SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 248652. June 19, 2024.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANTONIO M.

TALAUE, accused-appellant.

RESOLUTION

GAERLAN, J : p

For resolution are the Motion for Reconsideration 1 dated March 3, 2021, the
Motion for Leave of Court to File and Admit Supplement to Appellant's Motion for
Reconsideration 2 dated April 22, 2022, and the corresponding Supplement to
Appellant's Motion for Reconsideration (of the January 12, 2021 Decision), 3 likewise
dated April 22, 2022, all filed by accused-appellant Antonio M. Talaue (Talaue),
assailing the Court's earlier Decision 4 dated January 12, 2021. HTcADC

In said Decision, the Court denied Talaue's appeal from the Decision 5 dated
March 15, 2019 and the Resolution 6 dated July 19, 2019 of the Sandiganbayan in
Criminal Case No. SB-11-CRM-0120, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
violation of Section 52 (g) 7 in relation to Section 6 (b) 8 of Republic Act No. 8291, 9
otherwise known as the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) Act of 1997.
Antecedents
Talaue, along with Efren C. Guiyab (Guiyab) and Florante A. Galasinao
(Galasinao), was indicted by virtue of an Information 10 dated June 9, 2010, the
accusatory portion of which reading as follows:
That on or about 01 March 2006, or sometime prior or subsequent
thereto, in Sto. Tomas, Isabela, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the accused, public officers, being then the Municipal Mayor,
the Municipal Treasurer, and the Municipal Accountant, respectively, and as
such has the legal obligation to timely remit to the Government Service
Insurance System (GSIS) the GSIS premium contributions of the employees of
the Municipal Government of Sto. Tomas, Isabela did there and then willfully,
unlawfully, and criminally, fail to remit the said GSIS premiums, with an
aggregate amount of [PHP]22,436,546.10, for the period 01 January 1997 to 31
January 2004 within thirty (30) days from the date on which payment thereof
has become due and demandable, to the damage and prejudice of the
municipal employees.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 11
Talaue and Galasinao filed a Motion to Quash 12 dated September 12, 2011,
alleging that it was the Metropolitan Trial Court, not the Sandiganbayan, which had
jurisdiction over the case, especially considering that he was no longer Municipal Mayor
at the time and none of the accused were occupying a government position classified
as Salary Grade 27 and above. The said motion was denied by the Sandiganbayan in
its Resolution 13 dated February 27, 2015. Thus, the court a quo proceeded with the
arraignment of Talaue, Guiyab, and Galasinao who, while being assisted by their
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 respective counsels, each entered a plea of not guilty. Then, pre-trial 14 ensued,
followed by trial on the merits.
CAIHTE

Evidence for the prosecution

Talaue served as Mayor of the Municipality of Sto. Tomas, Province of Isabela,
from 1988 to 1998 and from 2001 to 2010. Guiyab and Galasinao were the Municipal
Treasurer and the Municipal Accountant, respectively, of the said municipality.
In a demand letter 15 dated September 19, 2003, the GSIS informed Talaue that
the Municipality of Sto. Tomas failed to remit the Social Insurance Contributions of its
employees between 1997 and 2003. The unpaid premium collectibles, including
interest, totaled PHP12,071,451.22. Similar notices dated August 2, 2004, 16 February
14, 2005, 17 and March 1, 2006 18 were sent by GSIS to Talaue.
The failure of the Municipality of Sto. Tomas to pay the GSIS constrained the
latter to institute a case for Collection of Sum of Money and Damages before Branch
118 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City, docketed as Civil Case No. 06-
0407-CFM.
On January 7, 2009, the RTC issued a Decision 19 based on a 2008
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the GSIS and the Municipality of Sto.
Tomas as represented by Talaue. The said MOA, which was incorporated in the RTC
Decision in its entirety, set the liability of the Municipality of Sto. Tomas to
PHP25,444,429.92, payable within 10 years.
Later, in a letter 20 dated October 27, 2016, denominated as Notice on Past Due
Compulsory Premiums, the GSIS informed Talaue that the Municipality of Sto. Tomas
had not paid the arrearages on its premiums which amounted to PHP22,436,546.10.
Meanwhile, in a Complaint-Affidavit 21 dated September 4, 2005, Leighton R.
Siazon, Chief Legal Counsel of the GSIS, charged Talaue, Guiyab, and Galasinao with
violation of Republic Act No. 8291 before the Office of the Ombudsman. A similar
Affidavit-Complaint 22 dated July 26, 2006 was also filed by Mateo G. Malabug, a
Municipal Councilor of the Municipality of Sto. Tomas.
By virtue of the Office of the Ombudsman's Consolidated Resolution 23 dated
June 9, 2010, Talaue, Guiyab, and Galasinao were formally charged with violation of
Section 52 (g) in relation to Section 6 (b) of Republic Act No. 8291.
In a Manifestation with Omnibus Motion 24 dated April 10, 2018, the
Sandiganbayan was informed of Guiyab's passing on March 22, 2018. 25 Thus, the
charge against him was dismissed, 26 while the case proceeded against Talaue and
Galasinao.
Evidence for the defense
Professing innocence, Talaue contended in his Judicial Affidavit 27 dated June
27, 2018 that prior to the year 1997, the usual practice was that the Department of
Budget and Management (DBM) would withhold funds from the municipality's budget
which, in turn, would be applied as payment of the latter's obligations such as the GSIS
premium contributions in question. Talaue likewise asserted that the DBM's withholding
of the amount of PHP5,000,000.00 from the municipality's budget for the year 1997 led
him to believe that the same would be used to cover remittances to the GSIS. However,
the DBM did not do so, resulting in fiscal problems for the municipality.
aScITE

Talaue instructed Guiyab, the Municipal Treasurer at that time, to reconcile the
municipality's accounts. He was unable to ascertain Guiyab's compliance because his
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 term as Municipal Mayor ended in 1998. When he returned to office in 2001, he
discovered that Guiyab did not address the issue with the GSIS.
Talaue also contended that the 2008 MOA converted the municipality's obligation
into a loan. In particular, Paragraph 5.1 of the said document reads as follows:
5.1. Remitting Agency. The total or restructured obligation under this
Agreement assumed by the MUNICIPALITY OF SANTO TOMAS shall be
treated as a loan granted to MUNICIPALITY OF SANTO TOMAS as the
remitting agency upon the signing hereof. 28
Hence, he asserted that he could not be charged for violation of Section 52 (g) in
relation to Section 6 (b) of Republic Act No. 8291. Too, prescinding from Paragraph 6.4
29 of the 2008 MOA, an outstanding loan cannot be the basis for any criminal liability.

On the other hand, in his Judicial Affidavit 30 dated June 18, 2018, Galasinao
insisted that as Municipal Accountant, he was not specifically mandated by law to remit
the GSIS contributions of the employees of the municipality. His participation is limited
to computing the deductions from the employees' monthly salary and preparing the
disbursement vouchers, expenditure reports, and other related documents for the GSIS
contributions and remittances. His participation stops at the moment of his endorsement
of these documents to the Municipal Treasurer.
The Ruling of the Sandiganbayan
On March 15, 2019, the Sandiganbayan issued a Decision 31 acquitting
Galasinao but convicting Talaue.
The Sandiganbayan ruled that Galasinao cannot be held liable for the crime
charged because based on Section 474 (b) 32 of the Local Government Code of 1991,
33 as amended, the remittance or payment of the GSIS premium contributions is not
among his list of functions and duties as Municipal Accountant. Moreover, the
Information did not allege that Galasinao conspired with Talaue, and neither was there
any evidence presented for such purpose. DETACa

As for the finding of guilt rendered against Talaue, the Sandiganbayan found that
he was in the wrong for trying to put all the blame on Guiyab. Moreover, the non-
remittance of the GSIS premium contributions is malum prohibitum. Talaue cannot hide
behind the 2008 MOA because the conversion of the outstanding premium contributions
into a loan did not result in the extinguishment of his criminal liability.
Accordingly, the Sandiganbayan decreed:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds accused Antonio
M. Talaue GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 52(g) in
relation to Section 6(b) of Republic Act No. 8291. He is hereby sentenced to
suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from three (3) years as
minimum to five (5) years as maximum, and to pay a fine of Twenty Thousand
Pesos [PHP]20,000.00). He shall further suffer the penalty of absolute
perpetual disqualification from holding public office and from practicing any
profession or calling licensed by the Government.
Accused Florante A. Galasinao, on the other hand, is hereby
ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt. The property or cash bonds posted by
accused Galasinao for his provisional liberty is ordered returned, subject to the
usual accounting and auditing procedures. The Hold Departure Order issued
against him is ordered LIFTED.
SO ORDERED. 34
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 Talaue's Motion for Reconsideration 35 dated March 27, 2019 and Supplement to
Motion for Reconsideration 36 dated April 22, 2019 were denied by the Sandiganbayan
in its Resolution 37 dated July 19, 2019.
Undaunted, Talaue sought refuge to this Court by interposing an appeal. 38

Talaue's Appeal
In his Appellant's Brief 39 dated January 22, 2020, Talaue excoriated the
Sandiganbayan's judgment of conviction and argued, inter alia, that notwithstanding the
pronouncement that the crime involved in this case is malum prohibition, the
prosecution still failed to discharge its burden of showing that the inability to remit the
GSIS premium contributions was intentional; that the exact amount of unremitted
contributions was uncertain because no reconciliation was ever conducted to determine
the same; that having relied in good faith that his subordinates would facilitate the
remittance of the municipality's obligations to the GSIS, the doctrines laid down in Arias
v. Sandiganbayan 40 and in Magsuci v. Sandiganbayan 41 dictate that he must be
exculpated from liability; and that, at any rate, the accessory penalty of perpetual
disqualification from holding public office, in the absence of any finding of grave
misconduct on his part, is unconstitutional.
In its Appellee's Brief 42 dated June 10, 2020, the Office of the Special Prosecutor
(OSP) countermanded, among others, that by interposing an ordinary appeal instead of
a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, Talaue availed
of the wrong remedy; that, as such, the issuances of the Sandiganbayan had attained
finality; that Talaue's guilt has been fully established by the prosecution, especially
considering the fact that the crime involved is malum prohibitum; and that the Arias and
Magsuci doctrines are inapplicable in this case, it appearing that Talaue did not do
anything aside from merely giving instructions to Guiyab. HEITAD

The Assailed January 12, 2021 Decision

On January 12, 2021, the Court rendered a Decision 43 denying Talaue's appeal.
While the Court ruled that Talaue, availed of the correct mode of appeal, the
circumstances obtaining in the instant case do not support his plea for acquittal.
In rejecting the contentions put forth by Talaue, the Court ratiocinated that
because the crime subject of the instant case is malum prohibitum, it was incumbent
upon him to take "drastic measures to rectify the situation and demand accountability"
44 and prove that he was not nonchalant in complying with his legal obligation to remit
the GSIS contributions of the municipality's employees on time; that the blanket claim
that the municipality did not have enough funds to remit the said GSIS contributions was
insufficient and unsubstantiated; that the 2008 MOA only finds relevance with respect to
Talaue's civil liability for damages, not his criminal liability; and that Talaue cannot rely
on the Arias and Magsuci doctrines because he did not even file charges against
Guiyab for the latter's failure to facilitate the remittance of the outstanding contributions
to GSIS.
Hence, the present recourse.
Arguments
In favor of Talaue
In the instant Motion for Reconsideration, 45 Talaue asserts, inter alia, that the
imposition of the penalty of perpetual disqualification from public office is
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 unconstitutional in the absence of any finding that he committed grave misconduct or
any such administrative offense; that Section 52 (g) of Republic Act No. 8291 is a bill of
attainder for penalizing him with perpetual disqualification without any ill motive or
malice on his part being proven by the prosecution; that contrary to the findings of the
Sandiganbayan, he exerted efforts to settle the municipality's obligations with the GSIS;
that the prosecution failed to prove that the nonpayment of the GSIS contributions in
question was not without justifiable cause; and that the facts do not support the charge
in the Information that he failed to remit said GSIS contributions for the entire period of
January 1997 to January 2004, in view of the fact that he was not the Municipal Mayor
between July 1, 1998 and June 30, 2001.
Thereafter, in his Supplement to Appellant's Motion for Reconsideration (of the
January 12, 2021 Decision), 46 Talaue further contended that the Information against
him is defective because it failed to completely allege the essential details of the crime
charged. In particular, there was no allegation as to how Talaue was responsible for the
remittance of the GSIS premiums pertaining to the term when he was not the municipal
mayor. Moreover, the date of the commission of the crime as stated in the Information,
written as March 1, 2006, is inconsistent with the period involved, which is from January
1, 1997 until January 31, 2004. aDSIHc

Talaue further asseverated that there was no allegation as to the nature of the
GSIS premiums which the municipality failed to remit to the GSIS; that the 2008 MOA
converted the legal relationship between the municipality and the GSIS into a
contractual relationship, thereby resulting in an express novation as would negate
Talaue's criminal liability, if any; that the prosecution failed to identify his precise
participation that may be considered an overt criminal act; that the factual findings of
the court a quo are not supported by the evidence of record; that the lack of
administrative action against Guiyab cannot be taken against him; and that there was
no clear intention on his part to harm or commit a grave wrong, thus proving that the
accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification is unwarranted.
In favor of the People
In its Comment 47 dated January 9, 2023, the People, represented by the OSP,
defends its position by elucidating that Talaue was afforded his rights to due process
and to be informed of the nature of the cause and accusation against him because the
Information sufficiently apprised him of the crime charged against him; that the 2008
MOA did not alter Talaue's criminal liability; that as Municipal Mayor, Talaue was
primarily responsible for the prompt and timely remittance of the GSIS premium
contributions; and that the Motion for Leave of Court to File and Admit Supplement to
Appellant's Motion for Reconsideration 48 dated April 22, 2022 must be denied for
failure to allege supervening events as would justify the same.
Issue
In view of the parties' respective postures, the Court is called upon to determine
whether the arguments advanced by Talaue warrant a reconsideration of its January
12, 2021 Decision, thereby resulting in his acquittal.
The Ruling of the Court
In considering the arguments propounded by Talaue, the Court takes a second
hard look on the facts obtaining in this case and the matters which were either not
touched upon or were only discussed in passing in its January 12, 2021 Decision. In so
doing, the Court gives particular attention to the assertions that Talaue's constitutional
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 right to due process of law was violated by virtue of the defects in the Information
charging him of the subject crime; the criminal liability imputed upon him for acts that
were performed or not performed by his successor as Municipal Mayor between the
years 1999 and 2001; and the attribution of criminal liability based on malum
prohibitum, regardless of previous attempts on his part to settle the obligations of the
Municipality of Sto. Tomas with the GSIS. ATICcS

The Court acquits.

I.
The Court grants the Motion for Leave of Court to File and Admit Supplement to
Appellant's Motion for Reconsideration 49 and, accordingly, admits the Supplement to
Appellant's Motion for Reconsideration (of the January 12, 2021 Decision). 50
A supplemental pleading is meant to supply deficiencies in aid of the original
pleading 51 and does not replace that which it supplements. 52 It does not supersede the
original, but assumes that the original pleading is to stand. 53 Thus, it exists side by side
with the original. 54
The admission or non-admission of a supplemental pleading is not a matter of
right but, rather, lies in the sound discretion of the court before which its admission is
sought. 55 The standards that courts generally follow in the determination of whether or
not a supplemental pleading must be accepted have been laid down in Spouses
Lambino v. Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 172, Valenzuela City 56 as
follows:
Among the factors that the court will consider are: (1) resulting prejudice to the
parties; and (2) whether the movant would be prejudiced if the supplemental
pleading were to be denied. What constitutes prejudice to the opposing party
depends upon the particular circumstance of each case. An opposing party who
has had notice of the general nature of the claim or matter asserted in the
supplemental pleading from the beginning of the action will not be prejudiced by
the granting of leave to file a supplemental pleading. A motion for leave to file a
supplemental pleading may be denied if he is guilty of undue delay or laches
which causes substantial prejudice to the opposing party. 57
In the case at bar, Talaue's supplemental pleading is not dilatory. The admission
thereof will not prejudice the People because the matters raised therein, having been
previously asserted before the court a quo, are already familiar to the OSP. Moreover,
since the supplemental pleading in question asserts Talaue's constitutional rights as an
accused, he might be prejudiced if the same were denied by the Court. Thus, the higher
interest of justice calls for the admission of Talaue's Supplement to Appellant's Motion
for Reconsideration (of the January 12, 2021 Decision).
II.
Contrary to Talaue's contention, the allegations in the Information dated June 9,
2010 sufficiently prepared him for a proper and adequate defense.
The Constitution ordains that every person charged with the commission of a
crime must be afforded the right to due process of law. Section 14 of the Bill of Rights
so states:
SECTION 14. (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal
offense without due process of law.
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by
himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses
face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of
witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after
arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused
provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.
58

A cognate of an accused's right to due process pertains to the filing of an

Information, the act of which is sufficient to commence a criminal action. 59 Section 4,
Rule 110 of the Rules of Court defines an Information as an accusation in writing
charging a person with an offense, subscribed by the prosecutor and filed with the
court. ETHIDa

In order to determine whether an Information complies with the requirements of

the Constitution, Sections 6, 8, and 9, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court provide:
SECTION 6. Sufficiency of complaint or information. — A complaint
or information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused; the designation
of the offense given by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of as
constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate date
of the commission of the offense; and the place where the offense was
committed.
When an offense is committed by more than one person, all of them
shall be included in the complaint or information.
SECTION 8. Designation of the offense. — The complaint or
information shall state the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver
the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and
aggravating circumstances. If there is no designation of the offense, reference
shall be made to the section or subsection of the statute punishing it.
SECTION 9. Cause of the accusation. — The acts or omissions
complained of as constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating
circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise language and not
necessarily in the language used in the statute but in terms sufficient to enable
a person of common understanding to know what offense is being charged as
well as its qualifying and aggravating circumstances and for the court to
pronounce judgment.
Prescinding from the foregoing, the objectives of an accused's right to be
informed are as follows:
1. To furnish the accused with such a description of the charge against him
[or her] as will enable him [or her] to make the defense;
2. To avail himself [or herself] of his [or her] conviction or acquittal for
protection against a further prosecution for the same cause; and
3. To inform the court of the facts alleged, so that it may decide whether they
are sufficient in law to support a conviction, if one should be had. 60
Because an accused is presumed to have no independent knowledge of the facts
that constitute the offense, 61 the acts or omissions complained of must be alleged in
such form as is sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what
offense is intended to be charged, and enable the court to pronounce proper judgment.
62 After all, the factor that characterizes the charge is the actual recital of the facts, not
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 the conclusions of law. 63 TIADCc

Enrile v. People 64 expounds:

A concomitant component of this stage of the proceedings is that the
Information should provide the accused with fair notice of the accusations
made against him, so that he will be able to make an intelligent plea and
prepare a defense. Moreover, the Information must provide some means of
ensuring that the crime for which the accused is brought to trial is in fact one for
which he was charged, rather than some alternative crime seized upon by the
prosecution in light of subsequently discovered evidence. Likewise, it must
indicate just what crime or crimes an accused is being tried for, in order to
avoid subsequent attempts to retry him for the same crime or crimes. In other
words, the Information must permit the accused to prepare his defense, ensure
that he is prosecuted only on the basis of facts presented, enable him to plead
jeopardy against a later prosecution, and inform the court of the facts alleged
so that it can determine the sufficiency of the charge. 65 (Emphasis and
underscoring omitted)
Verily, an accused cannot be convicted of an offense, even if duly proven, unless
it is alleged or necessarily included in the complaint or Information. 66 This right to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against an accused cannot be
waived for reasons of public policy: 67
[The constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause
of the accusation against him cannot be waived for reasons of public policy.
Hence, it is imperative that the complaint or information filed against the
accused be complete to meet its objectives. As such, an indictment must fully
state the elements of the specific offense alleged to have been committed. For
an accused cannot be convicted of an offense, even if duly proven, unless it is
alleged or necessarily included in the complaint or information. In other words,
the complaint must contain a specific allegation of every fact and circumstance
necessary to constitute the crime charged, the accused being presumed to
have no independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense. Under
Section 9 of Rule 117 of the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, an
accused's failure to raise an objection to the insufficiency or defect in the
information would not amount to a waiver of any objection based on said
ground or irregularity. 68
In the case at bar, the Information states that the period of the unremitted GSIS
premiums was "for the period January 1, 1997 to January 31, 2004." 69 This was further
qualified by the phrase "within thirty (30) days from the date on which payment thereof
has become due and demandable." 70 Accordingly, the material dates within which
Talaue allegedly committed the crime charged are clear. cSEDTC

Too, Talaue's contention that the Information inaccurately includes a period when
he was not the incumbent mayor of Sto. Tomas, Isabel is a matter of defense that is
best addressed during trial.
Indeed, in Jalandoni v. Office of the Ombudsman , 71 the Court had occasion to
ordain that:
An information is deemed sufficient if the acts or omissions complained
of are alleged in a way that enables "a person of common understanding to
know what offense is intended to be charged[,]" allows them to prepare their
defense, and equips the court to render proper judgment. Thus, an information
must clearly and accurately allege the elements of the crime and the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 circumstances constituting the charge. 72
A perusal of the Information charging Talaue of the crime subject of this case
readily shows that its contents and language are enough to let a person of common
understanding know what offense is intended to be charged against him. After all, an
Information need only state the ultimate facts constituting the offense and not the finer
details of why and how the crime was committed. 73
At any rate, the records show that Talaue never raised the issue of sufficiency of
the Information before the court a quo. His Motion to Quash 74 merely claimed that it
was the Metropolitan Trial Court, not the Sandiganbayan, which had jurisdiction over the
case, and nothing else. It is settled that, as a general rule, failure to assail the
Information before an accused pleads is deemed a waiver of any of his or her
objections. 75
II.
Nevertheless, Talaue must be acquitted on reasonable doubt.
While proof beyond reasonable doubt is meant to be that, "all things given, the
mind of the judge can rest at ease concerning its verdict," 76 reasonable doubt is
defined as "that doubt engendered by an investigation of the whole proof and an
inability, after such investigation, to let the mind rest easy upon the certainty of guilt." 77
Reasonable doubt refers to the "possibility of innocence based on reason and common
sense, arising from the evidence or lack of evidence as the case may be." 78 It is:
"[A] term often used, probably pretty well understood, but not easily defined. It
is not mere possible doubt; because everything relating to human affairs, and
depending on moral evidence, is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It
is that state of the case, which, after the entire comparison and
consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of jurors in that
condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction, to a moral
certainty, of the truth of the charge. The burden of proof is upon the
prosecutor. All the presumptions of law independent of evidence are in favor of
innocence; and every person is presumed to be innocent until he is proved
guilty. If upon such proof there is reasonable doubt remaining, the accused is
entitled to the benefit of it by an acquittal. For it is not sufficient to establish a
probability, though a strong one arising from the doctrine of chances, that
the fact charged is more likely to be true than the contrary, but the
evidence must establish the truth of the fact to a reasonable and moral
certainty; a certainty that convinces and directs the understanding, and
satisfies the reason and judgment, of those who are bound to act
conscientiously upon it. This we take to be proof beyond reasonable doubt;
because if the law, which mostly depends upon considerations of a moral
nature, should go further than this, and require absolute certainty, it would
exclude circumstantial evidence altogether." 79 (Emphasis included)
Here, there is reasonable doubt when the prosecution failed to prove (1) that
Talaue had the duty to remit GSIS premium contributions; and (2) that he intended to
commit or perpetrate the act proscribed by Republic Act No. 8291. AIDSTE

At the outset, there is no showing that Talaue, as Municipal Mayor of Sto. Tomas,
Isabela, had the positive duty to remit the GSIS premium contributions of all employees
within his political subdivision. The Local Government Code of 1991 refers to municipal
mayors as "chief executives" 80 and not "heads of offices" as contemplated under
Section 52 (g) of Republic Act No. 8291. More importantly, nowhere in the Local
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 Government Code of 1991 does it include the remittance of GSIS premiums as part of
the duties of a mayor. 81 In addition, no reference was made to any internal
memorandum or practice within the Municipality of Sto. Tomas, Isabela regarding the
mayor's participation when it comes to remitting GSIS premium contributions.
On another score, the Court finds as misguided the assertion that Talaue must
be convicted on the mere characterization of the crime involved as malum prohibitum.
In the recent case of Valenzona v. People , 82 the Court made a distinction between
"intent to commit the crime" and "intent to perpetrate the act," such that in crimes
classified as mala prohibita, the prosecution must still discharge the burden of proving
that the prohibited act was intentionally done by the accused. Thus:
[D]ispensing with proof of criminal intent for crimesmala prohibita does not, in
any way, discharge the prosecution of its burden to show that the prohibited act
was done intentionally by the accused. On this note, it is important to
distinguish between intent to commit the crime and intent to perpetrate the act
— while a person may not have consciously intended to commit a crime
regarded as malum prohibitum, he or she may still be held liable if he or she did
intend to commit an act that is, by the very nature of things, the crime itself.
Thus, for acts that are mala prohibita, the intent to perpetrate the prohibited act
under the special law must nevertheless be shown.
In contrast to crimes mala in se, which presuppose that the person who
did the felonious act had criminal intent in doing so, crimes mala prohibita do
not require such knowledge or criminal intent; rather, what is crucial is volition
or the intent to commit the act. While volition or voluntariness refers to
knowledge of the act being done (as opposed to knowledge of the nature of the
act), criminal intent is the state of mind that goes beyond voluntariness, and it is
this intent which is punished by crimes mala in se. To hold an offender liable for
an offense that is malum prohibitum, it is sufficient that there is a conscious
intent to perpetrate the act prohibited by the special law, for the essence of
mala prohibita is voluntariness in the commission of the act constitutive of the
crime. SDAaTC

Succinctly put, for crimes mala in se, there must be proof of criminal
intent, while for crimes mala prohibita, it is sufficient that the prohibited act is
done freely and consciously. As applied here, even if a violation of P.D. 957 is
malum prohibitum, it must still be established that the accused had the volition
or intent to commit the prohibited act, which is the non-registration of the
subject contracts.
xxx xxx xxx
Notably, and as pointed out by Valenzona, even the Information filed
against him charges him for "willfully, unlawfully and feloniously" failing to
register the subject contracts. In this regard, and consistent with the preceding
discussions, there must at least be a showing of his volition or intent to not
register or cause the non-registration of the subject contracts through his active
participation or by conspiring with others to commit the crime. Absent a showing
of such participation done willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, the prosecution
failed to discharge its burden of proving Valenzona's guilt. (Citations omitted)
As applied to the instant case, the Court finds that the prosecution miserably
failed to demonstrate that Talaue had the volition or conscious intent not to remit or
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 cause the non-remittance of the GSIS premium contributions of the employees of the
Municipality of Sto. Tomas. He was led to believe that the GSIS premiums for the year
1997 had already been remitted because the DBM had already withheld
PHP5,000,000.00 from the municipality's budget. This mistaken belief negates any
showing that he intentionally caused the non-remittance of GSIS premium contributions.
AaCTcI

Records show that upon being notified of the municipality's unpaid premium
contributions, Talaue readily acknowledged the same and made verbal instructions to
Guiyab to update the municipality's accounts with GSIS. Moreover, it was Talaue who
entered into the 2008 MOA on the municipality's behalf to ensure that GSIS would be
able to collect payment of the municipality's obligations on an installment basis. Worth
replicating at this juncture are the following statements in Talaue's Judicial Affidavit 83
dated June 27, 2018:
Q: What happened after you have your instruction to the municipal treasurer?
A: Despite my instructions to the municipal treasurer, no formal
arrangements have been arrived at between our municipality and GSIS.
The accounts and data likewise remained unreconciled until January 2004.
Q: What happened after that?
A: In 2006, GSIS then decided to sue our municipality, me and my co-
accused for collection of sum of money before the Pasay City Regional
Trial Court Branch 118 docketed as Civil Case No. 06-0407-CFM relative
to the municipality's obligations to GSIS.
Q: What did you do after knowing that a case has been filed against the
municipality?
A: We faced GSIS in court as the case ensued. In the meantime, I have
absolute instructions to the municipal treasurer to start paying our
obligations to GSIS despite pendency of the court proceedings.
Q: What happened after you gave your instructions to the municipal
treasurer?
A: Funds were then allocated, and we made payments to GSIS.
Q: Do you have proof pertaining to the payments of your municipality made
with the GSIS?
A: Yes, sir. I have here with me GSIS Official Receipt No. 000223766984
dated 28 August 2007 in the amount of One Million Pesos. GSIS also
acknowledged our payments covered under OR No. 30366 85 dated 11
October 2007 in the amount of One Million Pesos and OR No. 524548 86
dated 16 November 2009 in the amount of Eight Hundred Fifty Thousand
pesos as appearing in the prosecution's exhibits
xxx xxx xxx
Q: What happened to the case before the Pasay City Regional Trial Court
you were pertaining to a while ago?
A: The parties eventually entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA),
and the court in turn issued a Decision dated 7 January 2009 approving it.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: What happened to this Decision of the Pasay City Regional Trial Court?
A: It became the subject of a Motion for Execution dated 6 October 2010 filed
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 by GSIS. Subsequently, it became the subject of a Writ of Execution via
an Order issued by the court dated 31 March 2011. The 6 October 2010
Motion for Execution and 31 March 2011 Order were respectively marked
as Exhibits "F" and "G" for the prosecution. 87
Verily, Talaue not only made possible the signing of the 2008 MOA, but also
attempted to reduce the municipality's obligations to GSIS. He did everything in his
power to cause the payment of the unpaid remittances to GSIS. Were it not for the
January 7, 2009 RTC Decision which is based on the 2008 MOA, the GSIS would not
have been able to file a motion for execution dated October 6, 2010 which, in turn,
resulted in the RTC's issuance of a writ of execution through an Order dated March 31,
2011. The Court in its earlier January 12, 2021 Decision acknowledged as much when it
declared that it was "through [Talaue's] initiative that the GSIS eventually restructured
the obligations of the municipality through the MOA." 88 Unfortunately for Talaue,
matters became more complicated when his successor failed to follow through with the
2008 MOA. Nevertheless, this does not detract from the fact that he demonstrated a
lack of intent to perpetrate the act or omission penalized by Section 52 (g) of Republic
Act No. 8291. acEHCD

In contrast, the prosecution merely asserted that the crime involved in this case is
malum prohibitum, and nothing more. Au contraire, dispensing with proof of criminal
intent for crimes mala prohibita does not discharge the prosecution's burden of proving,
beyond reasonable doubt, that the prohibited act was done by the accused intentionally.
89

All told, there was no attempt on the part of the prosecution to show Talaue's
intent to perpetrate the crime charged. He did not perform any overt act as would exhibit
an intent to violate Republic Act No. 8291. Moreover, Talaue was able to adduce proof
of specific acts negating or disproving such perpetrative intent on his part. He did not
perform any overt acts as would exhibit an intent to commit the crime in question. His
conviction must, perforce, be overturned.
In view of the foregoing disquisitions, the Court will no longer belabor itself into
discussing the other issues raised by Talaue.
ACCORDINGLY, the Motion for Reconsideration dated March 3, 2021, the
Motion for Leave of Court to File and Admit Supplement to Appellant's Motion for
Reconsideration dated April 22, 2022, and the Supplement to Appellant's Motion for
Reconsideration, also dated April 22, 2022, are GRANTED. The Court's Decision dated
January 12, 2021 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
The Decision dated March 15, 2019 and the Resolution dated July 19, 2019 of
the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. SB-11-CRM-0120 are likewise REVERSED
and SET ASIDE. For failure on the part of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt, accused-appellant Antonio M. Talaue is hereby ACQUITTED of the
crime charged in said case. EcTCAD

Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.

SO ORDERED.
Zalameda, Dimaampao and Kho, Jr., JJ., concur.
Caguioa, J., see concurring opinion.

Footnotes
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 1. Rollo, pp. 128-137.

2. Id. at 150-153.

3. Id. at 154-193.

4. Id. at 106-127. Penned by Chief Justice Diosdado M. Peralta (retired) and concurred in by
Associate Justices Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, Rosmari D. Carandang (retired), Rodil
V. Zalameda, and Samuel H. Gaerlan.

5. Id. at 3-19. Penned by Associate Justice Michael Frederick L. Musngi and concurred in by
Associate Justices Oscar C. Herrera, Jr. and Lorifel L. Pahimna of the Second Division
of the Sandiganbayan.

6. Id. at 20-25.

7. SECTION 52. Penalty. — . . .

xxx xxx xxx

(g) The heads of the offices of the national government, its political subdivisions,
branches, agencies and instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled
corporations and government financial institutions, and the personnel of such offices
who are involved in the collection of premium contributions, loan amortization and other
accounts due the GSIS who shall fail, refuse or delay the payment, turnover, remittance
or delivery of such accounts to the GSIS within thirty (30) days from the time that the
same shall have been due and demandable shall, upon conviction by final judgment,
suffer the penalties of imprisonment of not less than one (1) year nor more than five (5)
years and a fine of not less than Ten thousand pesos (PHP10,000.00) nor more than
Twenty thousand pesos (PHP20,000.00), and in addition shall suffer absolute perpetual
disqualification from holding public office and from practicing any profession or calling
licensed by the government.

8. SECTION 6. Collection and Remittance of Contributions. — . . .

(b) Each employer shall remit directly to the GSIS the employees' and employers'
contributions within the first ten (10) days of the calendar month following the month to
which the contributions apply. The remittance by the employer of the contributions to the
GSIS shall take priority over and above the payment of any and all obligations, except
salaries and wages of its employees.

9. Signed into law by former President Fidel V. Ramos on May 30, 1997.

10. Sandiganbayan rollo, vol. 1, pp. 1-2.

11. Id.

12. Id. at 114-118.

13. Id. at 197-204. Penned by Associate Justice Napoleon E. Inoturan and concurred in by
Associate Justices Teresita V. Diaz-Baldos and Oscar C. Herrera, Jr. of the Special
Second Division of the Sandiganbayan.

14. Sandiganbayan rollo, vol. 2, pp. 147-165. The Pre-Trial Order dated October 6, 2017 was
signed by Associate Justices Oscar C. Herrera, Jr., Michael Frederick L. Musngi, and
Efren N. Dela Cruz of the Second Division of the Sandiganbayan.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 15. Id. at 208-209.

16. Id. at 196-198.

17. Id. at 199-200.

18. Id. at 193-195.

19. Id. at 213-222. Rendered by Judge Pedro B. Corales (now an Associate Justice of the
Court of Appeals).

20. Id. at 202-204.

21. Id. at 18-19.

22. Id. at 16-17.

23. Id. at 4-15. The Consolidated Resolution was signed by Maria Melinda S. Mananghaya,
Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer I, recommended for approval by Mark E.
Jalandoni, Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, and, ultimately, approved by Acting
Ombudsman Orlando C. Casimiro.

24. Sandiganbayan rollo, vol. 2, pp. 176-179.

25. Id. at 180. Certificate of Death.

26. Id. at 183. Order dated April 19, 2018.

27. Id. at 258-266.

28. Id. at 219.

29. Id. at 220. The said paragraph reads:

6.4. Completeness of the Agreement. This Agreement replaces and supersedes any
understanding, communication and representation whether verbal or written, between
the parties.

30. Id. at 251-256.

31. Rollo, pp. 3-19.

32. Incorrectly cited as Section 473 in the Sandiganbayan Decision. Section 474 (b) reads:

SECTION 474. Qualifications, Powers and Duties.— . . .

xxx xxx xxx

(b) The accountant shall take charge of both the accounting and internal audit services
of the local government unit concerned and shall:
(1) Install and maintain an internal audit system in the local government unit concerned;

(2) Prepare and submit financial statements to the governor or mayor, as the case may
be, and to the sanggunian concerned;
(3) Apprise the sanggunian and other local government officials on the financial
condition and operations of the local government unit concerned;
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 (4) Certify to the availability of budgetary allotment to which expenditures and
obligations may be properly charged;

(5) Review supporting documents before preparation of vouchers to determine

completeness of requirements;
(6) Prepare statements of cash advances, liquidation, salaries, allowances,
reimbursements and remittances pertaining to the local government unit;

(7) Prepare statements of journal vouchers and liquidation of the same and other
adjustments related thereto;
(8) Post individual disbursements to the subsidiary ledger and index cards;

(9) Maintain individual ledgers for officials and employees of the local government unit
pertaining to payrolls and deductions;
(10) Record and post in index cards details of purchased furniture, fixtures, and
equipment, including disposal thereof, if any;

(11) Account for all issued requests for obligations and maintain and keep all records
and reports related thereto;
(12) Prepare journals and the analysis of obligations and maintain and keep all records
and reports related thereto; and

(13) Exercise such other powers and perform such other duties and functions as may be
provided by law or ordinance.
33. Signed into law by former President Corazon C. Aquino on October 10, 1991.

34. Rollo, pp. 17-18.

35. Sandiganbayan rollo, vol. 2, pp. 357-366.

36. Id. at 381-384.

37. Rollo, pp. 20-25.

38. Id. at 26-28, Notice of Appeal dated July 30, 2019.

39. Id. at 43-61.

40. 259 Phil. 794 (1989) [Per J. Gutierrez, Jr.,En Banc].

41. 310 Phil. 14 (1995) [Per J. Vitug, En Banc].

42. Rollo, pp. 68-99.

43. Id. at 106-127.

44. Id. at 123.

45. Id. at 128-137.

46. Id. at 154-193.

47. Id. at 212-225.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com

 48. Id. at 150-153.

49. Id.

50. Id. at 154-193.

51. Asset Privatization Trust v. Court of Appeals, 381 Phil. 530, 541 (2000) [Per J. Purisima,
Third Division].

52. Chan v. Chan, 590 Phil. 116, 131 (2008) [Per J. Nachura, Third Division].

53. Loy, Jr. v. San Miguel Corporation Employees Union-PGTWO, 620 Phil. 220, 232 (2009)
[Per J. Del Castillo, Second Division].

54. Spouses Caoili v. Court of Appeals, 373 Phil. 122, 140 (1999) [Per J. Gonzaga-Reyes,
Third Division].

55. British Traders' Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 121 Phil. 696,
705 (1965) [Per J. J.P. Bengzon, En Banc].

56. 541 Phil. 504 (2007) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., Third Division].

57. Id. at 518.

58. CONST., Art. III, Sec. 14.

59. People v. Zurbano, 147 Phil. 520, 523 (1971) [Per J. Villamor,En Banc].

60. People v. Bayya, 384 Phil. 519, 526 (2000) [Per J. Purisima,En Banc] citing Pecho v.
People, 331 Phil. 1 (1996) [Per J. Davide, Jr.,En Banc], quoting from U.S. v. Karelsen,
3 Phil. 223, 226 (1904) [Per J. Johnson, En Banc].

61. Quimvel v. People, 808 Phil. 889, 912 (2017) [Per J. Velasco, Jr.,En Banc].

62. People v. Dimaano, 506 Phil. 630, 649 (2005) [Per Curiam, En Banc].

63. Lacson v. Executive Secretary, 361 Phil. 251, 279 (1999) [Per J. Austria-Martinez,En
Banc].

64. 766 Phil. 75 (2015) [Per J. Brion, En Banc].

65. Id. at 104.

66. People v. Flores, Jr., 442 Phil. 561, 570 (2002) [Per J. Carpio-Morales,En Banc].

67. People v. Pangilinan, 676 Phil. 16, 28 (2011) [Per J. Peralta, Third Division];People v.
Flores, Jr., id.; People v. Dawisan, 417 Phil. 443, 456 (2001) [Per J. Buena, Second
Division]; People v. Antido, 343 Phil. 949, 979 (1997) [Per J. Davide, Third Division];
Carpio, J., dissenting in De Lima v. Guerrero, 819 Phil. 616, 1004-1005 (2017) [Per J.
Peralta, En Banc]. "[T]he fact that all the elements of the crime were duly proven in trial
cannot cure the defect of a Complaint or Information to serve its constitutional purpose."
People v. Vañas, 850 Phil. 201, 212 (2019) [Per J. Del Castillo, First Division],citing
Guelos v. People, infra.

68. Guelos v. People, 811 Phil. 37, 62-63 (2017) [Per J. Reyes, Third Division].
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 69. Sandiganbayan rollo, vol. 1, pp. 1-2.

70. Id.
71. G.R. No. 211751, May 10, 2021 [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].

72. Id.

73. People v. Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division), 769 Phil. 378, 382 (2015) [Per J. Jardeleza,
Third Division].

74. Sandiganbayan rollo, vol. 1, pp. 114-118.

75. Spouses Tayamen v. People, G.R. No. 246986, April 28, 2021 [Per J. Delos Santos, Third
Division].

76. People v. Bermas, 854 Phil. 556, 565 (2019) [Per J. Caguioa, Second Division].

77. Balina v. People, G.R. No. 205950, January 12, 2021 [Per J. Gaerlan, First Division].

78. ARNOLD H. LOEWY, TAKING REASONABLE DOUBT SERIOUSLY, 85 CHI-KENT L.

REV. 70 (2010).

79. Commonwealth v. Webster, 5 Cush. 295, 59 Mass. 295 (1850) [Massachusetts, United
States of America].
80. Local Government Code of 1991, Sec. 444.

81. Id.

82. G.R. No. 248584, August 30, 2023 [Per J. Caguioa, Third Division].

83. Sandiganbayan rollo, vol. 2, pp. 258-266.

84. Marked as Exhibit "1" and admitted by the Sandiganbayan.

85. Marked as Exhibit "3" and admitted by the Sandiganbayan.

86. Marked as Exhibit "2" and admitted by the Sandiganbayan.

87. Sandiganbayan rollo, vol. 2, pp. 262-264.

88. Rollo, p. 123.

89. Id.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com