Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1953 > March 1953 Decisions > G.R. No. L-5371 March 26, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AQUINO MINGOA

092 Phil 856:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-5371. March 26, 1953.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AQUINO MINGOA, Defendant-Appellant.

Marcelino Lontok for Appellant.

First Assistant Solicitor General Ruperto Kapunan, Jr. and Solicitor Federico V. Sian for Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; EVIDENCE; MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS; "PRIMA FACIE" PRESUMPTION OF GUILT. — "There is no constitutional objection to the passage of a law providing that the presumption of innocence may be overcome by a contrary presumption founded upon the experience of human conduct, and enacting what evidence shall be sufficient to overcome such presumption of innocence." Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code creates a presumption of guilt once certain facts are proved. It makes the failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming, upon proper demand, any public funds or property with which he is chargeable, prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or property to personal use. The presumption is reasonable and valid.


D E C I S I O N


REYES, J.:


Found short in his accounts as officer-in-charge of the office of the municipal treasurer of Despujols, Romblon, and unable to produce the missing fund amounting to P3,938 upon demand by the provincial auditor, the defendant Aquino Mingoa was prosecuted for the crime of malversation of public funds in the Court of First Instance of Romblon, and having been found guilty as charged and sentenced to the corresponding penalty, he appealed to the Court of Appeals. But that court certified the case here on the ground that it involved a constitutional question.

The evidence shows that it is not disputed that upon examination of his books and accounts on September 1, 1949, defendant, as an accountable officer, was found short in the sum above named and that, required to produce the missing fund, he was not able to do so. He explained to the examining officer that some days before he had, by mistake, put the money in a large envelope which he took with him to a show and that he forgot it on his seat and it was not there anymore when he returned. But he did not testify in court and presented no evidence in his favor.

We agree with the trial judge that defendant’s explanation is inherently unbelievable and cannot overcome the presumption of guilt arising from his inability to produce the fund which was found missing. As His Honor observes, if the money was really lost without defendant’s fault, the most natural thing for him to do would be to so inform his superiors and apply for release from liability. But this he did not do. Instead, he tried to borrow to cover the shortage. And on the flimsy excuse that he preferred to do his own sleuthing, he even did not report the loss to the police. Considering further, as the prosecution points out in its brief, that defendant had at first tried to avoid meeting the auditor who wanted to examine his accounts, and that for sometime before the alleged loss many teachers and other employees of the town had not been paid their salaries, there is good ground to believe that defendant had really malversed the fund in question and that his story about its loss was pure invention.

It is now contended, however, that lacking direct evidence of actual misappropriation the trial court convicted defendant on mere presumptions, that is, presumption of criminal intent in losing the money under the circumstances alleged and presumption of guilt from the mere fact that he failed, upon demand, to produce the sum lacking. The criticism as to the first presumption is irrelevant, for the fact is that the trial court did not believe defendant’s explanation that the money was lost, considering it a mere cloak to cover actual misappropriation. That is why the Court said that "whether or not he (defendant) is guilty of malversation for negligence is of no moment . . ." And as to the other presumption, the same is authorized by article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"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 use."cralaw virtua1aw library

The contention that this legal provision violates the constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved cannot be sustained. The question of the constitutionality of the statute not having been raised in the court below, it may not be considered for the first time on appeal. (Robb v. People, 68 Phil., 320.)

In any event, the validity of statutes establishing presumptions in criminal cases is now a settled matter, Cooley, in his work on constitutional limitations, 8th ed., Vol. I, pp. 639-641, says that "there is no constitutional objection to the passage of a law providing that the presumption of innocence may be overcome by a contrary presumption founded upon the experience of human conduct, and enacting what evidence shall be sufficient to overcome such presumption of innocence." In line with this view, it is generally held in the United States that the legislature may enact that when certain facts have been proved they shall, be prima facie evidence of the existence of the guilt of the accused and shift the burden of proof provided there be a rational connection between the facts proved and the ultimate fact presumed so that the inference of the one from proof of the others is not unreasonable and arbitrary because of lack of connection between the two in common experience. (See annotation on constitutionality of statutes or ordinances making one fact presumptive or prima facie evidence of another, 162 A.L.R. 495-535; also, State v. Brown, 182 S. E., 838, with reference to embezzlement.) The same view has been adopted here as may be seen from the decisions of this court in the U.S. v. Tria, 17 Phil., 303; U.S. v. Luling, 34 Phil., 725; and People v. Merilo, G.R. No. L-3489, promulgated June 28, 1951.

The statute in the present case creates a presumption of guilt once certain facts are proved. It makes the failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming, upon proper demand, any public funds or property with which he is chargeable prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or property to personal use. The ultimate act presumed is that the officer has malversed the funds or property entrusted to his custody, and the presumption is made to arise from proof that he has received them and yet he has failed to have them forthcoming upon proper demand. Clearly, the fact presumed is but a natural inference from the fact proved, so that it cannot be said that there is no rational connection between the two. Furthermore, the statute establishes only a prima facie presumption, thus giving the accused an opportunity to present evidence to rebut it. The presumption is reasonable and will stand the test of validity laid down in the above citations.

There being no reversible error in the decision appealed from, the same is hereby affirmed, with costs.

Paras, C.J., Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor, Jugo, Bautista Angelo and Labrador, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






March-1953 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-5074 March 3, 1953 - IN RE: TAN CHONG YAO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    092 Phil 750

  • G.R. No. L-5276 March 3, 1953 - ATOK-BIG WEDGE MINING CO., INC. v. ATOK-BIG WEDGE MUTUAL BENEFIT ASS’N.

    092 Phil 754

  • G.R. No. L-3517 March 4, 1953 - LAURA ADIARTE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS (Special Division), ET AL.

    092 Phil 758

  • G.R. No. L-5098 March 10, 1953 - CERVERLEON T. DY v. REPUBLICA DE FILIPINAS

    092 Phil 782

  • G.R. No. L-5302 March 11, 1953 - GERTRUDO FLORES, ET AL. v. ARSENIO ESCUDERO, ET AL.

    092 Phil 786

  • G.R. No. L-4263 March 12, 1953 - AMADO B. PARREÑO v. HON. JAMES P. MCGRANERY

    092 Phil 791

  • G.R. No. L-4998 March 13, 1953 - JOSE ALCANTARA, ET AL. v. MARIANO D. TUAZON, ET AL.

    092 Phil 796

  • G.R. No. L-5216 March 16, 1953 - LIM BING IT v. FIDEL IBAÑEZ, ET AL.

    092 Phil 799

  • G.R. No. L-4710 March 19, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EPIMACO TABUNARES

    092 Phil 801

  • G.R. No. L-5517 March 19, 1953 - DAMASO MADRID v. HON. ANATOLIO C. MAÑALAC, ET AL.

    092 Phil 803

  • G.R. No. L-6036 March 19, 1953 - IN RE: GERONIMO YU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    092 Phil 804

  • G.R. No. L-4640 March 23, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EPIFANIO AVILA

    092 Phil 805

  • G.R. No. L-4991 March 23, 1953 - COSME OIDA FOLLOSCO v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET ALS.

    092 Phil 810

  • G.R. No. L-5369 March 23, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUSEBIO FAJARDO

    092 Phil 818

  • G.R. Nos. L-5757 & L-5892 March 23, 1953 - PAULINA DE JESUS, ET AL. v. MAGNO S. GATMAITAN, ET AL.

    092 Phil 822

  • G.R. No. L-4463 March 24, 1953 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL. v. REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR THE PROV. OF RIZAL, ET AL.

    092 Phil 826

  • G.R. No. L-4883 March 25, 1953 - J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., ET AL. v. FELICIANO DE LA CRUZ

    092 Phil 832

  • G.R. No. L-5380 March 25, 1953 - FERMIN RAMOS, ET AL. v. MIGUEL ALBANO, ET AL.

    092 Phil 834

  • G.R. No. L-5555 March 25, 1953 - EUGENIO O. REYES v. PABLO G. CORNISTA, ET AL.

    092 Phil 838

  • G.R. No. L-5621 March 25, 1953 - PHIL. MOVIE PICTURES WORKERS’ ASS’N. v. PREMIERE PRODUCTIONS, INC.

    092 Phil 843

  • G.R. No. L-4582 March 26, 1953 - FLORENTINO MANIPON v. GOV’T. OF THE U.S.

    092 Phil 850

  • G.R. No. L-5224 March 26, 1953 - DOMINGO LUIS, ET AL. v. ANTONIO BELMONTE ETC. ET AL.

    092 Phil 853

  • G.R. No. L-5371 March 26, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AQUINO MINGOA

    092 Phil 856

  • G.R. No. L-5952 March 26, 1953 - OTILLA SOLDER DE OCAMPO, ET AL. v. ANATALIO C. MAÑALAC, ET AL.

    092 Phil 860

  • G.R. No. L-5204 March 27, 1953 - IN RE: HOSPICIO OBILES v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    092 Phil 864

  • G.R. Nos. L-5853-54 March 27, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAFAEL BELENO

    092 Phil 868

  • G.R. No. L-4838 March 28, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX DACANAY, ET AL.

    092 Phil 872