De Duzman v People |119 Scra 337



Facts: Petitioner De Guzman work as Traveling collector. He collected the total amount of P 204,349.32 from various agencies but remitted to the General Teller, Cash Division Department of Finance, only P 127, 797.95, thus resulting in a shortage of P76,521.37. Petitioner contends that his accountability was not proven considering that the audit examination was conducted in his absence and after he signed the Report of Examination in blank presented to him by Auditing Examiner Maximo Pielago, thus making the procedure irregular.  Auditing Examiner Pielago candidly admitted that he made the accused sign the Report of Examination in blank even before any examination could be conducted because upon his first demand to the Petitioner for the production of his cash and cash items the latter told him that he had nothing to account for anyone since he ceased making collection. Pielago proceeded with the audit examination of Petitioner’s accountability from the official records. He was found guilty for Malversation of public funds. Petitioner contends that his accountability was not established as the Report of Examination was denominated by Pielago as “preliminary”.

Issue: Can the Petitioner be held guilty of malversation based on a “preliminary” audit report?

Holding: Yes. In malversation, all that is necessary to prove is that the defendant received in his possession public funds, that he could not account for them and did not give a reasonable excuse for the disappearance of the same. An accountable public officer may be convicted of malversation even if there is no direct evidence of misappropriation and the only evidence is that there is a shortage in his account which he has not been able to explain satisfactorily. In the case at bar, True, the report of the audit aforesaid was denominated as “preliminary”. But, this does not imply that the same may not be taken as basis for the date of said audit. If there was anything tentative about the finding made, it was only because collections of the accused under official receipts known to be still in his possessions and the stubs of which had not yet been submitted, were not yet accounted for. Hence, the only meaning that the term “preliminary” had in the premises was that the amount of shortage could still be increased if all receipts are eventually found and taken into account. But, on the basis of the records available to the auditor, the amount of shortage established could not but be considered final.

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