. No. 190749, 25 April 2012, 671 SCRA 396, 409, citing Malillin v. People, G.R.
No. 172953, 30 April 2008, 553 SCRA 619, 639.
37
the erroneous findings of the court a quo and firmly declare that
Accused-Appellant is INNOCENT of the crimes charged.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Accused-Appellant MARIA GRACIA CIELO

M. PADACA respectfully prays that this Honorable Court REVERSE
and MODIFY the court a quo’s Resolution dated 23 June 2020
convicting her in Criminal Case No. SB-11-CRM-0282 of Malversation
of Public Funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code; and, in
lieu thereof, render judgment DECLARING Accused-Appellant as
NOT GUILTY of Malversation of Public Funds.
Accused-Appellant prays for other reliefs deemed just and
equitable under the premises.
Taguig for Manila City, 9 June 2021.
ANGARA ABELLO CONCEPCION REGALA & CRUZ

Counsel for Defendant-Appellee Maria Gracia Cielo M. Padaca
22nd Floor, ACCRALAW Tower
2nd Avenue corner 30th Street, Crescent Park West
Bonifacio Global City, 1635 Taguig, Metro Manila
Telephone No. (632) 8830-8000
Facsimile Nos. (632) 8403-7007 and (632) 8403-7009
[email protected]
By:
ROGELIO A. VINLUAN
PTR No. A-4945143; 01/05/2021; Taguig City
IBP No. 139648; 01/08/2021; Makati City
Roll No. 15658
MCLE Exemption VI-001627; 02/19/19
SAMANTHA BEATRICE P. KING
38
Roll No. 71749
MCLE Compliance No. VI–0021974; 04/12/19
JONN KENNETH LAURENCE A. GONZALES

Roll No. 71071
MCLE Compliance No. VI-0024568; 04/12/19
JULIENNE THERESE V. SALVACION

IBP No. 139731; 01/08/2021; Quezon
Roll No. 74208
MCLE Compliance No. NA; Admitted in July 2020
Copy furnished:
OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR

Office of the Ombudsman
4/F, Ombudsman Building
Agham Road, Diliman
Quezon City
SANDIGANBAYAN
Third Division
5/F Sandiganbayan Centennial Building,
COA Compound
Commonwealth Ave. cor. Batasan Road
Quezon City
(Criminal Case No. SB-11-CRM-0282 to 0283)
EXPLANATION
39
Undersigned counsel respectfully manifests that copies of the
foregoing APPELLANT’S BRIEF will be served by registered mail
because the health risks from the existing public health emergency,
mobility restrictions pursuant to the General Community Quarantine
within the National Capital Region, and limited personnel in view of
the internal safety protocols in place render personal service
impracticable.
JULIENNE THERESE V. SALVACION
40

6.1386 (Padaca) - Appellant's Brief - June 9 - CONTROL (CLEAN)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

6.1386 (Padaca) - Appellant's Brief - June 9 - CONTROL (CLEAN)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

MARIA GRACIA CIELO M. PADACA

G.R. No. 253470

ANGARA ABELLO CONCEPCION REGALA & CRUZ

CIVIL CODE, ARTICLE 1396

Corpuz v. People of the Philippines

Malillin v. People of the Philippines

Mesina v. People of the Philippines

Ocampo v. People of the Philippines

Patula v. People of the Philippines

People of the Philippines v. Dramayo

People of the Philippines v. Frago

People of the Philippines v. Guarnes

People of the Philippines v. Guinto

People of the Philippines v. Maraorao

People of the Philippines v. Mejia

TESDA v. Commission on Audit,

The Missionary Sisters of Our Lady of Fatima v Alzona

Torres v. People of the Philippines

Tria v. People of the Philippines

University of Mindanao v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas

Venezuela v. People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 253470

MARIA GRACIA CIELO M.

Accused-Appellant, MARIA GRACIA CIELO M. PADACA,

NATURE OF THE CASE

1. This is an appeal from the Decision dated 15 November

2. Accused-Appellant respectfully makes the following

2.1. The court a quo erred in holding that Accused-

2.2. The court a quo erred in ruling that Accused-

2.3. The court a quo erred in holding that Accused-

2.4. The court a quo erred in convicting Accused-

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

3. The Province of Isabela is one of the most productive rice

4. Accused-Appellant, Governor Ma. Gracia Cielo M.

5. In Accused-Appellant’s first year as Governor, she

6. However, not all farmers could participate in the price

7. The Program’s thrust is to introduce new technologies

8. To implement the Program, Governor Padaca requested

9. In response to her request, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan

11. On 8 January 2006, pursuant to the authority given to her

12. Pursuant to the MOA, EDWINLFI volunteered its

13. Under the MOA, Twenty-Five Million Pesos (PhP

14. In selecting EDWINLFI as the implementing NGO,

15. Under the MOA, the Provincial Government of Isabela

16. Notably, Governor Padaca did not receive any public

17. Thousands of farmer-beneficiaries availed of, and

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

18. Governor Padaca, together with19 Provincial Legal Officer

19. The two (2) Informations respectively read as follows:

Criminal Case No. SB-11-CRM-0282

“That on 23 February 2006, or sometime prior or

Criminal Case No. SB-11-CRM-0283

“That on 23 February 2006, or sometime prior or

20. On 22 October 2013, Governor Padaca was arraigned and

21. On 7 March 2016, the parties submitted their Joint

22. On 11 February 2016,24 9 March 2016,25 20 April 2016,26 28

23. Thereafter, Accused-Appellant presented her witnesses

a) Accused-Appellant herself was presented on 8 August

i. That all her actions subject of the criminal charges

iii. She entered into a MOA with EDWINLFI, in behalf