Fajardo v. People
G.R. No. 239823
September 25, 2019
FACTS:
The RTC
and SB convicted Angelica Anzia Fajardo. That on or about November 13, 2008,
and sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in Quezon City, Philippines, and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, a public officer, being the Cashier V and
designated OIC, Division Chief Ill,
Prize Payment (Teller) Division, Treasury Department of the Philippines Charity
Sweepstakes Office while in the performance of her official duties, committing
the offense in relation thereto and taking advantage of her official position,
as an accountable officer of PCSO's funds, appropriate, take and/or
misappropriate public funds in the following manner, to wit: accused received
Php3,000,000 as cash advance for the payment of sweepstakes and lotto low-tier
prizes and for the prize seed fund of the Pacific Online System Corporation
Scratch IT Project, but upon two spot audits conducted by the Internal Audit
Department of the PCSO on November 13, 2008 and on January 8, 2009, the total
amount of Php 1,877,450 were missing, and when given several opportunities to
explain the missing funds, she cannot explain nor give proof as to the
whereabouts of the funds she is
accountable for, to the damage and prejudice of public interest.
ISSUE:
Whether
or not the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting Fajardo.
HELD:
No. That
petitioner subsequently retracted the said letters in her counter-affidavit
before the Ombudsman will not exculpate her. Courts look upon retractions with
considerable disfavor because they are generally unreliable, 54 as there is
always the probability that it will later be repudiated. 55 At most the
retraction is an afterthought which should not be given probative value. 56
Only when there exist special circumstances in the case which when coupled with
the retraction raise doubts as to the truth of the testimony or statement
given, can retractions be considered and upheld,57 which does not obtain in
this case. Viewed in this light, any objections or reservations with regard to
the conduct of the spot audits conducted on Fajardo's account should have been
reflected on the said letters. As it is,
Fajardo did not challenge the conduct of the audit nor did she point out any
irregularity therein. Instead, she requested for more time to respond to the
allegations and later, acknowledged her infractions and offered ways to
restitute the missing amount. Further, and as aptly pointed out58 by the respondent
People of the Philippines through the Ombudsman, the fact that the spot audits
were conducted pursuant to the IAD's authority to do so raises the presumption
of regularity in the performance of official duty. Besides, this issue does not
detract from or diminish the fact that Fajardo failed to produce the missing
funds upon demand.
