Quizo v Sandiganbayan | 149 scra 108



Facts: This is a petition for certiorari by Petitioner Arturo Quizo, assailing the resolution of the respondent Sandiganbayan, which denied the motion to dismiss filed by the Tanodbayan, as well as the resolution which denied the motion for reconsideration. Petitioner is the Money Teller of Cagayan de Oro Post office. It appears that after an audit conducted by Commission of Audit, it was found to have incurred a shortage in his cash and other accounts of P17,421.74. On the same day, Petitioner reimbursed the amount of P406.18; three days after, P10,515.56; and on September 19, 1983, the balance of P6,500.00. Notwithstanding full restitution, an information for malversation of public funds against the Petitioner was filed by the Tanodbayan before the Sandiganbayan. After the reinvestigation, the Tanodbayan filed a motion to dismiss on the following grounds: a) no damage was inflicted on the Government as there was full restitution of the malversed funds within a reasonable time; b) the petitioner never pocketed the money, the shortage, it is admitted, being “vales” of his co-employees. However, Sandiganbayan denied both motions. Hence, this appeal.

Issue: WON the presumption of malversation is overthrown in the case at bar.

Holding: The law establishes a presumption that mere failure of an accountable officer to produce public funds which have come onto his hands on demand by an officer duly authorized to examine his accounts is prima facie evidence 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 destroyed. 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. In fact, evidence disclosed that the list of the cash advances was verified and found to be correct by the 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 good will considering that it was a practice tolerated in the office.

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