SC affirms dismissal of ex Marines commandant for misconduct, dishonesty
By AJ Siytangco
Published Aug 27, 2019 12:02 pm
By Rey Panaligan
The Supreme Court (SC) has reversed the Court of Appeals (CA) as it ordered the dismissal from military service of then Philippine Marine Corps (PMC) commandant Maj. Gen. Renato P. Miranda for grave misconduct and serious dishonesty.
(MANILA BULLETIN FILE PHOTO)
Miranda was found administratively liable in connection with the handling and disbursement of P36.7 million earmarked by PMC in April 2000 for the Combat Clothing and Individual Equipment Allowance (CCIE) intended for PMC enlisted personnel for 1999.
In a decision written by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro Javier, the SC ordered the forfeiture of Miranda’s benefits, except accrued leave benefits, if any.
He was also disqualified permanently from re-employment in any branch or service of the government, including government-owned and controlled corporations.
In April 2016, Miranda posted a P230,000-bond before the Sandiganbayan on his criminal charges for graft and malversation in connection with the P36.7 million CCIE.
Case records showed that in April 2000, the PMC earmarked and released P36,768,028.95 for the 1999 CCIE of enlisted personnel who, individually, was to receive a total of P14,719.05 each in cash.
On the basis of an audit conducted by the Commission on Audit (COA), the fact-finding investigation bureau of the office of the deputy Ombudsman for the Military and other Law Enforcement Offices (FFIB-MOLEO) filed a complaint against Miranda, Brig. Gen. Percival M. Subala, Lt. Col. Jeson P. Cabatbat, Maj. Adelo B. Jandayan, Capt. Felicisimo C. Millado, Capt. Edmundo D. Yurong, and Carolyn L. Bontolo for malversation of public funds through falsification of public documents, violation of COA Rules and Regulations, and violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
The complaint cited COA findings that several PMC personnel (at least 145 of them) did not receive the P14,719.05 CCIE intended for them; PMC personnel disowned the signatures appearing on the payrolls and even denied authorizing any representative to receive their allowances.
In the case of Miranda, the complaint alleged that he did not have the power to approve the grant of authority since under the Government Accounting and Auditing Manual, it was Subala who had the authority to do so.
In denying the complaint, Miranda said it was Subala who authorized him to approve the disbursement vouchers. In the case of other officers, they said they signed the checks as part of their ministerial duty.
On Feb. 27, 2009, the Deputy Ombudsman for MOLEO found Miranda (then a colonel), Cabatbat, Jandayan, Millado, and Yurong guilty as administratively charged and ordered dismissed from the service.
In the case of Jandayan who had retired, his retirement benefits were forfeited. The complaints against Subala and Bontolo were dismissed.
Miranda elevated the issue before the CA which granted his petition and exonerated him of the administrative complaints.
The CA ruled that there was no substantial evidence to prove that Miranda participated in the alleged conspiracy to defraud the government, and that the documents signed by him only showed he approved the release of subject funds upon certification by subordinate officers in charge of evaluating the proposed disbursement that the same was in order and that funds were available for the purpose.
Thus, the CA said the mere fact of signing the documents in question did not make Miranda liable for grave misconduct and dishonesty.
But the SC did not agree with the CA’s ruling.
It said that Miranda “was accused of being a co-conspirator in an alleged grand design to steal money from government coffers under the guise of supposed disbursements for clothing and equipment of enlisted PMC personnel.”
It pointed out that Miranda’s “purported participation in the alleged conspiracy was his act of signing the disbursement vouchers and authorizing the transfer of funds to Maj. Jandayan who was not duly authorized to receive, nay, disburse these funds.”
Miranda alleged that his only participation in the P36.7 million CCIE was his signing the disbursement vouchers for the CCIE allowances in his capacity as duly authorized representative of the head of office.
The SC also said:
“Respondent's culpability did not arise solely because he signed the disbursement vouchers. His culpability rather was hinged on his act of authorizing Maj. Jandayan to receive the CCIE funds, albeit, the latter did not have the requisite authority to receive, much less, disburse these funds.
“And as it turned out, the funds which respondent entrusted to Maj. Jandayan were not disbursed to their supposed beneficiaries. No one could, account for these funds anymore, not even Maj. Jandayan himself.
“It is indubitable that Maj. Jandayan came into the picture only when respondent out of nowhere and without any valid designation or authority possessed by Maj. Jandayan suddenly brought the latter in as recipient and disburser of the funds.
“It was truly the final operative act which caused first the release, then the misappropriation, and finally the total loss of the funds which to date, have remained unaccounted for.
“All told, the Court of Appeals gravely erred when it exonerated respondent from the charges of grave misconduct and serious dishonesty. There is in fact compelling evidence on record showing that respondent did commit these offenses.”
(MANILA BULLETIN FILE PHOTO)
Miranda was found administratively liable in connection with the handling and disbursement of P36.7 million earmarked by PMC in April 2000 for the Combat Clothing and Individual Equipment Allowance (CCIE) intended for PMC enlisted personnel for 1999.
In a decision written by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro Javier, the SC ordered the forfeiture of Miranda’s benefits, except accrued leave benefits, if any.
He was also disqualified permanently from re-employment in any branch or service of the government, including government-owned and controlled corporations.
In April 2016, Miranda posted a P230,000-bond before the Sandiganbayan on his criminal charges for graft and malversation in connection with the P36.7 million CCIE.
Case records showed that in April 2000, the PMC earmarked and released P36,768,028.95 for the 1999 CCIE of enlisted personnel who, individually, was to receive a total of P14,719.05 each in cash.
On the basis of an audit conducted by the Commission on Audit (COA), the fact-finding investigation bureau of the office of the deputy Ombudsman for the Military and other Law Enforcement Offices (FFIB-MOLEO) filed a complaint against Miranda, Brig. Gen. Percival M. Subala, Lt. Col. Jeson P. Cabatbat, Maj. Adelo B. Jandayan, Capt. Felicisimo C. Millado, Capt. Edmundo D. Yurong, and Carolyn L. Bontolo for malversation of public funds through falsification of public documents, violation of COA Rules and Regulations, and violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
The complaint cited COA findings that several PMC personnel (at least 145 of them) did not receive the P14,719.05 CCIE intended for them; PMC personnel disowned the signatures appearing on the payrolls and even denied authorizing any representative to receive their allowances.
In the case of Miranda, the complaint alleged that he did not have the power to approve the grant of authority since under the Government Accounting and Auditing Manual, it was Subala who had the authority to do so.
In denying the complaint, Miranda said it was Subala who authorized him to approve the disbursement vouchers. In the case of other officers, they said they signed the checks as part of their ministerial duty.
On Feb. 27, 2009, the Deputy Ombudsman for MOLEO found Miranda (then a colonel), Cabatbat, Jandayan, Millado, and Yurong guilty as administratively charged and ordered dismissed from the service.
In the case of Jandayan who had retired, his retirement benefits were forfeited. The complaints against Subala and Bontolo were dismissed.
Miranda elevated the issue before the CA which granted his petition and exonerated him of the administrative complaints.
The CA ruled that there was no substantial evidence to prove that Miranda participated in the alleged conspiracy to defraud the government, and that the documents signed by him only showed he approved the release of subject funds upon certification by subordinate officers in charge of evaluating the proposed disbursement that the same was in order and that funds were available for the purpose.
Thus, the CA said the mere fact of signing the documents in question did not make Miranda liable for grave misconduct and dishonesty.
But the SC did not agree with the CA’s ruling.
It said that Miranda “was accused of being a co-conspirator in an alleged grand design to steal money from government coffers under the guise of supposed disbursements for clothing and equipment of enlisted PMC personnel.”
It pointed out that Miranda’s “purported participation in the alleged conspiracy was his act of signing the disbursement vouchers and authorizing the transfer of funds to Maj. Jandayan who was not duly authorized to receive, nay, disburse these funds.”
Miranda alleged that his only participation in the P36.7 million CCIE was his signing the disbursement vouchers for the CCIE allowances in his capacity as duly authorized representative of the head of office.
The SC also said:
“Respondent's culpability did not arise solely because he signed the disbursement vouchers. His culpability rather was hinged on his act of authorizing Maj. Jandayan to receive the CCIE funds, albeit, the latter did not have the requisite authority to receive, much less, disburse these funds.
“And as it turned out, the funds which respondent entrusted to Maj. Jandayan were not disbursed to their supposed beneficiaries. No one could, account for these funds anymore, not even Maj. Jandayan himself.
“It is indubitable that Maj. Jandayan came into the picture only when respondent out of nowhere and without any valid designation or authority possessed by Maj. Jandayan suddenly brought the latter in as recipient and disburser of the funds.
“It was truly the final operative act which caused first the release, then the misappropriation, and finally the total loss of the funds which to date, have remained unaccounted for.
“All told, the Court of Appeals gravely erred when it exonerated respondent from the charges of grave misconduct and serious dishonesty. There is in fact compelling evidence on record showing that respondent did commit these offenses.”