Valle vs. Sandiganbayan

The failure of an accountable public officer to have the public funds for which he is chargeable duly forthcoming upon demand by a duly authorized officer is prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds to personal use; conviction for malversation requires only proof that the accountable officer had received public funds and that he did not have them in his possession when demand was made.

Oscar Valle y Carreon served as the Officer-in-Charge Municipal Treasurer of Talisay, Province of Batangas, a position that made him an accountable officer for the public funds of the municipality. Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, quoted in the decision, defines and penalizes malversation of public funds or property and, in its final paragraph, establishes a presumption of malversation upon an accountable officer's failure to produce funds upon demand by a duly authorized officer. The case reached the Supreme Court on a petition for review on certiorari from a conviction rendered by the Second Division of the Sandiganbayan.

Oscar Valle y Carreon was the Officer-in-Charge Municipal Treasurer of Talisay, Province of Batangas, and by reason of the duties of that office was accountable for the public funds of the municipality. As of November 12, 1986, his cash account showed a shortage on the General Fund of P6,151.50, the Infrastructure Fund of P472.50, the Special Education Fund of P10,078.00, and the Trust Fund of P3,000.00, or a total of P19,702.00, consisting of disallowed credits to accountability representing twelve missing vouchers.

An audit examination was conducted, and Auditor Lucila Rosales made a verbal demand upon Valle to produce the twelve vouchers. Valle replied that the vouchers were in the Office of the Municipal Mayor of Talisay, Batangas for signature, but upon cross-checking, the Mayor denied the allegation and claimed that there were no vouchers in his office awaiting his signature. Valle himself admitted that he did nothing after he was audited on November 12, 1986, and despite the demand letter sent to him.

Edgardo Mendoza, bookkeeper of the Municipal Treasurer's Office of Talisay, Batangas, whose duty was to record all vouchers of the municipality in the Journal of Cash Disbursement, testified that the twelve alleged missing vouchers were never presented to him and were therefore not recorded in the Journal. It was only after the audit examination by the Commission on Audit, and upon the instructions of Auditor Rosales, that he entered the twelve alleged missing vouchers in the Journal of Cash Disbursements based on the entries in Valle's cashbook, with a note that "no vouchers" were actually presented in support thereof. Auditor Rosales corroborated this testimony, stating that when the audit examination was conducted, the alleged twelve missing vouchers were not recorded in the Journal of Cash Disbursement.

The questioned transactions totalling P19,702.00 were thus undisputedly unsupported by vouchers. The Sandiganbayan found that the alleged disbursements of public funds under Valle's custody were made without compliance with basic requirements ensuring their legality and propriety, notably the requisite RIVs, bidding and canvass papers, purchase orders, sales invoices or delivery receipts, certificates of inspection, and disbursement vouchers. The loss or disappearance of the P19,702.00 was not satisfactorily explained, and the disbursements allegedly made were in gross violation of pertinent laws and regulations.

• Insufficiency of Evidence: Petitioner contended that his guilt for the crime of malversation of public funds had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt, and on that ground elevated the case to the Supreme Court by way of a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

• Sufficiency of Evidence and the Prima Facie Presumption: Whether petitioner's guilt for malversation of public funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code was proven beyond reasonable doubt, or whether he successfully rebutted the prima facie presumption that he had put the missing funds to personal use.
• Voluntary Surrender: Whether petitioner is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.
• Penalty: Whether the penalty imposed by the Sandiganbayan was in accordance with Article 217, paragraph 4, of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 1060, and the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

• Sufficiency of Evidence and the Prima Facie Presumption: No. The failure of an accountable public officer to have the funds duly forthcoming upon demand by a duly authorized officer is prima facie evidence that he put them to personal use, and conviction requires only proof that the officer received the public funds and did not have them in his possession when demand was made.
• Voluntary Surrender: Yes. Nothing in the records showed that petitioner had been arrested prior to his posting of a cash bail bond.
• Penalty: Modified. Where the amount involved is more than P12,000 but less than P22,000, the penalty under Article 217, paragraph 4, is reclusion temporal in its medium and maximum periods; applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum is fixed at prision mayor and the maximum at reclusion temporal.

• Sufficiency of Evidence and the Prima Facie Presumption: The conviction rests on the undisputed failure of petitioner to present the twelve vouchers corresponding to the alleged disbursements of P19,702.00. A verbal demand was made by Auditor Lucila Rosales, and petitioner's claim that the vouchers were with the Municipal Mayor for signature was contradicted by the Mayor himself, who denied that any vouchers were in his office for signature. Petitioner admitted doing nothing after the audit of November 12, 1986 and despite the demand letter sent to him. The bookkeeper testified that the twelve vouchers were never presented to him and were entered in the Journal of Cash Disbursement only after the COA audit and upon the auditor's instructions, based on the cashbook entries and with the notation that no vouchers were presented; the auditor corroborated this. The questioned transactions were therefore undisputed to be unsupported by vouchers, and the Sandiganbayan found the disbursements to have been made in gross violation of pertinent laws and regulations, with the requisite RIVs, bidding and canvass papers, purchase orders, sales invoices or delivery receipts, certificates of inspection, and disbursement vouchers notably missing. Under the last paragraph of Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, the failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property with which he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly authorized officer, is prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or property to personal uses. Petitioner failed to rebut that presumption; what remained was only his denial, unsupported by corroborating evidence and belied by the evidence on record. In the crime of malversation, all that is necessary for conviction is proof that the accountable officer had received public funds and that he did not have them in his possession when demand was made; there is even no need of direct evidence of personal misappropriation so long as there is a shortage in his account and he cannot satisfactorily explain the same.

• Voluntary Surrender: The Sandiganbayan's appreciation of voluntary surrender in petitioner's favor was sustained, there being nothing in the records to show that petitioner had been arrested prior to his posting of a cash bail bond.

• Penalty: The penalty imposed by the lower court required modification. Under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, when the amount involved is more than P12,000 but less than P22,000, the penalty is reclusion temporal in its medium and maximum periods. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the imposable penalty is ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as the minimum to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as the maximum, in lieu of the maximum of seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal fixed by the Sandiganbayan.

• Prima facie presumption of malversation — Under the final paragraph of Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, the failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property with which he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly authorized officer, is prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or property to personal uses. The Court applied the presumption against petitioner after Auditor Lucila Rosales, a duly authorized officer, demanded production of the twelve vouchers and petitioner failed to produce them; his uncorroborated denial, contradicted by the Mayor, the bookkeeper, and the auditor, did not overcome the presumption.

• Proof sufficient for conviction of malversation — Conviction for malversation requires only two matters to be established: (a) that the accountable officer had received public funds, and (b) that he did not have them in his possession when demand was made. Direct evidence of personal misappropriation is unnecessary so long as there is a shortage in the officer's account and he cannot satisfactorily explain it. The Court applied this standard to sustain the conviction notwithstanding the absence of direct proof that petitioner personally used the funds.

• Voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance — Voluntary surrender is appreciated in favor of the accused where nothing in the records shows that he had been arrested prior to his posting of a cash bail bond. The Court sustained the Sandiganbayan's appreciation of this mitigating circumstance, with no aggravating circumstance in offset.

• Application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law to malversation — Where the amount malversed is more than P12,000 but less than P22,000, the penalty prescribed by Article 217, paragraph 4, of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 1060, is reclusion temporal in its medium and maximum periods; applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum term is drawn from prision mayor and the maximum from reclusion temporal.

• "In the crime of malversation, all that is necessary for conviction is proof that the accountable officer had received public funds and that he did not have them in his possession when demand therefore was made." — This passage states the ratio decidendi on the sufficiency of evidence, dispensing with any requirement of direct proof of personal misappropriation.
• "There is even no need of direct evidence of personal misappropriation as long as there is a shortage in his account and petitioner cannot satisfactorily explain the same." — This elaborates the evidentiary standard, making the unexplained shortage itself the operative basis for conviction.
• "The failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property with which he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly authorized officer, shall be prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or property to personal uses." — This is the canonical statutory formulation of the presumption of malversation under the last paragraph of Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, quoted by the Court as the controlling rule.
• "Petitioner has failed to rebut the prima facie presumption that he has put the missing funds to personal use. What we have is only his denial without any corroborating evidence to support the same. His denial, however, is belied by the evidence on record." — This passage applies the presumption to the facts, explaining why the defense of denial was insufficient to overturn it.

• Estepa vs. Sandiganbayan and the People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 59670, 182 SCRA 269 (1990) — Cited twice by the Court as controlling authority for the rule that in malversation all that is necessary for conviction is proof that the accountable officer had received public funds and that he did not have them in his possession when demand was made, and that no direct evidence of personal misappropriation is required so long as there is a shortage in the account and the officer cannot satisfactorily explain it.

• Article 217, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes malversation of public funds or property and, in its final paragraph, provides that the failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property with which he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly authorized officer, shall be prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or property to personal uses. The provision supplied both the definition of the offense and the presumption on which petitioner's conviction rested.
• Article 217, paragraph 4, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 1060 — Fixes the penalty for malversation where the amount involved is more than P12,000 but less than P22,000 at reclusion temporal in its medium and maximum periods; the Court applied this paragraph because the amount malversed was P19,702.00.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law — Applied to fix the indeterminate penalty at ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as the minimum to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as the maximum.

Narvasa, C.J., Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo and Melo, JJ., concur.