DATU GUIMID P. MATALAM VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

DATU GUIMID P. MATALAM VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 221849-50    April 4, 2016

 

LEONEN, J.

 

FACTS:

The Office of the Ombudsman charged Matalam, Regional Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform-Autonomous Region for Muslim Mindanao (DAR-ARMM), with the commission of crimes under "Section 52 (g) of Republic Act No. 8921, otherwise known as the [Government Service Insurance System (GSIS)] Act of 1997, and Section 1, Rule XIII of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 7742". According to the Prosecution, Matalam, Lawi, and Unte were the officers involved in the collection and remittance of accounts to the GSIS and Pag-IBIG Fund and, thus, were accountable for the non-remittance. Matalam and his co-accused failed and/or refused to remit the required contributions without justifiable cause despite repeated demands.

 

The Sandiganbayan found Matalam guilty of non-remittance of the employer's share of Pag-IBIG Fund premiums. According to the Sandiganbayan, under the pertinent rules and law, it is the employer who is penalized for the non-remittance to Pag-IBIG Fund. Matalam comes before the Court and assails the Sandiganbayan Decision. He argues that even if the offenses he allegedly committed are mala prohibita, his guilt must still be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The pieces of evidence presented in this case create a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. Thus, a re-evaluation of the evidence is required.

 

ISSUE:

Whether petitioner Datu Guimid P. Matalam is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of non-remittance of the employer's share of the GSIS and Pag-IBIG Fund premiums.

 

RULING:

When an act is malum prohibitum, "it is the commission of that act as defined by the law, and not the character or effect thereof, that determines whether or not the provision has been violated." The non-remittance of GSIS and Pag-IBIG Fund premiums is malum prohibitum. What the relevant laws punish is the failure, refusal, or delay without lawful or justifiable cause in remitting or paying the required contributions or accounts.

 

In this case, however, petitioner failed to prove a justifiable cause for his failure to remit the premiums. We cannot subscribe to petitioner's defense that the funds for the remittances were not directly credited to DAR-ARMM but to the account of the Office of the Regional Governor of the ARMM, which had the obligation to remit to the various line agencies of the ARMM the specific amounts provided to them. As head of the Regional Office, petitioner was a public officer who had the obligation to ensure the proper remittance of the employer's share of the premiums to the GSIS and Pag-IBIG Fund.