Facts:

The case involves petitioner Pedro Bacasnot y Caliao (hereinafter referred to as "Pedro Bacasnot"), who was convicted of malversation of public funds/property by the Sandiganbayan on June 7, 1982. Pedro served as the Operations Officer and Grains Stock Control Officer of the National Food Authority (NFA) in Malaybalay, Bukidnon from May 1975 until his suspension in October 1980. He was accountable for managing several warehouses housing significant quantities of corn, rice, and other grains. Following an audit by the Commission on Audit (COA) on November 21, 1979, Pedro was found to have incurred shortages in his accountabilities. The initial audit showed a total shortage of P4,438,151.05 attributed to corn grains, palay, rice, corn grits, and empty sacks.

After Pedro was formally notified of these shortages on August 26, 1980, he contested the findings, claiming that environmental factors including poor storage facilities, bumper harvests, pest infestation, and natur

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• The petitioner, Pedro Bacasnot y Caliao, was an Operation Officer and Grains Stock Control Officer of the National Food Authority (NFA) in Malaybalay, Bukidnon from May 1975 until his suspension in October 1980.
• As an accountable officer, he was authorized by Special Orders Nos. 19-B and 38 to assist in procurement operations and was required to post a bond.

Inventory and Shortages

• In November 1979, a team of auditors from the Commission on Audit (COA) inspected the stocks and empty sacks maintained by the petitioner.
• The audit revealed shortages in various accountabilities including corn grains, palay, rice, corn grits, and empty sacks.
• Initial examination revealed a total shortage amounting to approximately P4,438,151.05.
• After reevaluation—taking into account the “tolerable allowance” for insect infestation—the shortage was adjusted to P3,539,940.67 for stock items and an additional P361,020.72 for empty sacks, summing up to a total shortage of P3,900,961.39.

Petitioner’s Explanation and Evidence

• The petitioner claimed that the shortages were due to:
• Poor storage facilities
• Bumper harvests in 1978 leading to the use of additional temporary warehouses
• Exposure of stocks to natural elements
• Uncontrolled infestation by insects (e.g., weevils) and rodents
• Despite these claims, the evidence on record—including the study conducted by NFA management and the COA’s recalculations—established that even after accounting for tolerable shrinkage due to infestation, significant shortages remained, particularly for empty sacks.

Irregularities and Discrepancies in Records

• Numerous accounting and operational irregularities were noted in his records and procedures including:
• Cancellation of duplicate copies of Warehouse Stock Receipts (WSRs) to suggest non-receipt of stocks
• Failure to reflect WSRs in the stock report
• Alteration of duplicate WSRs to inflate moisture contents
• Rebagging and mixing of 1,443 bags of palay with foreign substances like soil and sand to disguise losses
• Poor warehouse management, negligence, and non-performance of assigned tasks by his subordinate
• Excessive losses due to abnormal drying operations
• Rampant alterations in warehouse documentation concerning empty sacks transactions
• Non-issuance of official receipts for sales of stocks
• These irregularities were evidenced by documents submitted by the petitioner, indicating a deliberate scheme to cover up the losses incurred under his watch.

Issue:

Sufficiency of Evidence on Misappropriation

• Whether the evidence submitted by the prosecution satisfactorily established that the shortage was due to misappropriation, embezzlement, or conversion of public funds/property for the petitioner’s personal benefit or use.

Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt

• Whether the evidence proved the guilt of the petitioner beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly given the petitioner’s claims attributing the shortage to natural causes and operational irregularities.

Application of the Presumption of Guilt Under Article 217

• Whether the presumption of guilt—wherein a failure to account for public funds on demand serves as prima facie evidence of malversation—is applicable in this case, especially in light of the petitioner’s defenses and comparisons to previous cases such as Albores vs. Court of Appeals.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)