State prosecutors have appealed the Sandiganbayan’s dismissal of the malversation case against former Philippine Retirement Authority (PRA) board chair Jose Antonio Leviste, who was accused of failing to liquidate his cash advances for overseas trips.
In a 14-page motion for reconsideration, the Ombudsman’s Office of the Special Prosecutor disagreed with the court’s finding that Leviste was not the “accountable officer” who directly held custody of the PRA’s funds.
The antigraft court’s Fifth Division in its Sept. 30 resolution had granted Leviste’s motion to quash the charge sheet because he was not the “accountable officer” who could be held liable for malversation under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code.
The prosecutors, however, argued that the Supreme Court had ruled in several instances that an “accountable officer” was the one “who received money or property belonging to the government which is expected to account for.”
They also noted Commission on Audit Circular No. 97-002 provided that the failure of an “accountable officer” to liquidate his cash advance within 60 days of his return to the country was a valid ground to initiate criminal charges against him.
If the malversation case would not prosper, prosecutors maintained that Leviste could still be held liable for his alleged failure to comply with COA regulations.
At the same time, prosecutors also took exception to Leviste’s argument that the civil liability against him should be extinguished since he already paid the unliquidated amount of P151,385.42 back to PRA on May 26, or 12 years after the cash advance was made.
For prosecutors, Leviste’s payment of the cash advance—which only happened two days after the case was formally filed in the court—was virtually an “admission of his accountability, akin to voluntary surrender.”
The malversation case stemmed from the alleged conspiracy with Philip John Moreno, then accountant and division chief of the financial planning and control division, to misappropriate the unliquidated cash advance.
Leviste argued that only Moreno should be accountable for the unliquidated cash advance because he was the one who exercised the custody and control over the funds.