THE Sandiganbayan Seventh Division has denied the appeal of Capt. Mercita Eya, a former collections officer of the PNP Finance Service Office 14 in Camp Crame, for the reversal of its September 5, 2023 decision that affirmed her conviction on two counts of malversation of public funds.
Eya is facing imprisonment for 10 to 18 years in the first case in addition to fines totaling P4.92 million.
In the second case, she was meted 6 to 11 years imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine of P2.34 million.
Based on the assailed ruling of the Sandiganbayan, Eya was previously found guilty by the Quezon City Regional Trial Court Branch 88 which imposed perpetual disqualification from holding public office against her.
The cases were based on the discovery by Adelaida Dumag, an officer of the PNP Accounting Division-Reconciliation Department, of missing funds in two separate bank accounts of the PNP being maintained with the Landbank of the Philippines.
Both were traced to be accountabilities of Eya, resulting in her indictment and eventual conviction on two malversation charges before the QC RTC.
In her appeal, Eya argued that the allegations were vague due to the lack of specific imputations of wrongdoing and the evidence failed to prove that she converted the missing collections for her benefit.
She also questioned the prosecution’s use of secondary evidence even if there was no satisfactory explanation on the loss of the primary copies of documents.
Furthermore, she challenged the findings of the Commission on Audit on her accounts, saying the report was “incomplete, irregular, and inaccurate” because there was neither a cash examination for the other accountable officers nor an exit conference with key officials of the PNP.
The court, however, sustained the position of the prosecution that there was more than sufficient evidence to establish her culpability.
Prosecutors noted that under the law, it needed only to prove the missing sums in the funds under Eya’s custody and that she was unable to justify their absence upon demand.
“All that is necessary for conviction is sufficient proof that the accountable officer had received public funds, that he did not have them in his possession when demand therefor was made, and that he could not satisfactorily explain his failure to do so,” the Sandiganbayan said.
In addition, it pointed out that none of the arguments presented by the accused was new.
“Unfortunately, after going over the arguments raised in the motion, and even after a re-assessment of the records of these cases, this court finds no cogent reason that could persuade it to reconsider or set aside its questioned Decision promulgated on September 5, 2023,” it added.
