The Sandiganbayan has acquitted a former barangay treasurer in Cebu City of graft charges involving over PHP4 million in public funds, but clarified that the decision applies only to the graft case. Christopher Cacanindin, former treasurer of Barangay San Antonio, Cebu City, remains guilty of malversation in a separate case.
Background of the Case
In October 2024, the Cebu Regional Trial Court found Cacanindin guilty of both malversation and graft. He was sentenced to up to 18 years for malversation and eight years for graft. The case stemmed from an audit by the Commission on Audit (COA) Cebu City office, which revealed a cash shortage of PHP4.62 million due to undeposited collections and unliquidated cash advances during his term from December 1, 2013, to March 2019.
Prosecution's Allegations
The prosecution alleged that Cacanindin issued various checks using the same transactions and supporting attachments to pay honoraria to barangay officials and staff. They also claimed he represented that barangay funds had been returned to the treasury through official receipts issued months after the encashment dates, even though no actual fund return occurred. Checks issued for honoraria were later marked as “refunded” despite no cash being returned.
Sandiganbayan's Ruling
In acquitting Cacanindin of graft, the Sandiganbayan stated: “The prosecution proved, at most, that there was a substantial shortage and that the barangay’s financial records reflected irregularities, but it failed to present sufficient evidence showing actual undue injury caused by the accused’s acts as charged, as distinct from the generalized audit deficiency found in the COA reports. For that reason, the graft conviction cannot be sustained.”
The court added: “The demand for accountability should not be at the expense of well-meaning public officials who may have erred in the performance of their duties but have done so without a criminal mind. Our penal laws against corruption in government are meant to enhance, and not stifle, public service.”
Separate Malversation Conviction
The Sandiganbayan emphasized that its decision does not affect Cacanindin’s separate malversation conviction. “Any findings, conclusions, or matters relating to Cacanindin’s separate conviction for malversation are beyond the scope of the present review and shall not be passed upon herein... Thus, while the records may contain references to the malversation case, the Court refrains from examining its merits, as the correctness of that conviction is not the subject of this appeal,” the court said.
