Navarra vs. People

Corporate officers are personally liable for the corporation's failure to remit SSS contributions under Section 28(f) of RA 8282, and because the offense is mala prohibita, good faith and lack of criminal intent are not valid defenses.

FENICS Corporation was an employer registered with the Social Security System (SSS). From 1995 to 2000, Jorge B. Navarra served as the President and Chairman of its Board of Directors. During the period from July 1997 to June 2000, FENICS failed to remit the SSS contributions of its employees, leading to a total delinquency of P10,077,656.24, excluding penalties.

From 1995 to 2000, Jorge B. Navarra served as the President and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Far East Network of Integrated Circuits Subcontractors Corporation (FENICS), an employer registered with the Social Security System (SSS). Sometime between 1999 and 2002, eleven FENICS employees filed complaints with the SSS Alabang Branch regarding the non-remittance of their SSS contributions. Account Officer Felicula B. Argamosa investigated the matter and verified that FENICS had failed to remit SSS contributions from July 1997 to June 2000, amounting to P10,077,656.24, excluding the 3% monthly penalty. Despite numerous demands, FENICS failed to pay, prompting the SSS to file an Affidavit-Complaint against Navarra and his co-accused before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Muntinlupa City.

Pending the preliminary investigation, Navarra sent a letter dated October 25, 2000, to the SSS offering to pay FENICS's delinquencies in installments, attaching two postdated checks for P500,000.00 each and promising to pay the balance over 48 months. The first check was encashed, but the second was dishonored for being drawn against a closed account. Navarra ignored the SSS notice of dishonor and failed to continue the installment payments. Later, while the case was pending trial, he sent another letter dated April 25, 2003, proposing a restructuring of FENICS's account, which the SSS rejected.

In his defense, Navarra acknowledged his position at FENICS but claimed he never had custody of the employees' SSS contributions, as the Human Resources Department handled such matters. He asserted that during the period of the alleged delinquencies, FENICS had already shut down due to business decline, meaning employees were not working and there were no salaries from which to source contributions. The RTC disbelieved this claim, noting it was inconsistent with Navarra's own settlement letters and should have been raised earlier. The RTC also treated his April 25, 2003 letter as an implied admission of guilt. The CA affirmed these findings, holding that as a corporate officer, Navarra was liable for FENICS's failure to remit, and that no compromise had extinguished his criminal liability.

• Defective Information: Petitioner argued that the Information failed to properly charge him with a criminal offense.
• Misapplication of Section 28(h): Petitioner maintained that under Section 28(h) of RA 8282, only the employer, FENICS, should be charged, not him as an individual officer.
• Lack of Employee Proof: Petitioner argued that the prosecution failed to establish that the private complainants were indeed FENICS employees.
• Extinguishment of Liability: Petitioner asserted that his criminal liability was extinguished by a compromise agreement with the SSS.
• Lack of Custody: Petitioner averred that he never had custody of the SSS contributions, as the Human Resources Department handled them.
• Business Shutdown: Petitioner claimed FENICS was non-operational during the period, so there were no wages from which to source contributions.

• Waiver of Defect: Respondent countered that petitioner's failure to object to the Information before arraignment constituted a waiver of any defects.
• Officer Liability: Respondent argued that since FENICS is a corporation, its failure to remit subjects its officers, like petitioner, to liability.
• Documentary Evidence: Respondent maintained that the prosecution's documentary evidence clearly showed the private complainants were FENICS employees.
• Admission of Guilt: Respondent argued that petitioner's letters proposing to settle FENICS's delinquencies should be viewed as admissions of guilt.
• No Compromise: Respondent asserted there was no compromise because the SSS did not assent, and even if there was, it cannot extinguish criminal liability.

• Validity of Information: Whether the Information was defective for failing to charge a criminal offense.
• Officer Liability: Whether a corporate officer can be held criminally liable under Section 28(h) of RA 8282 for the corporation's failure to remit SSS contributions.
• Extinguishment of Liability: Whether petitioner's criminal liability was extinguished by a compromise agreement with the SSS.

• Validity of Information: No. The defect was deemed waived because petitioner failed to raise the issue before arraignment.
• Officer Liability: Yes. Under Section 28(f) of RA 8282, the managing head or directors of a corporation are liable for penalized acts committed by the corporation.
• Extinguishment of Liability: No. There was no compromise because the SSS did not assent, and a compromise cannot extinguish criminal liability.

• Validity of Information: Objections as to matters of form or substance in the Information cannot be made for the first time on appeal. Since petitioner only raised the issue after conviction by the RTC, the CA correctly ruled that the failure to object before entering a plea amounted to a waiver of such defects.
• Officer Liability: Section 22(a) of RA 8282 mandates the prompt remittance of SSS contributions. Section 28(f) explicitly provides that if the penalized act is committed by a corporation, its managing head, directors, or partners shall be liable. The acts penalized under RA 8282 are mala prohibita, rendering defenses of good faith and lack of criminal intent immaterial. The prosecution established through documentary evidence that FENICS failed to remit contributions from July 1997 to June 2000, and the factual findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, are final and conclusive.
• Extinguishment of Liability: The SSS rejected petitioner's proposal to restructure FENICS's account, meaning there was no meeting of the minds and no compromise agreement. Even assuming a compromise existed, it cannot extinguish criminal liability for a public offense.

• Mala Prohibita — Acts penalized under RA 8282 are considered mala prohibita, meaning the defenses of good faith and lack of criminal intent are immaterial. The Court applied this to reject petitioner's claims that he lacked custody of the contributions and that FENICS had shut down.
• Waiver of Defects in Information — Objections to the validity or regularity of an Information on matters of form or substance must be raised before arraignment; failure to do so constitutes a waiver. The Court applied this to bar petitioner from challenging the Information for the first time on appeal.

• "Notably, the aforesaid punishable acts are considered mala prohibita and, thus the defenses of good faith and lack of criminal intent are rendered immaterial." — This passage defines the nature of the offense under RA 8282 and explains why petitioner's defenses were rejected.
• "If the act or omission penalized by this Act be committed by an association, partnership, corporation or any other institution, its managing head, directors or partners shall be liable to the penalties provided in this Act for the offense." — This is the text of Section 28(f) of RA 8282, which the Court relied upon to establish the personal liability of corporate officers for the corporation's failure to remit SSS contributions.

• People vs. Mamaruncas, 680 Phil. 192 (2012) — Cited to support the rule that objections to an Information cannot be made for the first time on appeal.
• Mendoza vs. People, 640 Phil. 661 (2010) — Cited to establish that prompt remittance of SSS contributions is mandatory and that the offense is mala prohibita.
• Kua vs. Sacupayo, 744 Phil. 100 (2014) — Cited to enumerate the punishable acts of an employer under RA 8282, such as failing to register employees, deduct contributions, or remit the same.
• Guevarra vs. People, 726 Phil. 186 (2014) — Cited for the doctrine that factual findings of the RTC, when affirmed by the CA, are entitled to great weight and are deemed final and conclusive.

• Section 22(a), Republic Act No. 8282 — Mandates the remittance of SSS contributions within the first ten days of each calendar month and imposes a 3% monthly penalty for non-payment. Applied to establish that FENICS had a mandatory duty to remit contributions.
• Section 28(f), Republic Act No. 8282 — Provides that if a penalized act is committed by a corporation, its managing head, directors, or partners shall be liable. Applied to hold petitioner, as FENICS's President and Chairman, personally liable for the corporation's failure to remit.
• Section 28(h), Republic Act No. 8282 — Presumes misappropriation if an employer fails to remit deducted contributions within thirty days from the date they became due, penalizing the employer under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code. Applied as the specific penal provision petitioner was charged with violating.

Sereno, C.J. (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Del Castillo, and Caguioa, JJ.