The Sandiganbayan has cleared Christopher Cacanindin, the former treasurer of Barangay San Antonio in Cebu City, of his graft conviction involving more than ₱4 million in government funds.
However, the anti-graft court emphasized that this decision does not affect his separate conviction for malversation issued by a lower court.
In October 2024, a Cebu regional trial court handed Cacanindin a maximum sentence of 18 years for malversation and an extra eight years for graft. The legal action followed a Commission on Audit (COA) review of his tenure from December 2013 to March 2019, which revealed a ₱4.62 million deficit linked to unliquidated cash advances and missing deposits.
The prosecution claimed that Cacanindin doctored financial logs by fabricating duplicate honoraria checks and forging receipts to falsely show that funds were returned to the local treasury.
In a resolution dated July 7, the Sandiganbayan explained that although prosecutors successfully highlighted substantial accounting discrepancies, they fell short of proving that Cacanindin’s actions caused “undue injury” to the state—a critical requirement to uphold a graft conviction.
“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 stated.
The appellate court also stressed the necessity of separating bureaucratic oversights from actual criminal intent.
“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,” the court added.
Furthermore, the Sandiganbayan clarified that it had no authority to overturn the malversation ruling, as its current review was strictly limited to the graft appeal.
“The only judgment elevated to the (Sandiganbayan) Court for review is Cacanindin’s conviction for violation of RA [Republic Act] 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act),” the court explained.
“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.”