Cabello v. Sandiganbayan |197 scra 94



Facts: This case is about a petition for review on certiorari filed by the petitioner, argues for the reversal of the crime of malversation of public funds. Petitioner is a postmaster, he was audited of his cash and accounts for period from August 29, 1984-May 28, 1985. The audit examination disclosed that petitioner incurred a shortage of P160,905.03. Required to produce immediately the missing funds and to explain in writing within 72 hours the fact of the shortage. Petitioner neither restituted the missing sum nor made any written explanation. As a consequence, Petitioner was charged with malversation of public funds before the Sandiganbayan. Petitioner was found guilty as charged, hence this appeal. He contended that he cannot be convicted of intentional malversation since there is no evidence showing that he appropriated the funds for his personal use.

Issue: Is direct evidence required to convict a public officer of malversation?

Holding: Malversation may thus be committed either through a positive act of misappropriation of public funds or property or passively through negligence by allowing another to commit such misappropriation. Nonetheless, all that is necessary to prove in both acts are the following: a) that the defendant received in his possession public funds for property; b) that he could not account for them and did not have them in his possession when audited; and c) that he could not given a satisfactory or reasonable excuse for the disappearance of said funds of property. An accountable officer may thus be convicted of malversation even if there is no direct evidence of misappropriation and the only evidence is that there is a shortage in the officer’s accounts which be has not been able to explain satisfactorily.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

People vs. Sunico, et al [C.A., 50 o.g. 5880]

FACTS: The accused were election inspectors and poll clerks whose duty among others was to transfer the names of excess voters in other precincts to the list of a newly created precinct.Several voters were omitted in the list.Because their names were not in the list, some of them were not allowed to vote. The accused were prosecuted for violation of Secs. 101 and 103 of the Revised Election Code. The accused claimed that they made the omission in good faith.The trial court seemed to believe that notwithstanding the fact that the accused committed in good faith the serious offense charged, the latter are criminally responsible therefor, because such offense is malum prohibitum, and, consequently, the act constituting the same need not be committed with malice or criminal intent to be punishable. ISSUE: Is the act of the accused merely a mala prohibita? HELD: The acts of the accused cannot be merely mala prohibita - they are mala in se . The omission or failure to include a voter’s...
Read more

US v. Serapio [23 P 584]

FACTS: Defendant was charged with the crime of libel. Upon said complaint the defendant was duly arraigned. Upon arraignment the defendant, by his attorneys, presented the following demurrer:I. The facts alleged in the complaint do not constitute a crime. II. It appears from the allegation in the complaint that if there were a crime it has prescribed. With reference to the second ground, counsel for the defense maintains that the crime has prescribed under the provisions of the laws in force in the Islands and supports such conclusion by asserting that in the absence of a definite provision in Act No. 277 of the Philippine Commission, which fixes the time during which the penal action arising from the crime of libel may be exercised, the time which article 131 of the Penal Code fixes for the prescription of the crimes of calumny and insults is strictly applicable. Against this contention of the defense, the Attorney-General and the private prosecutor maint...
Read more

People v Macatanda [109 S 35]

FACTS: Charged with and convicted on a plea of guilty, in the Court of First Instance of Lanao del Norte, Branch IV in Iligan City, for the crime of cattle rustling, Saglala Macatanda. From the judgment of conviction, Saglala Macatanda (hereinafter referred to as appellant) appealed direct to this Court. The Solicitor General comes up with a reply that Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code does not apply to penalties prescribed by special laws. He considers P.D. 533, otherwise known as "Anti- Cattle Rustling Law of 1974" as a special law, and in accordance with existing rulings, 8 the penalty should not be governed by the Revised Penal Code. ISSUE: Whether the contention of the Solicitor-General is valid. RULING: The court do not agree with the Solicitor General that P.D. 533 is a special law, entirely distinct from and unrelated to the Revised Penal Code. From the nature of the penalty imposed which is in terms of the classification and duration of penalties as prescribe...
Read more