Facts:

The case involves Nenita Babida y Encio (Petitioner) against the People of the Philippines and the Sandiganbayan (Respondents), related to a decision made by the Sandiganbayan on September 29, 1989. The events occurred on September 16, 1986, in Tacloban City, Philippines. The petitioner was serving as the Acting Cashier of the Tacloban Post Office and managed public funds. The prosecution alleged that she conspired with unidentified individuals, referred to as "John Doe" and "Peter Doe," to stage a robbery, resulting in her embezzling ₱70,000 intended for deposit in the Development Bank of the Philippines. During the trial, the Sandiganbayan found the petitioner guilty of malversation of public funds as defined under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, highlighting that the alleged robbery was a fabrication to cover her illegal appropriation of public moneys. The Sandiganbayan imposed a penalty of an indeterminate sentence of 10

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• This case involves a petition under Rule 65 challenging the decision of the Sandiganbayan.
• The accused, Nenita Babida y Encio, was employed as Acting Cashier of the Post Office in Tacloban City.
• The incident occurred on or about September 16, 1986, within the jurisdiction of Tacloban City.

Alleged Conduct and Offense

• The accused was charged with malversation by conversion, involving the misappropriation of public funds.
• It is alleged that she manipulated a staged robbery narrative by attributing the loss of P70,000.00 to fictitious perpetrators ("John Doe" and "Peter Doe") to cover the illegal use of funds she held as part of her duty.
• Rather than depositing the funds with the Development Bank of the Philippines, she is accused of embezzling the amount, causing a loss to the Government.

Evidence and Audit Findings

• During an audit covering the period from March 11, 1986, to September 16, 1986, conducted by City Auditor Jose Desamparado, a shortage of P69,721.64 in postal funds was discovered.
• A letter of demand was issued on September 16, 1986, ordering the accused to account for the missing amount.
• The accused responded on October 1, 1986, submitting an affidavit that explained the shortage as a result of an alleged robbery.

Defense Explanation and Supporting Testimony

• The accused claimed that on the day she was to deposit the funds, the money was stolen.
• She asserted that she did not immediately report the robbery because she was consulting her lawyer and subsequently was hospitalized from September 18 to September 21, 1986.
• Her husband, PC Sgt. Rogelio Babida, testified that he led an inquiry into the alleged robbery on September 24, 1986.
• The defense attempted to introduce these explanations to rebut the presumption of her accountability for the missing funds.

Decision of the Sandiganbayan

• The trial court, after hearing the evidence and the defense’s arguments, rendered a guilty verdict of malversation of public funds under Article 217, paragraph 4, of the Revised Penal Code.
• Mitigating circumstances, such as the accused’s voluntary surrender, were taken into account.
• The sentence imposed ranged from a minimum of 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor to a maximum of 17 years, 4 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal, including perpetual special disqualification, a monetary fine of P69,721.64, indemnification of the state to the same amount, and payment of costs.

Issue:

Fundamental Question of Accountability

• Whether the accused, as a public officer with custody of government funds, is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of malversation by conversion.
• Whether the evidence presented, particularly the findings from the audit and the subsequent inability to produce the funds upon demand, is sufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence.

Evaluation of the Prima Facie Evidence

• Whether the solitary testimony of City Auditor Jose Desamparado, which established a prima facie case by identifying the shortage, is competent and reliable in holding the accused accountable.
• Whether the defense’s explanations and rebuttal evidence effectively counteract the prima facie evidence of misappropriation.

Credibility and Consistency of the Defense

• The impact of the accused’s delayed and inconsistent responses, including the late submission of her affidavit explaining the alleged robbery.
• Whether the alleged discrepancy between the stated amount lost (P70,000.00) and the amount found missing (P69,721.64) undermines the defense’s narrative.
• The credibility of the inquiry conducted by her husband and how it stands against the established evidentiary record.

Proper Application of the Legal Presumption

• Whether the presumption of innocence was maintained until the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
• How the failure of the accused to produce convincing evidence to rebut the presumption affected the outcome of the case.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)