Zafra vs. People [G.R. No. 176317] Case Digest

 

Zafra vs. People

G.R. No. 176317

 

Facts:

Appellant was the only Revenue Collection Agent of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), Revenue District 3, in San Fernando, La Union from 1993-1995. An audit team composed of Revenue Officers, all from the central office of the BIR, was tasked to audit the cash and non-cash accountabilities of the appellant.

The audit team found discrepancy from the BIR documents submitted by appellant to COA. Appellant denied that he committed the crimes charged. He averred that as Revenue Collection Officer of San Fernando, La Union, he never accepted payments from taxpayers nor issued the corresponding revenue official receipts.

RTC rendered its consolidated decision convicting the petitioner of 18 counts of malversation of public funds through falsification of public documents. CA affirmed the decision of RTC.

Petitioner contends that the RTC and the CA erroneously convicted him of several counts of malversation of public funds through falsification of public documents on the basis of the finding that he had been negligent in the performance of his duties as Revenue District Officer; that the acts imputed to him did not constitute negligence.

 

Issue:

Whether or not RTC and the CA erroneously convicted the Petitioner of several counts of malversation of public funds through falsification of public documents.

 

Held:

No.

 

Ratio:

The findings of fact of the RTC were affirmed by the CA. Hence, the petitioner was correctly convicted of the crimes charged because such findings of fact by the trial court, being affirmed by the CA as the intermediate reviewing tribunal, are now binding and conclusive on the Court. Accordingly, we conclude that the Prosecution sufficiently established that the petitioner had been the forger of the falsified and tampered public documents, and that the falsifications of the public documents had been necessary to commit the malversations of the collected taxes.

The petitioner relies on the passage of the RTC’s ruling to buttress his contention that he should be found guilty of malversation through negligence. His reliance is grossly misplaced, however, because the RTC did not thereby pronounce that he had been merely negligent. The passage was nothing but a brief forensic discourse on the legal consequence if his defense were favorably considered, and was not the basis for finding him guilty. To attach any undue significance to such discourse is to divert attention away from the firmness of the finding of guilt. It cannot be denied, indeed, that the RTC did not give any weight to his position.