Cabello v. Sandiganbayan

REGALADO, J.:

In this petition for review on certiorari , petitioner argues for the reversal of respondent court's decision1 in Criminal Case No. 12244, dated June 28, 1990, convicting him of the crime of malversation of public funds penalized under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code. As found by respondent court, petitioner, in his official capacity as postmaster of San Juan, Southern Leyte, was audited of his cash and accounts for the period from August 29, 1984 to May 28, 1985. The audit examination disclosed that petitioner incurred a shortage of P160,905.63.

Required to produce immediately the missing funds and to explain in writing within seventy-two (72) hours the fact of shortage, petitioner neither restituted the missing sum nor made any written explanation.2 As a consequence, petitioner was charged with malversation of public funds before respondent Sandiganbayan, allegedly committed as follows. That on or about May 28, 1985, and for sometime prior thereto, in the Municipality of San Juan, Province of Southern Leyte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, as Postmaster of said municipality, and as such accountable for the public funds collected and received by reason of his position, in the way of fees, charges and stamps, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously and with grave abuse of confidence did then and there misappropriate, misapply, embezzle and convert to his own personal use and benefit from said funds in the total amount of P 160,905.63, Philippine Currency, to the damage and prejudice of public interest.3 Arraigned on May 4, 1989, with the assistance of counsel, petitioner pleaded not guilty to the crime charged.

After trial, however, respondent Sandiganbayan rendered a judgment of conviction, the decretal portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused Felix H. Cabello GUILTY as principal of the crime of malversation of public funds defined and penalized under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code. Absent any mitigating or aggravating circumstances, and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, he is hereby sentenced to an indeterminate penalty ranging from TEN (10) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor , as minimum, to EIGHTEEN (18) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of reclusion temporal , as maximum, to suffer perpetual special disqualification, to pay a fine of P160,905.63 and to indemnify the Government in the said aforesaid sum of P160,905.63. Costs against the accused.4 Petitioner has now come before us with the postulate that he cannot be convicted of intentional malversation since there is no evidence showing that he appropriated the funds for his personal use. While the failure of an accountable public officer to have duly forthcoming any public fund or property with which he is chargeable upon demand by any duly authorized officer is prima facie evidence that the former has put such fund or property to his personal use, petitioner contends that he has sufficiently overthrown said presumption by his account of the items for which the funds were supposedly expended, to wit: 1âwphi1 1 Personal "vales" of postal employees 128,182.77 2 "Vales" for food, drinks, office supplies and other miscellaneous items 8,725.30 3 Unremitted collections for the use of Postage Meter Machine 19,295.76 4 Unreimbursed travel allowance 2,325.19 5 Stale checks 2,364.07 T O T A L