Campo calls NCFP foreign tie-up ‘insulting’
The Philippine Star
Honorary FIDE president Florencio Campomanes Thursday questioned the decision of the National Chess Federation of the Philippines to enter into a contract with a Singapore-based group for the holding of at least four RP Opens in the next two years.
“It is insulting. We have successfully organized the Olympiad, World Chess championship, Interzonals and two world juniors championships, to name a few. So there is no reason for us not be able to stage such RP Opens,” said Campomanes.
“We cannot just give the right to organize such big, national events to a group with no proven expertise in such undertaking,” Campomanes said.
During last week’s ASEAN Chess Confederation board meeting in Vietnam, the NCFP, through president Prospero Pichay, signed a Memorandum of Agreement with the Singapore-based Intchess Asia to outsource event management of all its international competitions the next two years, including four RP Opens.
In a report at the FIDE website, Pichay said the move would free the NCFP from organizational woes and concentrate on popularizing the game and developing talent throughout the country.
Campomanes said he has supported Pichay since the latter took over the NCFP presidency two years ago, even helping in inviting the top foreign GMs to compete in the two President Arroyo Cups.
“But this time, I can’t. The MOA is a one-way street. For me, it’s insulting. How can they say that will take over from organizing our national Opens?” said Campomanes.
Here is the full story.
“But this time, I can’t. The MOA is a one-way street. For me, it’s insulting. How can they say that will take over from organizing our national Opens?” said Campomanes.
Well Campy, my boy, because they can.
And when you see your mom this weekend tell her: Satan! Satan! Satan!
NEWS FLASH!
The source of MAgnus Carlsen’s Orange Juice has been found!
Apparently, Bobby Fischer drank several glasses of O.J. everyday!
From Bobby’s biography:
At the London Grill, a transplanted English pub of pleasantly peeling charm, Fischer made for a back table and ordered two 12-ounce glasses of fresh orange juice, the largest steak in the house, a mixed green salad and a pint bottle of carbonated mineral water. Five minutes later he ordered another glass of orange juice, and by the time he was ready for a huge dish of bananas and superrich Chantilly cream he had finished his fourth pint of mineral water. He ate with the oral drive of a barracuda and talked incessantly about how wonderful the food was. “Look at that juice! Fresh, not frozen! And where else can you get a glass that big for less than ten cents?…
Magnus is Bobby is Magnus…
All praise the orange juice!
Pictures of Carlsen’s Orange juices are here:
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3085
http://www.chess-theory.com/encpbo029_06_magnus_carlsen_special_page.php
♥♥♥♫♫♫ Happy Happy! ♥♥♥♫♫♫
Who is Campomanes to talk? Everything he claims he did for chess – for FIDE or Philippines – was to benefit himself personally.
He destroyed the World Championship and FIDE is still recovering from his excesses.
Never helped Asia or the Philippines.
Luckily Prospero Pichay emerged and has done nothing but put his money to bringing the Philippines back to a semblance of when it was No. 1 in Asia.
The contract was necessary (mainly to help get players, develop media, and assist in raising funds) because the likes of Campomanes and playing favourites has long destroyed local capability and the interest of too many to count.
Pichay knows the talent is there and is just trying to rebuilt everything from the ground up – that is leadership with a long term plan and vision.
In contrast, Campo’s was about grabbling money, using people and settling petty scores.
The one good thing I say with Intchess doing the organizing is that they are bound to do much better than the NCFP. The NCFP, as a rule, does a pretty bad job at organizing tournaments. The venues are often too crowded, etc. You should see the way they organize kiddie or non master tournaments. Oof! Really horrible. Starting hours and hours late is not unusual.
Wowz! Philippines are incompetenant! I knew it!
‘Campo’s was about grabbing money’
What’s wrong with that?
Curriculum Vitae of Florencio B. Campomanes:
B.A., Cum laude, University of the Philippines, 1948
M. A., Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, 1951
Doctoral Studies, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, 1949-1952
Fullbright Grantee, 1948
Lecturer, (Political Science) University of the Philippines, 1954-1956
Chess Columnist, Manila Times and Manila Chronicle, 1954-1961
TV Producer – Host, “Chess Today” , PTV 4 Manila, 1973-1982
Permanent Philippines Delegate to FIDE, 1956-1982
FIDE Asian Zone President, 1960-1964
FIDE Deputy President for Asia, 1974-1982
FIDE President, 1982-1995
FIDE Chairman, 1995-1996
FIDE Honorary President 1996-…
Philippine Champion, 1956, 1960
Tied 2nd-3rd with Edmar Mednis, New York State Championship, 1954
International Arbiter, 1957
Philippine Olympiad Team Member, New York State Championship, 1954
Philippine Olympiad Team Member and/or Captain:
Moscow 1956-Board 2, Munich 1958-Board 3, Leipzig 1960-Board 1, Tel Aviv 1964-Board 4, Havana 1966-Board 4;
Captain: Lugano 1968, Siegen 1970, Skopje 1972, Nice 1974, Haifa 1976, Buenos Aires 1978, La Valletta 1980.
Administered under FIDE: Olympiad – Thessaloniki, Greece 1984,1988
Dubai – 1986 , Novi Sad – 1990, Moscow – 1994
Organized for the Philippines, Manila 1992
World Championship, 1978
Interzonals, 1976, 1990
World Juniors 1974, 1987
First Asian Zonal, 1958
First Asian Junior Championship, 1977
Raised FIDE Membership from 100’s to 150’s
Raised US $13,000,000 for six Men’s World Championship in nine years: Moscow 1984-1985, Moscow *1985, London & Leningrad 1986
Turned FIDE into a truly universal body by activity Asian, African, and Latin American Chess.
“How can they say that will take over from organizing our national Opens?” Campoman is correct in saying this. USCF should do it instead.
Addendum on Campomanes CV:
– Convicted Felon for pocketing 12 millions pesos [1 dollar = 40+ pesos] entrusted to him by the Philippine government during the 1992 World Chess Olympiad.
– For pocketing tournament fees, player’s prizes and sponsor monies as organizer of chess events and tournaments.
– For sins against humanity; for his abuse and blacklisting of chess players not ‘contributing’ to his agent’s fees., i.e., GM-to- be Barcenila, the late GM Balinas, and a talented Filipino IM who committed suicide under Campo’s watch.
Who cares about the Philipines? A rancid country that breeds corruption. They have one talented player and several low level GMs.
Philipines is where Bobby Fisher has a baby.
‘For sins against humanity’
You must hate Florencio a lot? What’s your problem? Flo is a good guy. Ask any Philippino.
Campomanes only air what he beleive is good for Philippine Chess same as the organizers of NCFP headed by Prospero Pichay so there is no point why some people take advantage of this issue to attack, accuse, humiliate other people and especially my country once they see their chances without enough evidence and proof. It doesn’t help chess and over all development at all.
Chess after all is a gentleman’s sport so keep it clean.
“Flo is a good guy. Ask any ‘Philippino,’ sic.”
This d.a. anos does not know his F from his P.
We’ll if you are askin me a., the answer is- Campo aint a good guy. Never was never is. He is a self serving back stabber convicted felon by a Philippine People’s Court. Capisci? Intiende?
And Pichay is showing to Campo’s face how to find, develop and make more Philippine GMs. Not in 50 years, nor 20, 10 or even 5 years.
Pichay has been in the Philippine chess leadership for just a couple or so years.
Florencio “where in the world is the 12 million pesos Waldo” Campomanes’ legacy merits his title of “Honorary Slick FIDE Presidente Felon.” He has nothing to show in substance that he is better than Pichay in developing Philippine chess talents [without ‘lagays’ and favoritism].
So Campo should shut up already and grow old gracefully, and let the new Pichay led Philippine chess leadership do their job, without his usual crab interference.
Long live Pichay!!!
How many dollars is “12 million pesos”?
‘And Pichay is showing to Campo’s face how to find, develop and make more Philippine GMs. Not in 50 years, nor 20, 10 or even 5 years.
Pichay has been in the Philippine chess leadership for just a couple or so years.’
Was grand master Torre, one of best players in world before, Campo’s product?
“So Campo should shut up already”
One more bad word on Campo and you will eat your words.
The Philippine Sportswriters Association has honoured Florencio Campomanes with a Lifetime Achievement Award.
Campomanes was FIDE president from 1982 to 1995, the only Filipino to hold the highest position of the world’s chess governing body. Most Filipinos would know Campomanes as the person responsible for bringing the World Chess Olympiad to Manila in 1992. However, among chess followers, Campomanes is remembered for the many controversies that dogged his reign as FIDE president.
These include the abandoned world championship match between then champion Anatoly Karpov and challenger Garry Kasparov in 1984, the controversial decision to top up women chess players’ ratings by 100 points in the 1986 Olympiad, and the disgruntled formation of the breakaway Professional Chess Association group in 1993.
More recently, the Supreme Court of the Philippines threw away a case filed against him by the country’s anti-graft court.
Campomanes, who turns 80 next month, retains the title of FIDE honorary president and continues to grace various official FIDE functions and events.
From the previous 20 comments, I conclude:
1. Campo is controversial and not generally not credible.
2. His track record in his own country is largely self serving.
Personally I know:
1. Torre (like so many else) was used by Campo and now are not on speaking terms but at least he still has a career and not financially ruined.
2. Pichay has done miracles since becoming NCFP President and has a long term plan while Campo does not care and just wants his cut of the cake.
3. Campo is tolerated at FIDE Official Events largely thanks to General Secretary Ignatius Leong (who he is really attacking) because he is a fellow Asian.
Long live Pichay!!
Pichay has done more good to most, if not to all Philippine chess players than Campo, in a remarkable short time of his leadership.
This makes Campo look bad, such as that he is going back to his old grandstanding ways of creating discord, again, in Philippine chess. This is what Campo did when he formed the breakaway current National Chess Federation of the Philippine [NCFP] from the old Philippine Chess Federation [PCF] headed by his old departed nemesis Art Borjal.
Campo made the Philippines a laughing stock during the 2000 33rd World Chess Olympiad when we fielded two teams, Campo’s NCFP team [Bobby Ang as team captain, GM Eugene Torre, GM Rogelio Antonio Jr., GM Bong Villamayor, IM Barlo Nadera, IM Idelfonso Datu, IM Ronald Bancod], and Art Borjal’s PCF team [with Edgar de Castro as team captain with players Richard Bitoon, Rolly Martinez, Petronio Roca, Enrique Paciencia, and Jayson Gonzales; and GM candidate Barcenilla on the first board]. And guess who won, and guess what happened to Barcenilla’s GM quest.
Granted that he was, for example successful in organizing the World Chess Olympiad in the Philippines, that event was also his undoing. In his arrogance and greed, he refused, and to date had not made an accounting of what he did to the 12.8 million pesos entrusted to him by the Philippine Sports Commission. That was his last big time con game of organizing major chess events in the Philippines.
And the Sandigbayan Court, not influenced nor intimidated by his FIDE position, convicted Campo and sentenced him to one year and 6 months jail time, which was deferred due to his ‘old age.’ The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the felony conviction was based on “technicality”, that FIDE, under Campo’s leadership, was not required to account for the monies given to him, therefore he is not liable. Campo was still fined the hush hush 100 Euro for ‘forgetting’ to account how he spent the 12.8 million pesos.
Campo, sadly, does not realize that like his old departed friend the tyrant Marcos, his time has come. He is done. Finito.
Let the new Pichay leadership alone, for the sake of Philippine chess, for the sake of all aspiring Filipino chess talents.
“One more bad word on Campo and you will eat your words”
Campo is a dunderhead.
Nigel Shorts
“And the Sandigbayan Court, not influenced nor intimidated by his FIDE position, convicted Campo and sentenced him to one year and 6 months jail time, which was deferred due to his ‘old age.'”
How could such a man stay as FIDE President ‘forever’ – honorary?? Who has the power in FIDE to take away this title from him? What is USCF’s take on Campomanes’s wrongdoings in the past?
Campo looks great on photographs, like a male model, having in mind his old age and the fact that he is a fart who sunk Philippino chess decades backwards.
“And when you see your mom this weekend tell her: Satan! Satan! Satan!”
INTERESTING CONVERSATION
An Atheist Professor of Philosophy speaks to his Classon the Problem Science has with GOD, the ALMIGHTY.
He asks one of his New Christian Students to stand and . . .
Professor :You are a Christian, aren’t you, son ?
Student :Yes, sir.
Professor :So you Believe in GOD ?
Student :Absolutely, sir.
Professor :Is GOD Good ?
Student :Sure.
Professor :Is GOD ALL – POWERFUL ?
Student :Yes.
Professor :My Brother died of Cancer even though he Prayed to GOD to Heal him.
Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill.
But GOD didn’t.
How is this GOD good then? Hmm?
( Student is silent )
Professor :You can’t answer, can you ?
Let’s start again, Young Fella.
Is GOD Good?
Student : Yes.
Professor : Is Satan good ?
Student :No.
Professor :Where does Satan come from ?
Student :From . . . GOD . . .
Professor :That’s right.
Tell me son, is there evil in this World?
Student :Yes.
Professor : Evil is everywhere, isn’t it ?
And GOD did make everything. Correct?
Student :Yes.
Professor :So who created evil ?
(Student does not answer)
Professor : Is there Sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness?
All these terrible things exist in the World, don’t they?
Student :Yes, sir.
Professor :So, who Created them ?
( Student hasno answer)
Professor :Science says you have 5 Senses you use to Identify and Observe the World around you.
Tell me, son . . . Have you ever Seen GOD?
Student :No, sir.
Professor :Tell us if you have ever Heard your GOD?
Student :No , sir.
Professor :Have you ever Felt your GOD, Tasted your GOD, Smelt your GOD?
Have you ever had any Sensory Perception of GOD for that matter?
Student : No, sir. I’m afraid I haven’t.
Professor :Yet you still Believe in HIM?
Student :Yes.
Professor :According to Empirical, Testable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says your GOD doesn’t exist.
What do you say to that, son?
Student :Nothing. I only have my Faith.
Professor :Yes,Faith. And that is the Problem Science has.
Student :Professor, is there such a thing as Heat?
Professor :Yes.
Student :And is there such a thing as Cold?
Professor :Yes.
Student :No sir. There isn’t.
( The Lecture Theatre becomes very quiet with this turn of events )
Student :Sir, you can have Lots of Heat, even More Heat, Superheat, Mega Heat,
White Heat, a Little Heat or No Heat…
But we don’t have anything called Cold.
We can hit 458 Degrees below Zero which is No Heat,
but we can’t go any further after that.
There is no such thing as Cold.
Cold is only a Word we use to describe the Absence of Heat.
We cannot Measure Cold.
Heat is Energy.
Cold is Not the Opposite of Heat, sir, just the Absence of it.
( There is Pin – Drop Silence in the Lecture Theatre )
Student :What about Darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as Darkness?
Professor :Yes. What is Night if there isn’t Darkness?
Student :You’re wrong again, sir.
Darkness is the Absence of Something¡K
You can have Low Light, Normal Light, Bright Light, Flashing Light . . .
But if you have No Light constantly, you have nothing and its called
Darkness, isn’t it? In reality, Darkness isn’t.
If it is, were you would be able to make Darkness Darker, wouldn’t you?
Professor :So what is the point you are making, Young Man ?
Student :Sir, my point is your Philosophical Premise is flawed.
Professor :Flawed ? Can you explain how?
Student :Sir, you are working on the Premise of Duality.
You argue there is Life and then there is Death,
a Good GOD and a Bad GOD.
You are viewing the Concept of GOD as something finite,
something we can measure.
Sir, Science can’t even explain a Thought.
It uses Electricity and Magnetism, but has never seen,
much less fully understood either one.
To view Death as the Opposite of Life is to be ignorant of the fact that
Death cannot exist as a Substantive Thing.
Death is Not the Opposite of Life: just the Absence of it.
Now tell me, Professor, do you teach your Students that they evolved
from a Monkey?
Professor :If you are referring to the Natural Evolutionary Process,
yes, of course, I do.
Student :Have you ever observed Evolution with your own eyes, sir?
( The Professor shakes his head with a Smile, beginning to realize where the Argument is going )
Student :Since no one has ever observed the Process of Evolution at work and
Cannot even prove that this Process is an On – Going Endeavor,
Are you not teaching your Opinion, sir?
Are you not a Scientist but a Preacher?
( The Class is in Uproar )
Student :Is there anyone in the Class who has ever seen the Professor’s Brain?
( The Class breaks out into Laughter )
Student :Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor’s Brain, Felt it, touched or Smelt it? . . .
No one appears to have done so.
So, according to the Established Rules of Empirical, Stable,
Demonstrable Protocol, Science says that you have No Brain, sir.
With all due respect, sir, how do we then Trust your Lectures, sir?
(The Room is Silent. The Professor stares at the Student, his face unfathomable. )
Professor :I guess you’ll have to take them on Faith, son.
Student :That is it sir . . .
The Link between Man & GOD is FAITH.
That is all that Keeps Things Moving & Alive.
NB:
I believe you have enjoyed the Conversation . . . and if so . . .
You’ll probably want your Friends / Colleagues to enjoy the same . . . won’t you?
Forward them to Increase their Knowledge . . . or FAITH.
It turned out later that the student is Albert Einstein.
“How could such a man stay as FIDE President ‘forever’ – honorary?? Who has the power in FIDE to take away this title from him? What is USCF’s take on Campomanes’s wrongdoings in the past?”
Elementary my dear Watson, sez Campo, before being forced out of the FIDE presidency, which our USCF delegates supported (one of the smart things they’ve done), Campo issued a mandate as the outgoing FIDE prez, that:
1. He be given his retirement pot from the FIDE funds, from the Swiss banks, in Swiss Francs. No one knows of course how much Swiss Francs he took. Remember he is not accountable for other people’s monies, according to the Philippine Supreme Court. He is the FIDE head honcho mind you. Could be an honorary Philippine Supreme Court member too.
And to answer your question, on the honorary title…
2. That he be granted the title of permanent FIDE honorary president when he leaves office, and which time once and after he croaks, he will become the FIDE honorary dead president.
Got it? Much oblige. Thank you, thank you.
Sherlock H.
Campo must know a lot of FIDE secrets. They will go with him one day unless he starts talking NOW. Where are his spokesmen, anyway??
There is a chance that Florencio is ready to apologize, when realizez that the Singapore-based group is made up of many, in fact, Philippino men.
Supreme Court E-Library
Padre Faura St., Ermita
Manila, Philippines
Decisions / Signed Resolutions
THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 161950, December 19, 2006]
FLORENCIO B. CAMPOMANES, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
This is a petition for review on certiorari[1] assailing the Decision[2] promulgated on 31 January 2003 and the Resolution[3] promulgated on 6 February 2004 by the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 23672 entitled People of the Philippines v. Cecilio G. Hechanova and Florencio B. Campomanes. The accused were charged with conspiracy in violating Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code, which defines and penalizes the failure of an accountable officer to render accounts.
The Sandiganbayan acquitted then Philippine Sports Commission (PSC) Chairman Cecilio G. Hechanova (“Hechanova”) for failure of the prosecution to prove conspiracy. The Sandiganbayan, however, convicted accused-petitioner Florencio B. Campomanes (“Campomanes”), then President of the Federation Internationale Des Echecs (FIDE), of the crime of failure to render accounts as defined in Article 218 in relation to Article 222 of the Revised Penal Code. The Sandiganbayan sentenced Campomanes to one year and ten months of imprisonment.
On reconsideration, the Sandiganbayan reduced Campomanes’ penalty to a fine of P6,000 due to his advanced age.
The Facts
The present petition involves alleged irregularities in the disbursement and liquidation of the funds that the PSC made available to the FIDE through Campomanes in connection with the PSC’s bid to host the 1992 Chess Olympiad and Congress in Manila from 6 to 25 June 1992.
The parties stipulated upon the following facts:
That during the period material to the Information of this case, accused Cecilio G. Hechanova was the Chairman of the Philippine Sports Commission (PSC) and Florencio B. Campomanes was the President of the Federation International [sic] Des Echecs (FIDE), a private international organization with offices at Lausanne, Switzerland.
That on 6 March 1991 the Philippine Sports Commission submitted to FIDE a bid offer to host the 30th Chess Olympiad of 1992 in Manila, making the promissory representations required under FIDE rules, viz:
‘- Financial Guarantee Declaration and/or Government Guarantee if applicable. Provisional budget to be added. The Funding of the Olympiad and Congress shall be the responsibility of the Philippine Sports Commission. (attached board resolution) budget US$6 million P180 M.
(1) Additional arrangements:
The sum of One Milliion [sic] Swiss Francs (SFr.1,000,000.00) has been place in the Philippines National Bank in an account In Trust to the Federation Internationale Des Echecs to guarantee the organization of the 1992 Chess Olympiad and Congress, in case of the award of the same, which amount shall be forfeited in favor of FIDE in the event that the Philippine Sports Commission fails to organize the said Chess Olympiad and Congress.
– Deposit: We enclose with out [sic] offer/bid our deposit fee of SFr. 5,000.00 to FIDE. We are aware that we forfeit this sum if for any reason we do not organize the event. If we do organize the event this sum will be put to the credit of our account with FIDE.
We have organized the specific FIDE stipulations for the above mentioned event and will observe them.
– All conditions offered are subject to the approval of the FIDE President or his representatives.
– The President has the right to demand additional deposits or guarantees from the organizers when he so decides.
– Twelve months before the commencement of the event the President must be in possession of sufficient evidence of the full financial reliability and attention of the sponsors. If such evidence is not at hand at the given time, the President has the right to withdraw the option.
That the PSC’s bid offer was accepted by FIDE, and accordingly the Philippine government thru the PSC was granted the right to organize and host the 30th World Chess Olympiad in Manila from June 6-25, 1992.
That in connection with the 30th World Chess Olympiad, the PSC governing board passed Resolution No. 292 on June 4, 1991 appropriating the amount of Fourty [sic] Thousand Swiss Francs (SFr40,000.00) as monthly expenditure of FIDE from May 1991 to June 1992.
That from October 1990 to June 1992 the PSC, also complying with its obligations under the bid offer, remitted to FIDE – received in FIDE’s behalf by its President, Florencio Campomanes – the total amount of P12,876,008.00 in connection with the 30th World Chess Olympiad in Manila.
That the amount of P12,876,008.00 was acknowledged as having been received by FIDE as shown by a letter dated December 22, 1995 of Willy Iclicki, FIDE Treasurer.
Also the FIDE transmitted to the PSC two letter-explanations/clearances re the above funds received from PSC:
Letter dated 8 December 1995:
– ‘As far as the World Chess Federation is concerned, Mr. Florencio Campomanes made his clarifications and there are no further queries on the amount assigned for FIDE for the Manila Olympiad 1992. As you may know, he was given a total vote of confidence by the General Assembly and elected FIDE Chairman.’ -[see Exhibit “2-Campomanes”]
Letter dated 29 May 1997:
– ‘Attached is my letter dated Singapore, 22 December 1995, where we had our FIDE Presidential Board meeting, as authenticated today 29 May 1997, by the Philippine Embassy in Brussels.
– We began issuing official receipts only in late 1993 and it is FIDE practice not to issue official receipts unless specifically requested.’ [see Exhibit “4-Campomanes”][4]
The Commission on Audit (COA) conducted an audit of the PSC’s transactions from March 1990 up to June 1992. During the audit, the COA team, composed of team leader Rexy Mendoza (“Mendoza”) and members Ignacia Rodrigo and Alexander Rodriguez, requested for the journal and checks and disbursements issued by the PSC pertaining to the P12 million appropriated to defray the organization, administration, and hosting of the Chess Olympiad and Congress. The COA team noticed irregularities in the claims payable to the FIDE. The irregularities consisted of the lack of acknowledgment receipts and of accounting liquidation attached to the disbursement vouchers. The COA defined an acknowledgment receipt as an official receipt evidencing that the FIDE received the funds from the PSC. An accounting liquidation is used to explain how the funds were expended pursuant to the purpose specified in the disbursement voucher.
The COA invited the PSC officials to an exit conference on 27 October 1993. During the conference, the COA submitted its team’s findings to the PSC and requested for the PSC’s comment on the matter. In the absence of the PSC’s comment, the COA prepared SAO Report No. 93-27. The report stated that the FIDE, through Campomanes, received P12,876,008 without acknowledgment and without liquidation.
In an Information dated 1 April 1997, Hechanova and Campomanes were charged as follows:
That, on or about August 25, 1992, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the City of Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused Cecilio G. Hechanova, a public officer, being then the Chairman of the Philippine Sports Commission (PSC), and as such was accountable for public funds disbursed by his office, conspiring and confederating with Florencio B. Campomanes, President of the Federacion [sic] Internationale des Echecs (FIDE), a private organization, to whose custody and possession was entrusted PSC funds to be used in connection with the World Chess Olympiad in Manila, hosted by the Philippine Government from June 6-25, 1992, amounting to PESOS: TWELVE MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED SEVENTY SIX THOUSAND EIGHT (P12,876,008.00), Philippine Currency, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously fail to render account on the disbursement thereof, within the period provided for by law and the rules and regulations of the Commission on Audit, preventing the auditors from fully establishing the cash accountabilities of both accused and/or the offices they represent to the prejudice of the Government.[5]
Campomanes entered a plea of not guilty upon arraignment on 24 July 1997 and filed a motion for reconsideration the next day. On 14 January 1998, Special Prosecution Officer II Cicero D. Jurado, Jr. recommended the dismissal of the case. Ombudsman Aniano Desierto overruled the recommendation.
During trial, the prosecution presented Mendoza as its sole witness. Hechanova and Campomanes testified on their own behalf.
The Ruling of the Sandiganbayan
In its decision promulgated on 31 January 2003, the Sandiganbayan’s Fifth Division acquitted Hechanova but declared Campomanes guilty and sentenced him accordingly. The dispositive portion of the decision reads thus:
Premises considered, accused Cecilio G. Hechanova is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged for failure of the prosecution to prove conspiracy.
On the basis of proof beyond reasonable doubt, accused Florencio B. Campomanes is hereby CONVICTED of the crime of failure to render accounts as defined in Article 218 in relation to Article 222 of the Revised Penal Code. Accordingly, he is hereby meted the straight penalty of one (1) year and ten (10) months imprisonment.
There is no pronouncement as to civil liability as the fact from which the same might arise was not established in the case at bar.
The cash bond posted by accused Hechanova is hereby ordered returned to him subject to the usual accounting and auditing procedures.
The Hold Departure Order issued on May 20, 1997 against accused Hechanova is likewise ordered lifted.
SO ORDERED.[6] (Emphasis in the original)
In its resolution promulgated on 6 February 2004, the Sandiganbayan denied Campomanes’ Motion for Reconsideration filed on 11 February 2003 but modified its previous judgment. The dispositive portion of the resolution reads as follows:
In view of all the foregoing, the instant Motion for Reconsideration dated February 10, 2003 is hereby denied for lack of merit. However, due to accused’s advanced age and for humanitarian reasons, the penalty imposed in the questioned Decision is hereby amended to a fine of six thousand pesos (Php6,000.00), instead of imprisonment of one (1) year and ten (10) months, pursuant to Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code.
SO ORDERED.[7]
Justices Francisco Villaruz, Jr. and Diosdado Peralta wrote separate dissenting opinions.
The Issues
Campomanes comes before this Court to question the Sandiganbayan’s rulings. He raises the following issues:
I
The Assailed Decision violated petitioner’s constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the charges against him.
II
Even assuming that the Sandiganbayan’s findings were alleged in the Information, petitioner is not required by law to render an accounting and therefore did not violate Article 218 of the RPC.
III
Assuming further that petitioner was required by law to account for the funds paid by the PSC to the FIDE, the admitted and undisputed facts warrant his acquittal.[8]
The Ruling of the Court
The petition has merit.
The main issue in this appeal is whether Campomanes is indeed guilty of failure to render accounts as defined in Article 218 in relation to Article 222 of the Revised Penal Code.
The Crime of Failure to Render Accounts
under Article 218 in relation to Article 222
of the Revised Penal Code
The pertinent articles of the Revised Penal Code read:
Art. 218. Failure of accountable officer to render accounts. – Any public officer, whether in the service or separated therefrom by resignation or any other cause, who is required by law or regulation to render account to the [Commission on Audit], or to a provincial auditor and who fails to do so for a period of two months after such accounts should be rendered, shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum period, or by a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both.
Art. 222. Officers included in the preceding provision. – The provisions of this chapter shall apply to private individuals who, in any capacity whatever, have charge of any [national], provincial or municipal funds, revenues or property and to any administrator or depository of funds or property attached, seized or deposited by public authority, even if such property belongs to a private individual.
There are four elements of the crime under Article 218. First, the offender is a public officer. Second, he must be an accountable officer for public funds or property. Third, the offender is required by law or regulation to render accounts to the COA, or to a provincial auditor. Fourth, he fails to render an account for a period of two months after such accounts should be rendered.
Campomanes is clearly not a public officer. He is the president of the FIDE, a private foreign corporation with whom the PSC, through Hechanova, negotiated to conduct the 1992 Chess Olympiad and Congress in Manila. The Sandiganbayan acknowledged that Campomanes is not a public officer and applied Article 222 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Article 218. The Sandiganbayan enumerated the elements of the crime as applied to Campomanes thus:
That the offender is [a] private individual.
That he has charge of any insular (now national), provincial, or municipal funds, revenues, or property or [is an] administrator or depository of funds, property attached, seized, or deposited by public authority, even if such property belongs to a private individual.
That he is required by law or regulation to render accounts to the Commission on Audit, or to a provincial auditor.
That he fails to do so for a period of two months after such accounts should be rendered.[9]
Campomanes admitted that he received funds from the PSC, through Hechanova. Campomanes’ admissions are found in the exhibits and in the prosecution and defense’s testimonies. The exhibits show Campomanes’ signatures in the respective disbursement vouchers issued by the PSC and FIDE’s letters to PSC acknowledging receipt of the funds. Moreover, Campomanes has not rendered an accounting of the funds even after he received a letter dated 19 January 1994 from COA Chairman Pascasio S. Banaria demanding that Campomanes refund or submit a detailed accounting to the COA covering the liquidation of the funds that the FIDE received.[10]
The Sandiganbayan’s decision, however, failed to specify any law or regulation requiring Campomanes to render accounts to the COA. The Sandiganbayan reasoned thus:
As to the third element of the offense that the accountable officer should be required by law or regulation to render accounts to the Commission on Audit, the prosecution’s evidence established that it was accused Campomanes, as President of the FIDE, a private international organization, and thus a private entity, was the one liable to render accounts on the grant that he had received in behalf of FIDE from the PSC.
The basis of the present charge is SAO Audit Report No. 93-27 on the Special Audit of the Philippine Sports Commission (Exh. “HH”). Section 1.2 thereof provides in part thus:
“1.2 Federation Internationale de Echecs (FIDE)
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
The grant of financial assistance to the Federation Internationale De Echecs (FIDE) amounting to P12,876,008.00 was highly irregular. All checks were received by Mr. Florencio Campomanes, FIDE President, without issuing any Official Receipt of the Organization. No liquidation was submitted by the FIDE President to the PSC on the grant that he received in behalf of FIDE.”
The lone prosecution witness, COA Auditor, Ms. Rexy Ramos, herself testified that FIDE was supposed to render an account of the subject funds because it was the one which expended the same. Thus, she testified on direct examination:
“Q: When the PSC funds are turned-over from the PSC to FIDE, who are supposed to account for the funds, the PSC or the FIDE?
A: It should be FIDE, Your Honor Honor [sic], because it will be FIDE who will be expending.”
Likewise, on cross-examination, she declared that it was PSC’s responsibility to request for an accounting from the FIDE to which it transferred the funds, however, she did not mention in her written recommendation contained in the SAO Audit Report No 93-27 (Exh. “HH”), that PSC should request FIDE to account for the funds. Her testimony is quoted below:
“Q: And nowhere in your report, Special Audit report, which stated that it is the PSC who is obligated or required to account for the P12.8 Million, more or less, financial assistance, is that correct?
A: Yes, sir, because PSC should not be the one to submit the accounting, but it is responsible and obliged to ask FIDE to submit an accounting of the P12.8 Million.
Q: And what is the basis for that answer, Madam Witness?
A: Section 102 of the Philippine Government Auditing Code Manual, PD 1445. Section 102, “Primary and Secondary Responsibility. The head of any agency of the government is immediately and primarily responsible for all government funds or property pertaining to his agency.”
Q: So, you mean to say that it is also PSC who is required to account for the P12.8 Million, more or less, financial assistance?
A: It is not to account but it is his responsibility to request for an accounting to the agency wherein he happened to transfer any funds.
Q: The responsibility to request, not to account for it, is that an accurate statement?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: But based on your findings in the Audit Report, you never mentioned in your recommendation that the PSC should request FIDE to account for this fund, is that correct? Nowhere in your recommendation was it stated that the PSC should request FIDE to account for this fund, is that correct?
A: Yes, sir.”
Based on the foregoing evidence, it is crystal clear that it was accused Campomanes who should render an accounting of the funds that FIDE received from the PSC.[11] (Emphasis in the original)
The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP), for its part, recognized the Sandiganbayan’s failure to specify the law or regulation requiring Campomanes to render an accounting. The OSP enumerated various laws which presumably specify that Campomanes had the legal obligation to render an account to the COA. The OSP stated thus:
Petitioner finds fault in the assailed Decision of the court a quo in convicting him of the crime charged. He contends that there is no law or regulation requiring him to render an accounting for the amount of P12.8 Million Pesos to the Commission on Audit, which he, as President of the FIDE, received from the PSC.
On the contrary, Section 102(2) of P.D. 1445, as well as Section 27 of the Manual on Certificate of Settlement and Balances (1993 edition), expressly provides petitioner’s duty and obligation to render an account of the 12.8 Million Pesos which he received in behalf of FIDE, viz:
“Persons entrusted with the possession or custody of the funds or property under the agency head shall be immediately responsible to him without prejudice to the liability of either party to the government.”
The obligation of petitioner to render an account is crystal clear from this provision. The fact that there was no agreement between the PSC and FIDE for the latter to liquidate or to account is of no moment, because the law expressly imposes, and laid upon petitioner an obligation to render an account, which he manifestly failed.
Secondly, all monies and property officially received by any person in whatever capacity and in whatever occasion must be duly accounted for, and must be duly receipted and acknowledged officially. These again were violated by FIDE, although complied with belatedly. This belated act of FIDE merely proves that it acquiesced that, indeed, it has obligation to render an account for the amount of 12.8 Million Pesos.
Thirdly, the obligation to render an account is buttressed by the provision of Article 222 of the Revised Penal Code which provides that Article 218, among others, “shall apply to private individuals who, in any capacity whatever, have charge of any insular (now national), provincial or municipal funds, revenues or property …”
Fourthly, Article IX [D], Section 2 [1] of the 1987 Constitution vests upon the Commission o[n] Audit the power and authority, as well as the duty, to examine, audit, among others, all accounts pertaining to the expenditures or uses of funds owned by or pertaining to the Government or any of its agencies, instrumentalities and departments; and this authority extends to the accounts of all persons, regardless of whether an officer or employee of the government or a private individual, respecting funds or properties they received, expended or held in an accountable capacity or not. This is so because of the principle that all government monies must be duly accounted for in order to see to it that government resources are not put to waste and thus, properly protected. Be it noted that government funds must be spent for and used solely for public purpose and only for the purpose for which it is intended. Concomitantly, all persons who received, in whatever capacity, and expended public funds, shall have the obligation to render an account of such funds to the Commission on Audit. Thus, petitioner i[s] under obligation to render an account for the amount of 12.8 Million Pesos which he received as President of FIDE as financial assistance in hosting the World Chess Olympiad in the Philippines.
All these established facts belie the allegation of petitioner that he is under no legal obligation to render an account.[12] (Emphasis in the original)
It is well-settled that penal statutes must be liberally construed in favor of the accused and strictly construed against the state. To paraphrase our ruling in Kilosbayan, Inc. v. COMELEC,[13] no matter how believable a story may be, no matter how possible it could really have been that the FIDE and Campomanes were financial conduits for criminal elements, criminal charges cannot ever be sanctioned by mere possibilities or coffee shop rumors. Campomanes should be acquitted because neither the Sandiganbayan nor the OSP was able to show any law or regulation requiring Campomanes to render an accounting to the COA.
Section 2(1)(d) of Article IX-D of the 1987 Constitution must be read in conjunction with Article 222 of the Revised Penal Code. Section 2(1)(d) of Article IX-D of the 1987 Constitution states that:
The Commission on Audit shall have the power, authority, and duty to examine, audit, and settle all accounts pertaining to the revenue and receipts of, and expenditures or uses of funds and property, owned or held in trust by, or pertaining to, the Government, or any of its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities, including government-owned and controlled corporations with original charters, and on a post-audit basis: x x x
d) such non-governmental entities receiving subsidy or equity, directly or indirectly, from or through the government, which are required by law or the granting institution to submit to such audit as a condition of subsidy or equity. x x x (Emphasis added)
The COA has the authority to demand an accounting from the FIDE if there is a law which requires the PSC to ask the FIDE to render an accounting, or if the PSC expressly required the FIDE to render an accounting as a condition for funding the Chess Olympiad and Congress. Absent such law or contractual obligation, the COA does not have the authority to audit the accounts of non-governmental entities receiving subsidy or equity from the government, like the FIDE. In the same manner, non-governmental entities receiving subsidy or equity from the government, like the FIDE, are not obliged to render an accounting to the COA if no law or contract requires them to do so.
In the present case, the absence of the conditions contained in Section 2(1)(d) of Article IX-D of the 1987 Constitution prevents the creation of an obligation on the FIDE’s part to render an accounting to the PSC or the COA. Consequently, Campomanes, as representative of the FIDE which has no legal obligation to render an accounting, cannot be liable under Article 222 of the Revised Penal Code.
The laws cited by the OSP do not sufficiently show that Campomanes is legally required to render accounts to the COA. Neither the “prosecution’s evidence” nor the Audit Report is the “law or regulation” contemplated by the Revised Penal Code. Moreover, it is error for the OSP to submit that Section 102 of Presidential Decree No. 1445 (“PD 1445”) is the law mandating the FIDE or its officers to render an accounting. Section 102 of PD 1445, read together with other Sections in Chapter 5 of PD 1445, clearly refers to “official(s) or employee(s)” who are “accountable officers” of “any government agency,”[14] and not to “non-governmental entities receiving subsidy or equity, directly or indirectly, from or through the Government x x x.” When it comes to subsidy or equity extended by the government to a “non-governmental entity,” the legal obligation on the part of the non-governmental entity to account for, and the power of the COA to audit, such subsidy or equity arises only if “the law or the granting institution” requires such audit as a condition for the subsidy or equity.
As gleaned from the parties’ stipulation of facts, the PSC and the FIDE entered here into a contract requiring the PSC to provide the FIDE the funds for the latter to organize the Chess Olympiad and Congress in Manila. The PSC delivered the funds to the FIDE, which apparently successfully organized the Chess Olympiad and Congress since the PSC does not claim that the FIDE failed to organize the two events. In short, the FIDE complied with its undertaking under the contract. There is no claim by the PSC or the COA that the FIDE, a foreign non-governmental entity, is obligated under the contract to render an accounting. There is also no showing that the PSC’s charter or any law or regulation requires the FIDE to render an accounting to the PSC or the COA as a condition for the receipt of funds. Clearly, this situation cannot give rise to criminal liability on the part of the FIDE’s officers under Article 222 of the Revised Penal Code which admittedly requires that there must be a “law or regulation” requiring the rendering of accounts by private individuals.
We acquit Campomanes because of the failure of the prosecution to prove all the elements of Article 218, in relation to Article 222, of the Revised Penal Code. Because of this failure, we deem it unnecessary to rule on the other issues raised by both parties.
WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. We SET ASIDE the Decision promulgated on 31 January 2003 and the Resolution promulgated on 6 February 2004 of the Sandiganbayan. We ACQUIT Florencio B. Campomanes of the crime of failure to render accounts as defined in Article 218, in relation to Article 222, of the Revised Penal Code.
SO ORDERED.
Quisumbing, (Chairperson), Carpio-Morales, Tinga, and Velasco, Jr., JJ., concur.
——————————————————————————–
[1] Under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
[2] Penned by Associate Justice Ma. Cristina Cortez-Estrada with Associate Justices Minita V. Chico- Nazario (now Supreme Court Associate Justice) and Francisco H. Villaruz, Jr.,concurring. Rollo, pp. 67-90.
[3] Penned by Associate Justice Ma. Cristina Cortez-Estrada with Associate Justices Minita V. Chico- Nazario (now Supreme Court Associate Justice) and Norberto Y. Geraldez, concurring. Id. at 91-105. Associate Justices Francisco H. Villaruz, Jr. and Diosdado M. Peralta wrote separate dissenting opinions. Id. at 106-127.
[4] Rollo, pp. 68-70.
[5] Id. at 67.
[6] Id. at 89-90.
[7] Id. at 105.
[8] Id. at 22.
[9] Id. at 103.
[10] Id. at 88-89.
[11] Id. at 86-88.
[12] Id. at 221-224.
[13] 345 Phil. 1141 (1997).
[14] Sections 101 to 108, Chapter 5 of PD 1445 provide:
CHAPTER 5
Accountability and Responsibility for Government Funds and Property
SECTION 101. Accountable officers; bond requirement. – (1) Every officer of any government agency whose duties permit or require the possession or custody of government funds or property shall be accountable therefor and for the safekeeping thereof in conformity with law.
(2) Every accountable officer shall be properly bonded in accordance with law.
SECTION 102. Primary and secondary responsibility. – (1) The head of any agency of the government is immediately and primarily responsible for all government funds and property pertaining to his agency.
(2) Persons entrusted with the possession or custody of the funds or property under the agency head shall be immediately responsible to him, without prejudice to the liability of either party to the government.
SECTION 103. General liability for unlawful expenditures. – Expenditures of government funds or uses of government property in violation of law or regulations shall be a personal liability of the official or employee found to be directly responsible therefor.
SECTION 104. Records and reports required by primarily responsible officers. – The head of any agency or instrumentality of the national government or any government-owned or controlled corporation and any other self-governing board or commission of the government shall exercise the diligence of a good father of a family in supervising accountable officers under his control to prevent the incurrence of loss of government funds or property, otherwise he shall be jointly and solidarily liable with the person primarily accountable therefore. The treasurer of the local government unit shall likewise exercise the same degree of supervision over accountable officers under his supervision otherwise, he shall be jointly and solidarily liable with them for the loss of government funds or property under their control.
SECTION 105. Measure of liability of accountable officers. – (1) Every officer accountable for government property shall be liable for its money value in case of improper or unauthorized use or misapplication thereof, by himself or any person for whose acts he may be responsible. He shall likewise be liable for all losses, damages, or deterioration occasioned by negligence in the keeping or use of the property, whether or not it be at the time in his actual custody.
(2) Every officer accountable for government funds shall be liable for all losses resulting from the unlawful deposit, use, or application thereof and for all losses attributable to negligence in the keeping of the funds.
SECTION 106. Liability for acts done by direction of superior officer. – No accountable officer shall be relieved from liability by reason of his having acted under the direction of a superior officer in paying out, applying, or disposing of the funds or property with which he is chargeable, unless prior to that act, he notified the superior officer in writing of the illegality of the payment, application, or disposition. The officer directing any illegal payment or disposition of the funds or property shall be primarily liable for the loss, while the accountable officer who fails to serve the required notice shall be secondarily liable.
SECTION 107. Time and mode of rendering account. – In the absence of specific provision of law, all accountable officers shall render their accounts, submit their vouchers, and make deposits of money collected or held by them at such times and in such manner as shall be prescribed in the regulations of the Commission.
SECTION 108. Prohibition against pecuniary interest. – No accountable or responsible officer shall be pecuniary interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract or transaction of the agency in which he is such an officer. (Emphasis supplied)
E-Library Doc. ID: a45475a11ec72b843d74959b60fd7bd645941f59eb2a5
Supreme Court
Padre Faura St., Ermita
Manila, Philippines
Decisions / Signed Resolutions
THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 161950, December 19, 2006]
FLORENCIO B. CAMPOMANES, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
This is a petition for review on certiorari[1] assailing the Decision[2] promulgated on 31 January 2003 and the Resolution[3] promulgated on 6 February 2004 by the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 23672 entitled People of the Philippines v. Cecilio G. Hechanova and Florencio B. Campomanes. The accused were charged with conspiracy in violating Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code, which defines and penalizes the failure of an accountable officer to render accounts.
The Sandiganbayan acquitted then Philippine Sports Commission (PSC) Chairman Cecilio G. Hechanova (“Hechanova”) for failure of the prosecution to prove conspiracy. The Sandiganbayan, however, convicted accused-petitioner Florencio B. Campomanes (“Campomanes”), then President of the Federation Internationale Des Echecs (FIDE), of the crime of failure to render accounts as defined in Article 218 in relation to Article 222 of the Revised Penal Code. The Sandiganbayan sentenced Campomanes to one year and ten months of imprisonment.
On reconsideration, the Sandiganbayan reduced Campomanes’ penalty to a fine of P6,000 due to his advanced age.
The Facts
The present petition involves alleged irregularities in the disbursement and liquidation of the funds that the PSC made available to the FIDE through Campomanes in connection with the PSC’s bid to host the 1992 Chess Olympiad and Congress in Manila from 6 to 25 June 1992.
The parties stipulated upon the following facts:
That during the period material to the Information of this case, accused Cecilio G. Hechanova was the Chairman of the Philippine Sports Commission (PSC) and Florencio B. Campomanes was the President of the Federation International [sic] Des Echecs (FIDE), a private international organization with offices at Lausanne, Switzerland.
That on 6 March 1991 the Philippine Sports Commission submitted to FIDE a bid offer to host the 30th Chess Olympiad of 1992 in Manila, making the promissory representations required under FIDE rules, viz:
‘- Financial Guarantee Declaration and/or Government Guarantee if applicable. Provisional budget to be added. The Funding of the Olympiad and Congress shall be the responsibility of the Philippine Sports Commission. (attached board resolution) budget US$6 million P180 M.
(1) Additional arrangements:
The sum of One Milliion [sic] Swiss Francs (SFr.1,000,000.00) has been place in the Philippines National Bank in an account In Trust to the Federation Internationale Des Echecs to guarantee the organization of the 1992 Chess Olympiad and Congress, in case of the award of the same, which amount shall be forfeited in favor of FIDE in the event that the Philippine Sports Commission fails to organize the said Chess Olympiad and Congress.
– Deposit: We enclose with out [sic] offer/bid our deposit fee of SFr. 5,000.00 to FIDE. We are aware that we forfeit this sum if for any reason we do not organize the event. If we do organize the event this sum will be put to the credit of our account with FIDE.
We have organized the specific FIDE stipulations for the above mentioned event and will observe them.
– All conditions offered are subject to the approval of the FIDE President or his representatives.
– The President has the right to demand additional deposits or guarantees from the organizers when he so decides.
– Twelve months before the commencement of the event the President must be in possession of sufficient evidence of the full financial reliability and attention of the sponsors. If such evidence is not at hand at the given time, the President has the right to withdraw the option.
That the PSC’s bid offer was accepted by FIDE, and accordingly the Philippine government thru the PSC was granted the right to organize and host the 30th World Chess Olympiad in Manila from June 6-25, 1992.
That in connection with the 30th World Chess Olympiad, the PSC governing board passed Resolution No. 292 on June 4, 1991 appropriating the amount of Fourty [sic] Thousand Swiss Francs (SFr40,000.00) as monthly expenditure of FIDE from May 1991 to June 1992.
That from October 1990 to June 1992 the PSC, also complying with its obligations under the bid offer, remitted to FIDE – received in FIDE’s behalf by its President, Florencio Campomanes – the total amount of P12,876,008.00 in connection with the 30th World Chess Olympiad in Manila.
That the amount of P12,876,008.00 was acknowledged as having been received by FIDE as shown by a letter dated December 22, 1995 of Willy Iclicki, FIDE Treasurer.
Also the FIDE transmitted to the PSC two letter-explanations/clearances re the above funds received from PSC:
Letter dated 8 December 1995:
– ‘As far as the World Chess Federation is concerned, Mr. Florencio Campomanes made his clarifications and there are no further queries on the amount assigned for FIDE for the Manila Olympiad 1992. As you may know, he was given a total vote of confidence by the General Assembly and elected FIDE Chairman.’ -[see Exhibit “2-Campomanes”]
Letter dated 29 May 1997:
– ‘Attached is my letter dated Singapore, 22 December 1995, where we had our FIDE Presidential Board meeting, as authenticated today 29 May 1997, by the Philippine Embassy in Brussels.
– We began issuing official receipts only in late 1993 and it is FIDE practice not to issue official receipts unless specifically requested.’ [see Exhibit “4-Campomanes”][4]
The Commission on Audit (COA) conducted an audit of the PSC’s transactions from March 1990 up to June 1992. During the audit, the COA team, composed of team leader Rexy Mendoza (“Mendoza”) and members Ignacia Rodrigo and Alexander Rodriguez, requested for the journal and checks and disbursements issued by the PSC pertaining to the P12 million appropriated to defray the organization, administration, and hosting of the Chess Olympiad and Congress. The COA team noticed irregularities in the claims payable to the FIDE. The irregularities consisted of the lack of acknowledgment receipts and of accounting liquidation attached to the disbursement vouchers. The COA defined an acknowledgment receipt as an official receipt evidencing that the FIDE received the funds from the PSC. An accounting liquidation is used to explain how the funds were expended pursuant to the purpose specified in the disbursement voucher.
The COA invited the PSC officials to an exit conference on 27 October 1993. During the conference, the COA submitted its team’s findings to the PSC and requested for the PSC’s comment on the matter. In the absence of the PSC’s comment, the COA prepared SAO Report No. 93-27. The report stated that the FIDE, through Campomanes, received P12,876,008 without acknowledgment and without liquidation.
In an Information dated 1 April 1997, Hechanova and Campomanes were charged as follows:
That, on or about August 25, 1992, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the City of Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused Cecilio G. Hechanova, a public officer, being then the Chairman of the Philippine Sports Commission (PSC), and as such was accountable for public funds disbursed by his office, conspiring and confederating with Florencio B. Campomanes, President of the Federacion [sic] Internationale des Echecs (FIDE), a private organization, to whose custody and possession was entrusted PSC funds to be used in connection with the World Chess Olympiad in Manila, hosted by the Philippine Government from June 6-25, 1992, amounting to PESOS: TWELVE MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED SEVENTY SIX THOUSAND EIGHT (P12,876,008.00), Philippine Currency, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously fail to render account on the disbursement thereof, within the period provided for by law and the rules and regulations of the Commission on Audit, preventing the auditors from fully establishing the cash accountabilities of both accused and/or the offices they represent to the prejudice of the Government.[5]
Campomanes entered a plea of not guilty upon arraignment on 24 July 1997 and filed a motion for reconsideration the next day. On 14 January 1998, Special Prosecution Officer II Cicero D. Jurado, Jr. recommended the dismissal of the case. Ombudsman Aniano Desierto overruled the recommendation.
During trial, the prosecution presented Mendoza as its sole witness. Hechanova and Campomanes testified on their own behalf.
The Ruling of the Sandiganbayan
In its decision promulgated on 31 January 2003, the Sandiganbayan’s Fifth Division acquitted Hechanova but declared Campomanes guilty and sentenced him accordingly. The dispositive portion of the decision reads thus:
Premises considered, accused Cecilio G. Hechanova is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged for failure of the prosecution to prove conspiracy.
On the basis of proof beyond reasonable doubt, accused Florencio B. Campomanes is hereby CONVICTED of the crime of failure to render accounts as defined in Article 218 in relation to Article 222 of the Revised Penal Code. Accordingly, he is hereby meted the straight penalty of one (1) year and ten (10) months imprisonment.
There is no pronouncement as to civil liability as the fact from which the same might arise was not established in the case at bar.
The cash bond posted by accused Hechanova is hereby ordered returned to him subject to the usual accounting and auditing procedures.
The Hold Departure Order issued on May 20, 1997 against accused Hechanova is likewise ordered lifted.
SO ORDERED.[6] (Emphasis in the original)
In its resolution promulgated on 6 February 2004, the Sandiganbayan denied Campomanes’ Motion for Reconsideration filed on 11 February 2003 but modified its previous judgment. The dispositive portion of the resolution reads as follows:
In view of all the foregoing, the instant Motion for Reconsideration dated February 10, 2003 is hereby denied for lack of merit. However, due to accused’s advanced age and for humanitarian reasons, the penalty imposed in the questioned Decision is hereby amended to a fine of six thousand pesos (Php6,000.00), instead of imprisonment of one (1) year and ten (10) months, pursuant to Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code.
SO ORDERED.[7]
Justices Francisco Villaruz, Jr. and Diosdado Peralta wrote separate dissenting opinions.
The Issues
Campomanes comes before this Court to question the Sandiganbayan’s rulings. He raises the following issues:
I
The Assailed Decision violated petitioner’s constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the charges against him.
II
Even assuming that the Sandiganbayan’s findings were alleged in the Information, petitioner is not required by law to render an accounting and therefore did not violate Article 218 of the RPC.
III
Assuming further that petitioner was required by law to account for the funds paid by the PSC to the FIDE, the admitted and undisputed facts warrant his acquittal.[8]
The Ruling of the Court
The petition has merit.
The main issue in this appeal is whether Campomanes is indeed guilty of failure to render accounts as defined in Article 218 in relation to Article 222 of the Revised Penal Code.
The Crime of Failure to Render Accounts
under Article 218 in relation to Article 222
of the Revised Penal Code
The pertinent articles of the Revised Penal Code read:
Art. 218. Failure of accountable officer to render accounts. – Any public officer, whether in the service or separated therefrom by resignation or any other cause, who is required by law or regulation to render account to the [Commission on Audit], or to a provincial auditor and who fails to do so for a period of two months after such accounts should be rendered, shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum period, or by a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both.
Art. 222. Officers included in the preceding provision. – The provisions of this chapter shall apply to private individuals who, in any capacity whatever, have charge of any [national], provincial or municipal funds, revenues or property and to any administrator or depository of funds or property attached, seized or deposited by public authority, even if such property belongs to a private individual.
There are four elements of the crime under Article 218. First, the offender is a public officer. Second, he must be an accountable officer for public funds or property. Third, the offender is required by law or regulation to render accounts to the COA, or to a provincial auditor. Fourth, he fails to render an account for a period of two months after such accounts should be rendered.
Campomanes is clearly not a public officer. He is the president of the FIDE, a private foreign corporation with whom the PSC, through Hechanova, negotiated to conduct the 1992 Chess Olympiad and Congress in Manila. The Sandiganbayan acknowledged that Campomanes is not a public officer and applied Article 222 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Article 218. The Sandiganbayan enumerated the elements of the crime as applied to Campomanes thus:
That the offender is [a] private individual.
That he has charge of any insular (now national), provincial, or municipal funds, revenues, or property or [is an] administrator or depository of funds, property attached, seized, or deposited by public authority, even if such property belongs to a private individual.
That he is required by law or regulation to render accounts to the Commission on Audit, or to a provincial auditor.
That he fails to do so for a period of two months after such accounts should be rendered.[9]
Campomanes admitted that he received funds from the PSC, through Hechanova. Campomanes’ admissions are found in the exhibits and in the prosecution and defense’s testimonies. The exhibits show Campomanes’ signatures in the respective disbursement vouchers issued by the PSC and FIDE’s letters to PSC acknowledging receipt of the funds. Moreover, Campomanes has not rendered an accounting of the funds even after he received a letter dated 19 January 1994 from COA Chairman Pascasio S. Banaria demanding that Campomanes refund or submit a detailed accounting to the COA covering the liquidation of the funds that the FIDE received.[10]
The Sandiganbayan’s decision, however, failed to specify any law or regulation requiring Campomanes to render accounts to the COA. The Sandiganbayan reasoned thus:
As to the third element of the offense that the accountable officer should be required by law or regulation to render accounts to the Commission on Audit, the prosecution’s evidence established that it was accused Campomanes, as President of the FIDE, a private international organization, and thus a private entity, was the one liable to render accounts on the grant that he had received in behalf of FIDE from the PSC.
The basis of the present charge is SAO Audit Report No. 93-27 on the Special Audit of the Philippine Sports Commission (Exh. “HH”). Section 1.2 thereof provides in part thus:
“1.2 Federation Internationale de Echecs (FIDE)
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
The grant of financial assistance to the Federation Internationale De Echecs (FIDE) amounting to P12,876,008.00 was highly irregular. All checks were received by Mr. Florencio Campomanes, FIDE President, without issuing any Official Receipt of the Organization. No liquidation was submitted by the FIDE President to the PSC on the grant that he received in behalf of FIDE.”
The lone prosecution witness, COA Auditor, Ms. Rexy Ramos, herself testified that FIDE was supposed to render an account of the subject funds because it was the one which expended the same. Thus, she testified on direct examination:
“Q: When the PSC funds are turned-over from the PSC to FIDE, who are supposed to account for the funds, the PSC or the FIDE?
A: It should be FIDE, Your Honor Honor [sic], because it will be FIDE who will be expending.”
Likewise, on cross-examination, she declared that it was PSC’s responsibility to request for an accounting from the FIDE to which it transferred the funds, however, she did not mention in her written recommendation contained in the SAO Audit Report No 93-27 (Exh. “HH”), that PSC should request FIDE to account for the funds. Her testimony is quoted below:
“Q: And nowhere in your report, Special Audit report, which stated that it is the PSC who is obligated or required to account for the P12.8 Million, more or less, financial assistance, is that correct?
A: Yes, sir, because PSC should not be the one to submit the accounting, but it is responsible and obliged to ask FIDE to submit an accounting of the P12.8 Million.
Q: And what is the basis for that answer, Madam Witness?
A: Section 102 of the Philippine Government Auditing Code Manual, PD 1445. Section 102, “Primary and Secondary Responsibility. The head of any agency of the government is immediately and primarily responsible for all government funds or property pertaining to his agency.”
Q: So, you mean to say that it is also PSC who is required to account for the P12.8 Million, more or less, financial assistance?
A: It is not to account but it is his responsibility to request for an accounting to the agency wherein he happened to transfer any funds.
Q: The responsibility to request, not to account for it, is that an accurate statement?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: But based on your findings in the Audit Report, you never mentioned in your recommendation that the PSC should request FIDE to account for this fund, is that correct? Nowhere in your recommendation was it stated that the PSC should request FIDE to account for this fund, is that correct?
A: Yes, sir.”
Based on the foregoing evidence, it is crystal clear that it was accused Campomanes who should render an accounting of the funds that FIDE received from the PSC.[11] (Emphasis in the original)
The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP), for its part, recognized the Sandiganbayan’s failure to specify the law or regulation requiring Campomanes to render an accounting. The OSP enumerated various laws which presumably specify that Campomanes had the legal obligation to render an account to the COA. The OSP stated thus:
Petitioner finds fault in the assailed Decision of the court a quo in convicting him of the crime charged. He contends that there is no law or regulation requiring him to render an accounting for the amount of P12.8 Million Pesos to the Commission on Audit, which he, as President of the FIDE, received from the PSC.
On the contrary, Section 102(2) of P.D. 1445, as well as Section 27 of the Manual on Certificate of Settlement and Balances (1993 edition), expressly provides petitioner’s duty and obligation to render an account of the 12.8 Million Pesos which he received in behalf of FIDE, viz:
“Persons entrusted with the possession or custody of the funds or property under the agency head shall be immediately responsible to him without prejudice to the liability of either party to the government.”
The obligation of petitioner to render an account is crystal clear from this provision. The fact that there was no agreement between the PSC and FIDE for the latter to liquidate or to account is of no moment, because the law expressly imposes, and laid upon petitioner an obligation to render an account, which he manifestly failed.
Secondly, all monies and property officially received by any person in whatever capacity and in whatever occasion must be duly accounted for, and must be duly receipted and acknowledged officially. These again were violated by FIDE, although complied with belatedly. This belated act of FIDE merely proves that it acquiesced that, indeed, it has obligation to render an account for the amount of 12.8 Million Pesos.
Thirdly, the obligation to render an account is buttressed by the provision of Article 222 of the Revised Penal Code which provides that Article 218, among others, “shall apply to private individuals who, in any capacity whatever, have charge of any insular (now national), provincial or municipal funds, revenues or property …”
Fourthly, Article IX [D], Section 2 [1] of the 1987 Constitution vests upon the Commission o[n] Audit the power and authority, as well as the duty, to examine, audit, among others, all accounts pertaining to the expenditures or uses of funds owned by or pertaining to the Government or any of its agencies, instrumentalities and departments; and this authority extends to the accounts of all persons, regardless of whether an officer or employee of the government or a private individual, respecting funds or properties they received, expended or held in an accountable capacity or not. This is so because of the principle that all government monies must be duly accounted for in order to see to it that government resources are not put to waste and thus, properly protected. Be it noted that government funds must be spent for and used solely for public purpose and only for the purpose for which it is intended. Concomitantly, all persons who received, in whatever capacity, and expended public funds, shall have the obligation to render an account of such funds to the Commission on Audit. Thus, petitioner i[s] under obligation to render an account for the amount of 12.8 Million Pesos which he received as President of FIDE as financial assistance in hosting the World Chess Olympiad in the Philippines.
All these established facts belie the allegation of petitioner that he is under no legal obligation to render an account.[12] (Emphasis in the original)
It is well-settled that penal statutes must be liberally construed in favor of the accused and strictly construed against the state. To paraphrase our ruling in Kilosbayan, Inc. v. COMELEC,[13] no matter how believable a story may be, no matter how possible it could really have been that the FIDE and Campomanes were financial conduits for criminal elements, criminal charges cannot ever be sanctioned by mere possibilities or coffee shop rumors. Campomanes should be acquitted because neither the Sandiganbayan nor the OSP was able to show any law or regulation requiring Campomanes to render an accounting to the COA.
Section 2(1)(d) of Article IX-D of the 1987 Constitution must be read in conjunction with Article 222 of the Revised Penal Code. Section 2(1)(d) of Article IX-D of the 1987 Constitution states that:
The Commission on Audit shall have the power, authority, and duty to examine, audit, and settle all accounts pertaining to the revenue and receipts of, and expenditures or uses of funds and property, owned or held in trust by, or pertaining to, the Government, or any of its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities, including government-owned and controlled corporations with original charters, and on a post-audit basis: x x x
d) such non-governmental entities receiving subsidy or equity, directly or indirectly, from or through the government, which are required by law or the granting institution to submit to such audit as a condition of subsidy or equity. x x x (Emphasis added)
The COA has the authority to demand an accounting from the FIDE if there is a law which requires the PSC to ask the FIDE to render an accounting, or if the PSC expressly required the FIDE to render an accounting as a condition for funding the Chess Olympiad and Congress. Absent such law or contractual obligation, the COA does not have the authority to audit the accounts of non-governmental entities receiving subsidy or equity from the government, like the FIDE. In the same manner, non-governmental entities receiving subsidy or equity from the government, like the FIDE, are not obliged to render an accounting to the COA if no law or contract requires them to do so.
In the present case, the absence of the conditions contained in Section 2(1)(d) of Article IX-D of the 1987 Constitution prevents the creation of an obligation on the FIDE’s part to render an accounting to the PSC or the COA. Consequently, Campomanes, as representative of the FIDE which has no legal obligation to render an accounting, cannot be liable under Article 222 of the Revised Penal Code.
The laws cited by the OSP do not sufficiently show that Campomanes is legally required to render accounts to the COA. Neither the “prosecution’s evidence” nor the Audit Report is the “law or regulation” contemplated by the Revised Penal Code. Moreover, it is error for the OSP to submit that Section 102 of Presidential Decree No. 1445 (“PD 1445”) is the law mandating the FIDE or its officers to render an accounting. Section 102 of PD 1445, read together with other Sections in Chapter 5 of PD 1445, clearly refers to “official(s) or employee(s)” who are “accountable officers” of “any government agency,”[14] and not to “non-governmental entities receiving subsidy or equity, directly or indirectly, from or through the Government x x x.” When it comes to subsidy or equity extended by the government to a “non-governmental entity,” the legal obligation on the part of the non-governmental entity to account for, and the power of the COA to audit, such subsidy or equity arises only if “the law or the granting institution” requires such audit as a condition for the subsidy or equity.
As gleaned from the parties’ stipulation of facts, the PSC and the FIDE entered here into a contract requiring the PSC to provide the FIDE the funds for the latter to organize the Chess Olympiad and Congress in Manila. The PSC delivered the funds to the FIDE, which apparently successfully organized the Chess Olympiad and Congress since the PSC does not claim that the FIDE failed to organize the two events. In short, the FIDE complied with its undertaking under the contract. There is no claim by the PSC or the COA that the FIDE, a foreign non-governmental entity, is obligated under the contract to render an accounting. There is also no showing that the PSC’s charter or any law or regulation requires the FIDE to render an accounting to the PSC or the COA as a condition for the receipt of funds. Clearly, this situation cannot give rise to criminal liability on the part of the FIDE’s officers under Article 222 of the Revised Penal Code which admittedly requires that there must be a “law or regulation” requiring the rendering of accounts by private individuals.
We acquit Campomanes because of the failure of the prosecution to prove all the elements of Article 218, in relation to Article 222, of the Revised Penal Code. Because of this failure, we deem it unnecessary to rule on the other issues raised by both parties.
WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. We SET ASIDE the Decision promulgated on 31 January 2003 and the Resolution promulgated on 6 February 2004 of the Sandiganbayan. We ACQUIT Florencio B. Campomanes of the crime of failure to render accounts as defined in Article 218, in relation to Article 222, of the Revised Penal Code.
SO ORDERED.
Quisumbing, (Chairperson), Carpio-Morales, Tinga, and Velasco, Jr., JJ., concur.
——————————————————————————–
[1] Under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
[2] Penned by Associate Justice Ma. Cristina Cortez-Estrada with Associate Justices Minita V. Chico- Nazario (now Supreme Court Associate Justice) and Francisco H. Villaruz, Jr.,concurring. Rollo, pp. 67-90.
[3] Penned by Associate Justice Ma. Cristina Cortez-Estrada with Associate Justices Minita V. Chico- Nazario (now Supreme Court Associate Justice) and Norberto Y. Geraldez, concurring. Id. at 91-105. Associate Justices Francisco H. Villaruz, Jr. and Diosdado M. Peralta wrote separate dissenting opinions. Id. at 106-127.
[4] Rollo, pp. 68-70.
[5] Id. at 67.
[6] Id. at 89-90.
[7] Id. at 105.
[8] Id. at 22.
[9] Id. at 103.
[10] Id. at 88-89.
[11] Id. at 86-88.
[12] Id. at 221-224.
[13] 345 Phil. 1141 (1997).
[14] Sections 101 to 108, Chapter 5 of PD 1445 provide:
CHAPTER 5
Accountability and Responsibility for Government Funds and Property
SECTION 101. Accountable officers; bond requirement. – (1) Every officer of any government agency whose duties permit or require the possession or custody of government funds or property shall be accountable therefor and for the safekeeping thereof in conformity with law.
(2) Every accountable officer shall be properly bonded in accordance with law.
SECTION 102. Primary and secondary responsibility. – (1) The head of any agency of the government is immediately and primarily responsible for all government funds and property pertaining to his agency.
(2) Persons entrusted with the possession or custody of the funds or property under the agency head shall be immediately responsible to him, without prejudice to the liability of either party to the government.
SECTION 103. General liability for unlawful expenditures. – Expenditures of government funds or uses of government property in violation of law or regulations shall be a personal liability of the official or employee found to be directly responsible therefor.
SECTION 104. Records and reports required by primarily responsible officers. – The head of any agency or instrumentality of the national government or any government-owned or controlled corporation and any other self-governing board or commission of the government shall exercise the diligence of a good father of a family in supervising accountable officers under his control to prevent the incurrence of loss of government funds or property, otherwise he shall be jointly and solidarily liable with the person primarily accountable therefore. The treasurer of the local government unit shall likewise exercise the same degree of supervision over accountable officers under his supervision otherwise, he shall be jointly and solidarily liable with them for the loss of government funds or property under their control.
SECTION 105. Measure of liability of accountable officers. – (1) Every officer accountable for government property shall be liable for its money value in case of improper or unauthorized use or misapplication thereof, by himself or any person for whose acts he may be responsible. He shall likewise be liable for all losses, damages, or deterioration occasioned by negligence in the keeping or use of the property, whether or not it be at the time in his actual custody.
(2) Every officer accountable for government funds shall be liable for all losses resulting from the unlawful deposit, use, or application thereof and for all losses attributable to negligence in the keeping of the funds.
SECTION 106. Liability for acts done by direction of superior officer. – No accountable officer shall be relieved from liability by reason of his having acted under the direction of a superior officer in paying out, applying, or disposing of the funds or property with which he is chargeable, unless prior to that act, he notified the superior officer in writing of the illegality of the payment, application, or disposition. The officer directing any illegal payment or disposition of the funds or property shall be primarily liable for the loss, while the accountable officer who fails to serve the required notice shall be secondarily liable.
SECTION 107. Time and mode of rendering account. – In the absence of specific provision of law, all accountable officers shall render their accounts, submit their vouchers, and make deposits of money collected or held by them at such times and in such manner as shall be prescribed in the regulations of the Commission.
SECTION 108. Prohibition against pecuniary interest. – No accountable or responsible officer shall be pecuniary interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract or transaction of the agency in which he is such an officer. (Emphasis supplied)
E-Library Doc. ID: a45475a11ec72b843d74959b60fd7bd645941f59eb2a5
“Florencio B. Campomanes was the President of the Federation International [sic] Des Echecs (FIDE), a private international organization with offices at Lausanne, Switzerland.”
FIDE IS PRIVATE???
From a common and simple non lawyer hoi polloi. Just some simple questions to Campo:
1. Why did you have to personally handle the P12,876,008.00 money when you/FIDE have a full time treasurer by the name of Willy Iclicki? Is that not his job?
2. The P12,876,008.00 Philippine Sports Commission money given to you came from hard earned taxes of the Filipino people. Don’t you think and have you no regard of at least explaining to them what you did to the monies?
3. Do you think that you as a FIDE president, that you are above the law and above the common decency of respect and trust for a person of your position?
4. And lastly, the house or mansion you built in Baguio, near the site of the Chess Olympiad, is that paid for from the PSC P12,876,008.00 funds?
Perhaps any non lawyer monkey trained to add and subtract can put 2 + 2 together and come up with the answers for you?
“The report stated that the FIDE, through Campomanes, received P12,876,008 without acknowledgment and without liquidation.
In an Information dated 1 April 1997, Hechanova and Campomanes were charged as follows:
That, on or about August 25, 1992, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the City of Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused Cecilio G. Hechanova, a public officer, being then the Chairman of the Philippine Sports Commission (PSC), and as such was accountable for public funds disbursed by his office, conspiring and confederating with Florencio B. Campomanes, President of the Federacion [sic] Internationale des Echecs (FIDE), a private organization, to whose custody and possession was entrusted PSC funds to be used in connection with the World Chess Olympiad in Manila, hosted by the Philippine Government from June 6-25, 1992, amounting to PESOS: TWELVE MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED SEVENTY SIX THOUSAND EIGHT (P12,876,008.00), Philippine Currency, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously fail to render account on the disbursement thereof, within the period provided for by law and the rules and regulations of the Commission on Audit, preventing the auditors from fully establishing the cash accountabilities of both accused and/or the offices they represent to the prejudice of the Government.[5]”