Case Digest (G.R. No. 88014)
Facts:
Gonzalo Alvarez y Nana was the Assistant Municipal Treasurer of Tacurong, Sultan Kudarat, during the events leading to this case. On July 23 and August 9, 1982, audits conducted by Mrs. Gloria Garcia, an Auditing Examiner III from the Office of the Provincial Auditor, revealed a total cash shortage of P87,795.72 in Alvarez's custody. Following these audits, demand letters were sent to Alvarez to account for the missing funds, which he failed to do. Consequently, an information was filed against him in the Sandiganbayan on November 21, 1985, accusing him of misappropriating public funds for personal use. Alvarez pleaded not guilty during his arraignment. The trial involved a stipulation of facts and the presentation of documentary evidence, with Alvarez testifying in his defense and presenting one witness. The Sandiganbayan rendered its verdict on February 28, 1989, finding Alvarez guilty of malversation of public funds, but only for the reduced amount of P10,097.15. He wa...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 88014)
Facts:
Background and Audit Findings
- Gonzalo Alvarez y Nana was the Assistant Municipal Treasurer of Tacurong, Sultan Kudarat.
- Two audits were conducted on the funds under his custody:
- First Audit (July 23, 1982): Revealed a shortage of P86,704.57.
- Second Audit (August 9, 1982): Revealed a shortage of P1,091.15.
- The total shortage amounted to P87,795.72.
- Demand letters were served on Alvarez to produce the missing funds, but he failed to do so.
Criminal Charge
- Three years later, an information was filed against Alvarez in the Sandiganbayan, accusing him of malversation of public funds under Article 217(3) of the Revised Penal Code.
- The charge alleged that Alvarez, as a public officer accountable for public funds, misappropriated P87,795.72 for his personal use.
Trial Proceedings
- Alvarez pleaded not guilty during arraignment.
- The prosecution and defense entered into a stipulation of facts.
- The prosecution presented only documentary evidence, while Alvarez testified and presented one witness, Isidro T. Javier.
- The Sandiganbayan found Alvarez guilty of malversation but reduced the amount to P10,097.15 and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of 7 years, 4 months, and 1 day to 11 years, 6 months, and 21 days of prision mayor, perpetual disqualification, and a fine of P10,097.15.
Motion for Reconsideration
- Alvarez filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the Sandiganbayan for being devoid of merit and procedurally defective due to the lack of a notice of hearing.
Petition to the Supreme Court
- Alvarez filed a petition for review on certiorari, arguing that the Sandiganbayan committed grave errors in convicting him, including:
- Failing to recognize his accounting of the funds.
- Disregarding exonerating certifications from the Provincial Auditor.
- Misapplying Article 217(3) of the Revised Penal Code.
- Incorrectly ruling that his motion for reconsideration was defective.
Evidence Presented by Alvarez
- Alvarez presented evidence showing that he had accounted for the alleged shortage, including:
- Vouchers and receipts for cash advances to municipal employees.
- A certification from the Assistant Provincial Auditor, Angel E. Fernandez, stating that Alvarez had accounted for P63,572.91.
- Evidence of P24,233.90 representing liquidation of unremitted collections.
- The total accounted amount was P87,806.82, showing an overage of P11.10.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- (Unlock)
Ratio:
Presumption of Malversation Rebutted:
- Under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, a public officer's failure to account for public funds upon demand creates a prima facie presumption of malversation.
- However, this presumption can be rebutted by competent evidence showing that the funds were not misappropriated.
- Alvarez presented sufficient evidence, including certifications from COA officials, to rebut the presumption.
Credibility of Evidence:
- The Sandiganbayan erred in rejecting Alvarez's evidence, including the cash advances to municipal employees and the certifications from COA officials.
- The Court found that the evidence was credible and adequately explained the alleged shortage.
Procedural Defect in Motion for Reconsideration:
- The Sandiganbayan incorrectly applied the rules on motions for reconsideration.
- The Sandiganbayan's own rules provide that motions for reconsideration are governed by Rule 121 of the Rules of Court, not Rule 15.
- The prosecution was given ample opportunity to oppose the motion, and the procedural defect did not prejudice the case.
Absence of Criminal Intent:
- The Court found no evidence that Alvarez misappropriated the funds for personal use.
- Any irregularities in the handling of funds were due to administrative lapses and not criminal intent.
Conclusion:
- The Supreme Court acquitted Alvarez, emphasizing that the evidence did not meet the standard of moral certainty required for a criminal conviction.
- The Court also noted that procedural lapses should not bar relief when the merits of the case clearly favor the accused.