Case Digest: PAMELA CHAN v. SANDIGANBAYAN 466 SCRA 190 (2005)

PAMELA CHAN v. SANDIGANBAYAN 466 SCRA 190 (2005)

The inconsistency between the finding of RTC and the SB as to the computation of the actual amount of remittance is not sufficient to merit re-audit. Petitioner Pamela Chan (Chan) was hired as Accounting Clerk II and assigned at the Regional Office of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in Cebu City, discharging the function of Cashier or Collection Officer. When Chan went on leave, Josephine Daclan (Daclan), the auditor from the Commission on Audit (COA) assigned to the NBI, conducted a routine audit examination of the accountability of Chan and found out that she had a cumulative shortage in the amount of P333,360.00. With this, the COA Region VII thus filed a complaint against Chan for Malversation of public funds. Chan was eventually indicted before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) which found her guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, with the mitigating circumstance that she had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed. As the RTC credited Chan‘s claim ―that during the preliminary investigation, she was able to remit P150,000.00 to the government‖ and noted that such claim was not denied by the prosecution, it held that she had an unremitted balance of P183,360.00. Chan sought for reinvestigation but such was denied by the RTC. On appeal, the Sandiganbayan (SB) affirmed the conviction of Chan but found that the amount totally remitted was P150,547.82, not P150,000.00 as found by the RTC. Chan claimed that her right to due process was violated by the denial of her plea for the conduct of a re-audit of her accountabilities.

 
ISSUE:

Whether or not the subject audit reports of Chan‘s accountabilities contain errors sufficient to merit a re-audit.

HELD:

The burden of proof that the subject audit reports contain errors sufficient to merit a re-audit lies with Chan. What degree of error suffices, there is no hard and fast rule. While COA Memorandum 87-511 dated October 20, 1987 recognizes that a re-audit may be conducted in certain instances, it does not specify or cite what those instances are. Chan draws attention to the conflicting findings of the COA, the RTC, and the SB regarding her total liability as indication that a re-audit was called for. As against the amount of P333,360.00 demanded by the COA, the trial court found her total liability to be P183,360.00 and the SB found it to be P182,812.18. These inconsistent findings were not due to any error in the audits, however. The liability of Chan as found by the RTC and the SB was lower than that found by the COA because there were remittances made while the case was already pending which were deducted from Chan‘s accountability. On the other hand, the inconsistency between the findings of the RTC and the SB was due to their different computations as to the actual amount of remittances, not due to any error in the audits.