Malversation Cases.docx

MALVERSATION CASES (ART. 217) Presumption - that mere failure of an accountable officer to produce public funds which have come into his hands on demand by an officer duly authorized to examine his accounts is prima facie evidence of conversion. However, the presumption is merely prima facie and a rebuttable one. The accountable officer may overcome the presumption by proof to the contrary. If he adduces evidence showing that, in fact, he has not put said funds or property to personal use, then that presumption is at an end and the prima facie case destroyed.

Zambrano v. Sandiganbayan F: Lucilyn Zambrano is a cashier at the National Food Authority. On audit, Carlito Capinpin (COA) found a total shortage of P1,207,835.19. In her defense, she said she was either acting under orders of her supervisors or acting out of fear. She is also saying that she did not use the funds for any personal gain. I: WON Zambrano is guilty of malversation H: YES. In the crime of malversation, all that is necessary for conviction is proof that the accountable officer had received the public funds and that he did not have them in his possession when demand therefor was made and he could not satisfactorily explain his failure so to account. An accountable public officer may be convicted for malversation even if there is no direct evidence of personal misappropriation, where he has not been able to explain satisfactorily the absence of the public funds involved. In the case at bar, petitioner was neither able to produce the missing amount of P1,207,835.19 nor adequately explain her failure to produce that amount. As correctly found by the Sandiganbayan her testimonial evidence does not clearly or positively establish the legal or factual bases thereof. Among others, she knew that the supposed orders of her superior were not for a lawful purpose or even if lawful, as she claimed them to be, the means used to carry out said orders were not lawful.

Quizo v. Sandiganbayan F: After an audit conducted by the COA on September 13, 1983, petitioner Quizo, the Money Order Teller of Cagayan de Oro Post Office, was found to have incurred a shortage in his cash and other accounts of P17,421.74 as follows: Vales granted to various employees but disallowed – P16,720.00 Accommodated private checks – P700.00 Actual cash shortage – P1.74 On the same day, petitioner reimbursed the amount of P406.18; three days thereafter, P10,515.56; and after 9 days, the balance of P6,500.00. I: WON Quizo is guilty of malversation

H: NO. In the case at bar,  Petitioner successfully overthrew the presumption of guilt.  He satisfactorily proved that not a single centavo of the missing funds was used by him for his own personal interest, a fact conceded by the Tanodbayan.  The bulk of the reported shortage actually referred to the items disallowed by the Audit Team representing cash advances extended to co-employees, which he reimbursed within a reasonable time. In fact, evidence disclosed that the itemized list of the cash advances was verified and found to be correct by an Auditing Examiner, Petitioner explained that the granting of the cash advances was done in good faith, with no intent to gain and borne out of goodwill considering that it was a practice tolerated in the office. Such being the case, negligence evidentiary of malice or intent to defraud the government cannot be imputed to him. Also to be considered is the circumstance that the actual cash shortage was only P1.74 which, together with the disallowed items, was fully restituted within a reasonable time from date of audit.

Mahinay v. Sandiganbayan

F: Modesto Mahinay is a cashier at the Butuan General Hospital. Upon audit of the Resident Auditor of the Butuan General Hospital, Antonio Martirez found a total shortage of P20,619.40. The petitioner

contends that the presumption established by Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code that a public officer has put missing funds or property to personal use in the event of his failure to have duly forthcoming any such public funds or property, with which he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly authorized officer, is merely prima facie and may be rebutted or overcome by proof to the contrary. Since he presented at the trial "vale" slips signed by Audit Aide Pacifica Alcordo thereby showing that he has not put said funds or property to personal use, and the cash advances in question extended by him in good faith and in the honest belief that it was his duty to do so, the prima facie presumption is destroyed and the mere absence of funds is not sufficient proof of conversion. It is further argued by the petitioner that the mode of extending cash advances by mere "vale" slips was one of long standing, in existence well ahead of the time he became the cashier of the Butuan General Hospital and never heretofore questioned by the Commission on Audit.

I: WON Mahinay is guilty of malversation

H: YES. in the instant case, the petitioner admitted that the total shortage of P20,619.40 represents

the "vales" of Mr. Alcordo for travels, telegrams, mails, for entertainment of his superiors, newspapers and salary differentials from 1971 to 1976, and Alcordo did not give him reimbursement receipts representing the "vales". Moreover, the respondent court found: 

that the petitioner continued to disburse funds from his collection to issue "vales" to Alcordo despite the latter's transfer to another place of assignment and inability to submit the required vouchers that could have established the legality of the disbursements or "vales".



that per findings of the Resident Auditor, the petitioner juggled or manipulated the cash book entries and made it appear that he made deposits to conceal the "vales" or amounts loaned which were never redeemed by Alcordo and/or other employees concerned, and which deposits in turn, were verified by the Auditing Examiner to be fictitious since the said deposits were not supported by any slips nor could said deposits be traced to the bank statements.

It is therefore, apparent that the petitioner, in violation of Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, negligently consented or permitted Alcordo to take public funds for which he is accountable. The petitioner's claim of good faith in extending the cash advances in question is belied by his admission that he was aware of existing COA regulations prohibiting the extension of cash advances by way of "vales" to government employees.

Meneses v. Sandiganbayan F: An audit team was directed to conduct the audit examination of cash and accounts of Meneses wherein a shortage of P2,502,001.33 was revealed. Meneses’ defense was that she did not benefit from the missing funds and that they were merely disbursed as cash advances to her co-employees in good faith and in continuance of a practice tolerated in her office (vale system). I: WON Meneses is guilty of malversation H: YES. The grant of loans through the “vale” system is a clear case of an accountable officer consenting to the improper or unauthorized use of public funds by other persons, which is punishable by law. To tolerate such a practice is to give a license to every disbursing officer to conduct a lending operation with the use of public funds.