Facts:

In the case of Ramon Albores vs. The Hon. Court of Appeals and the People of the Philippines, the petitioner, Ramon Albores, was involved in a criminal charge of Malversation of Public Property filed against him on May 25, 1966. This charge arose from an alleged misappropriation of government corn stocks while he was the warehouseman (bodeguero) at Warehouse No. 8 operated by the Rice and Corn Administration (RCA) in Cotabato City. Albores was responsible for overseeing a total of 113,736 cavans and 25 kilos of corn. Between March 14, 1964, and May 4, 1965, an audit revealed a shortage of 4,658 cavans and 38 kilos valued at P75,656.94.

The trial took place in the former Court of First Instance of Cotabato City, where Albores pleaded not guilty upon arraignment. Despite his denial of wrongdoing, the court found him guilty. The lower court ruled that he had indeed misappropriated the corn stock, leading to the conviction and an indeterminate prison sentence ranging from ten years

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Ramon Albores, employed by the Rice and Corn Administration (RCA) in Cotabato City, was charged with malversation of public property under Article 217 (4) of the Revised Penal Code.
• The charge arose from an alleged discrepancy in corn stocks under his custody, claimed to have been misappropriated for his personal use.
• The prosecution’s case was primarily based on the deficiency computed between the recorded inventory and the corn actually shipped out.

Employment and Position of the Accused

• Albores joined the RCA in 1962 as a weigher-classifier and was subsequently promoted to shipping clerk on March 1, 1963.
• Based on positive recommendations, he was elevated to the position of warehouseman effective April 1, 1964, overseeing Warehouse No. 8 in Cotabato City.
• His responsibilities included:
• Purchasing corn grain from farmers and recording such transactions (Purchases).
• Receiving transfers from other RCA warehouses (Transfers-in).
• Shipping out stocks upon order (Transfers-out).

Documentary and Physical Evidence

• All transactions were evidenced through tally sheets, receipts, purchase invoices, trucking receipts, bills of lading, and monthly stock reports (Exhibits “B-1” to “B-49”, “C-1” to “C-50”, etc.).
• Detailed ledger records showed that from March to August 1964, Albores had custody of 113,736 cavans and 25 kilos of corn, while shipping records revealed shipments amounting to 109,077 cavans and 43 kilos.
• This discrepancy initially amounted to an alleged shortage of 4,658 cavans and 38 kilos, later recalculated by defense evidence as 3,698 cavans and 40 kilos.

Discrepancy and Audit Findings

• An audit conducted in May 1965, based on the records provided by the accused, confirmed the shortage by comparing the physical stock with the ledger entries.
• The shortage was quantified at a market value of P75,656.94 based on the prevailing price, which later became the basis for the criminal charge.
• The prosecution maintained that this substantial shortage was indicative of misappropriation and abuse of confidence under the mandate of Article 217.

Defense’s Presentation of Evidence on Storage Allowances

• The defense introduced evidence suggesting that shortages may be attributable to normal operational factors such as:
• Shrinkage due to moisture loss during storage.
• Depredation by pests (e.g., weevils) and other losses such as spillage.
• Testimonies, including that of Agency Manager Arsenio Guerra, clarified that allowances for shrinkage were a standard practice in the storage business and that the accused had formally requested such allowances.
• A memorandum by Mr. Mateo B. de Dios further explained that a warehouseman could be credited for a reduced accountability weight (from 59 kilos to 56 kilos per cavan) attributable to moisture loss and other factors.
• Additional evidence, such as a standard Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Corn, evidenced that shrinkage allowances were customarily provided in transactions involving rice and corn storage.

Supervisory Conduct and the Accused’s Actions

• Albores’ conduct during the investigation revealed he consistently consulted his superiors regarding the alleged shortage.
• Upon being informed of the shortage by auditors, he promptly went to his branch manager, chief of the accounting department, and agency manager for advice, indicating a lack of intent to conceal any irregularity.
• His subsequent request, through a letter dated August 26, 1965, for a re-audit and for allowances for shrinkage and depredation further supported his defense of acting in good faith.

Prosecution’s Argument and Evidence

• The prosecution relied on the presumption under Article 217, which holds that a public officer’s failure to present funds or explain discrepancies on demand constitutes prima facie evidence of malversation.
• It argued that the massive shortage was too large to be accounted for by normal shrinkage and that the accused’s inability to sign certain documents implied culpability.
• However, the prosecution failed to rebut satisfactorily the defense’s evidence regarding customary shrinkage and procedural allowances.

Recalculation of the Deficiency

• Defense evidence indicated that an error in the auditors’ computation had inflated the alleged shortage.
• When recalculated based on converting totals using 56 kilos per cavan, the actual deficiency would be less than what the prosecution had claimed.
• Furthermore, a reasonable allowance for shrinkage (approximately 2.5 kilos per cavan) would reduce any alleged deficiency to a level within normal operational losses.

Issue:

Whether the shortage in corn stocks under Albores’ custody was the result of criminal misappropriation or attributable to allowable operational losses such as shrinkage and depredation.

• Was the presumption of guilt under Article 217, based on the failure to promptly account for the shortage, overcome by the evidence presented by the accused?
• Are the figures demonstrating the alleged shortage reliable and accurately computed from the records?
• Can the defense’s evidence regarding standard allowances in the grain storage business sufficiently explain the discrepancies in inventory?

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)