Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1992 > October 1992 Decisions > G.R. No. 97651 October 13, 1992 - OSCAR C. VALLE v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 97651. October 13, 1992.]

OSCAR VALLE Y CARREON, Petitioner, v. SANDIGANBAYAN AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

Public Attorney’s Office for Petitioner.


SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUND; PROOF THAT THE ACCOUNTABLE OFFICER HAD RECEIVED PUBLIC FUNDS AND THAT HE DID NOT HAVE THEM IN HIS POSSESSION WHEN DEMAND THEREFORE WAS MADE. — 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. 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, (Leonardo N. Estepa v. Sandiganbayan and the People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 59670, 182 SCRA 269, (1990)).

2. ID.; ID.; IMPOSABLE PENALTY WHEN THE AMOUNT INVOLVED IS MORE THAN P12,000 BUT LESS THAN P22,000. — The penalty for malversation of public funds or property under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, when the amount involved is more that P12,000 but is less than P22,000 is reclusion temporal in its medium and maximum period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the imposable penalty is TEN (10) YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor as minimum of FOURTEEN (14) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS AND ONE (1) DAY of reclusion temporal as maximum.

3. ID.; MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES; VOLUNTARY SURRENDER; MAY BE APPRECIATED WHEN ACCUSED HAD NOT BEEN ARRESTED PRIOR TO HIS POSTING OF BAIL. — On the matter whether petitioner is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, We agree with the court a quo that he is entitled to the same since there is nothing in the records to show that petitioner had been arrested prior to his posting of a cash bail bond.


D E C I S I O N


NOCON, J.:


Petitioner Oscar Valle y Carreon, then OIC Municipal Treasurer of Talisay, Province of Batangas, stands charged within the Sandiganbayan with the crime of Malversation of Public Funds, as defined and penalized under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, in an information 1 which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on or about the 12th day of November 1986 in the Municipality of Talisay, Province of Batangas, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused being then the Municipal Treasurer of the aforesaid municipality, and as such, he is accountable for public funds or property, incur cash account shortage as of November 12, 1986 on General Fund, Infrastructure Fund, Special Education Fund and Trust Fund, which were disallowed credits to accountability representing missing vouchers, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1) General Fund P6,151.50

2) Infrastructure Fund P472,50

3) Special Education Fund P10,073,00

4) Trust Fund P3,000.00

in the total amount of Nineteen Thousand Seven Hundred Two Pesos (P19,702.00), but the said missing vouchers remained unliquidated and/or no accounting thereof having been rendered by the accused up to this date, despite prior written demand, in violation of existing government accounting and auditing rules and regulations."cralaw virtua1aw library

Upon arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty to the crime charged against him.

After trial on the merits, the Sandiganbayan (Second Division) rendered its decision on March 6, 1991 2 convicting herein petitioner of the crime charged, the dispositive portion of which reads:chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Oscar Valle y Carreon GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as principal in the offense of malversation of Public Funds, as defined and penalized under Article 217, paragraph 4, of the Revised Penal Code, and favorably appreciating the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender without any aggravating circumstance in offset, and further applying the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, hereby sentences him to suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging from TEN (10) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor, as the minimum, to SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS. FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of reclusion temporal as the maximum; to further suffer perpetual special disqualification; to pay a fine of P19,702.00 equal to the amount malversed: to indemnify the Republic of the Philippines in the same amount of P19,702.00, and to pay the costs of this action.

SO ORDERED." 3

Petitioner contends that his guilt for the crime of Malversation of Public Funds has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt, hence. this appeal by way of a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

We find no merit in the petition.

It is undisputed that petitioner failed to present twelve (12) vouchers corresponding to the alleged disbursement in the amount of P19,702.00. A verbal demand 4 was made upon him by the assigned Auditor, Lucila Rosales, to produce said vouchers but the petitioner replied that they were in the Office of the Municipal Mayor of Talisay, Batangas for signature. 5 On cross-checking with the Mayor, the latter denied the allegation of Valle, claiming that there are no vouchers in his office for his signature. 6

In fact, petitioner admitted doing nothing after he was audited on November 12, 1986 and despite the demand letter sent to him. 7

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 Disbursements, 8 testified that the twelve (12) alleged missing vouchers were never presented to him by Valle hence, the same were not recorded in the Journal of Cash Disbursement. It was only after the audit examination by the COA and upon the instructions of Auditor Lucila Rosales that he entered the alleged twelve (12) missing vouchers in the Journal of Cash Disbursements based on the entries in petitioner’s cashbook, with a note however that "no vouchers" were actually presented in support thereof. 9 This was further corroborated by the testimony of Auditor Lucila Rosales that when the audit examination was conducted, the alleged twelve (12) missing vouchers were not recorded in the Journal of Cash Disbursement. 10

There is no dispute therefore, that the questioned transactions totalling P19,702.00 were not supported by vouchers.chanrobles law library : red

As aptly found by the respondent court:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In the case at bar. accused’s alleged disbursements of public funds which are under his custody and for which he is responsible were patently made without compliance of the aforesaid basic requirements to ensure their legality and propriety. Notably missing are the requisite RIVs, bidding and canvass papers, purchase orders, sales invoices/delivery receipts, certificates of inspection and disbursement of vouchers.

Thus, the loss and/or disappearance of public funds under the custody of the accused amounting to P19,702.00 not having been satisfactorily explained, notwithstanding the testimonies of the defense witness, and it further appearing that the disbursements allegedly made by him were in gross violation of pertinent laws and regulations, then accused’s liability for the missing funds must be adjudged under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"ARTICLE 217. Malversation of public funds or property — Presumption of Malversation. — Any public officer who, by reason of the duties of his office, is accountable for public funds or property, shall appropriate the same, or shall take or misappropriate or shall consent, or through abandonment or negligence, shall permit any other person to take such public funds or property, wholly or partially, or shall otherwise be guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property shall suffer:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


In all cases, persons guilty of malversation shall also suffer the penalty of perpetual special disqualification and a fine equal to the amount of the funds malversed or equal to the total value of the property embezzled.

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."cralaw virtua1aw library

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.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

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. 11 There is even no need of direct evidence of personal misappropriation as long as there is a shortage in his account and petitioner cannot satisfactory explain the same. 12

On the matter whether petitioner is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, We agree with the court a quo that he is entitled to the same since there is nothing in the records to show that petitioner had been arrested prior to his posting of a cash bail bond.

The penalty imposed by the lower court needs slight modification. The penalty for malversation of public funds or property under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, when the amount involved is more than P12,000 but is less than P22,000 is reclusion temporal in its medium and maximum period. 13 Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the imposable penalty is TEN (10) YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor as minimum to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS AND ONE (1) DAY of reclusion temporal as maximum.

WHEREFORE, there being no reversible error in the judgment appealed herefrom, the same is hereby AFFIRMED but MODIFIED as to the penalty imposed upon petitioner. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, petitioner is ordered to suffer the penalty of TEN (10) YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor as minimum to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS AND ONE (1) DAY of reclusion temporal, as maximum; perpetual special disqualification; to pay a fine of P19,702.00 equal to the amount malversed; to indemnify the Republic of the Philippines the amount of P19,702.00, and to pay the costs.

SO ORDERED.

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

Endnotes:



1. Records, pp. 1-2.

2. Penned by Justice Romeo M. Escareal, concurred by Justice Jose S. Balajadia and Justice Nathanael M. Gorospe.

3. Rollo, pp. 26-50.

4. T.S.N., September 26, 1989, p. 16.

5. Ibid.

6. Id, at p. 17.

7. T.S.N., January 25, 1990, pp. 12-13.

8. T.S.N., September 26, 1989, p. 29.

9. T.S.N. March 14, 1990, pp. 13-14.

10. T.S.N., September 26, 1989, p. 14.

11. Leonardo N. Estepa v. Sandiganbayan and the People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 59.670. 182 SCRA 269, (1990).

12. Ibid.

13. Article 217, No. 4, as amended by Republic Act No. 1060.




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






October-1992 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 101344 October 1, 1992 - ASSET PRIVATIZATION TRUST v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 46395 October 2, 1992 - ARSENIA LACATAN-NUNEZ v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79374 October 2, 1992 - TOMAS G. MAPA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80256 October 2, 1992 - BANKERS & MANUFACTURERS ASSURANCE CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83369 October 2, 1992 - PACITA J. BAGUIORO v. MARIANO Y. BASA, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. 84902-03 October 2, 1992 - AGRIPINO PADRE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90530 October 7, 1992 - INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMINAL SERVICES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93406 October 7, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGER AREVALO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93474 October 7, 1992 - VIRGINIA OCAMPO JUAREZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98093 October 8, 1992 - PRIMA K. GOBANTES v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSlON, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 90440-42 October 13, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LI WAI CHEUNG

  • G.R. No. 92416 October 13, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JEFFREY LOGRONIO

  • G.R. No. 97651 October 13, 1992 - OSCAR C. VALLE v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100754 October 13, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IRENE D. SIMBULAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101438 October 13, 1992 - CATHEDRAL SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102787 October 13, 1992 - YUSOPH C. TAMANO v. RAUL S. MANGLAPUS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96617 October 14, 1992 - LOLITA B. JAVIER v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95492 October 15, 1992 - MIDLAND INSURANCE CORPORATION v. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100797 October 15, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HADJI JAID HASIRON

  • G.R. No. 47890 October 16, 1992 - ACTING COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. WISE & COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 65663 October 16, 1992 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85466 October 16, 1992 - HUALAM CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85517 October 16, 1992 - DOROTEO OCHEDA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97240 October 16, 1992 - JESUS T. DAVID v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100773 October 16, 1992 - PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 70789 October 19, 1992 - RUSTAN PULP & PAPER MILLS, INC., ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75584 October 19, 1992 - VICENTE PALO-PALO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82770 October 19, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO V. PAJARIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90452 October 19, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO JAYMALIN

  • G.R. No. 90603 October 16, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANGEL S. FABROS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91869 October 19, 1992 - MARCELINA SAPU-AN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92020 October 19, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELISEO A. MARTINADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103328 October 19, 1992 - ROY A. PADILLA, JR. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • A.M. No. 92-1-084-RTC October 20, 1992 - FLORENCIA SEALANA-ABBU v. FLORANTE E. MADRONO

  • G.R. No. 35947 October 20, 1992 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. WILLIAM LI YAO

  • G.R. No. 92849 October 20, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TIRZO CELIZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97227 October 20, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CECILIO BINONDO

  • G.R. No. 97389 October 20, 1992 - SPS. ALEX BUSANTE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97433 October 20, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. APOLINARIO SARENSE

  • G.R. No. 106971 October 20, 1992 - TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR., ET AL v. NEPTALI A. GONZALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78161 October 21, 1992 - CRESENCIO LIMCAY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83105 October 21, 1992 - MAGDALENA M. FERMIN v. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96432 October 21, 1992 - LORENZO P. LESACA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96469 October 21, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. 96621 October 21, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEY B. BODOZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100909 October 21, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SOLITO TENA

  • G.R. No. 103119 October 21, 1992 - SULPICIO INTOD v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44112 October 22, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRISPULO DE LOS REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75954 October 22, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAVID G. NITAFAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100091 October 22, 1992 - CENTRAL MINDANAO UNIVERSITY v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 80418-19 October 23, 1992 - EDUARDO ROSALES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88113 October 23, 1992 - SPS. TITUS L. ENDAYA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89804 October 23, 1992 - CALVIN S. ARCILLA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106522 October 23, 1992 - ARNOLD VEGAFRIA v. CATALINO CASTAÑEDA, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78173 October 26, 1992 - ANDRES SUMAOANG v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH XXXI, GUIMBA, NUEVA ECIJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95259 October 26, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERNARDO PERAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98152-53 October 26, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO G. PASILIAO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-91-600 October 27, 1992 - EMMANUEL RAMOS v. JOSELITO SD. GENEROSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94523 October 27, 1992 - ST. THERESITA’S ACADEMY v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 95333 October 27, 1992 - SPS. FRAULIN A. PEÑASALES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95684 October 27, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELORDE ANTUD

  • G.R. No. 95816 October 27, 1992 - PHIL. NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104906 October 27, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BALTAZAR ESTRAÑA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 67973 October 29, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONRADO G. LAGMAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88954 October 29, 1992 - DATU SAMAD MANGELEN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90637 October 29, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PRUDENCIO PUGAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100916 October 29, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JONATHAN L. PADUA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84841 October 30, 1992 - SPS. SALUSTIANO OCA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97495 October 30, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO MANCAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100643 October 30, 1992 - ADEZ REALTY, INCORPORATED v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102904 October 30, 1992 - PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL TRADING CORPORATION v. M.V. ZILEENA, ET AL.