Case Digest (G.R. No. 184908)
Facts:
The case involves Major Joel G. Cantos as the petitioner and the People of the Philippines as the respondent. The events leading to the case unfolded in the City of Manila, where Major Cantos was the Commanding Officer of the 22nd Finance Service Center, part of the Presidential Security Group (PSG) based in Malacañang Park. On February 19, 2003, an Information was filed against him, charging him with the crime of Malversation of Public Funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code. The charge stemmed from an incident on December 21, 2000, when Major Cantos reported that approximately P3,270,000.00 in public funds, which he was accountable for, went missing from his custody.
During the trial, Major Eligio T. Balao, Jr., a witness for the prosecution, testified that he was present when Major Cantos informed him of the missing funds. Major Balao recounted that Major Cantos had placed the money in a steel cabinet in his office, rather than the safety vault, which he claim...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 184908)
Facts:
Background and Charge:
- Major Joel G. Cantos, a public officer and Commanding Officer of the 22nd Finance Service Center (FSU) of the Presidential Security Group (PSG), was charged with Malversation of Public Funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code.
- The charge alleged that on or about December 21, 2000, Major Cantos misappropriated and converted to his personal use the amount of P3,270,000.00, which was entrusted to him as part of his official duties.
Prosecution’s Evidence:
- Major Eligio T. Balao, Jr., the Disbursing Officer, testified that on December 21, 2000, Major Cantos informed him that the funds (Special Duty Allowance and Maintenance Operating Expenses) were missing from his custody. Major Cantos claimed the money was kept in a steel cabinet, not the safety vault, which he alleged was defective.
- Major Balao assisted Major Cantos in unscrewing the safety vault to make it appear the money was forcibly taken. However, no evidence of forced entry or theft was found.
- The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) conducted fingerprinting of all personnel, but no conclusive evidence pointed to anyone else.
Defense’s Evidence:
- Major Cantos testified that he received the funds on December 19, 2000, and kept them in a steel cabinet, not the safety vault, due to its alleged defect. He claimed the money was stolen while he was away celebrating his wedding anniversary on December 20, 2000.
- He argued that the funds could have been taken by someone else, but no evidence supported this claim.
- A polygraph test administered by the Philippine National Police (PNP) showed that Major Cantos was telling the truth, but this was not given weight by the court.
Trial Court Decision:
- The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Major Cantos of Malversation of Public Funds, citing the presumption under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code that the failure to account for public funds is prima facie evidence of misappropriation.
- The court sentenced him to imprisonment, ordered restitution of the amount, imposed a fine, and disqualified him from holding public office.
Sandiganbayan Decision:
- The Sandiganbayan affirmed the RTC’s decision but modified the conviction from malversation through negligence to malversation through misappropriation.
- The court held that the presumption of misappropriation was not rebutted by Major Cantos, and his claims of theft were unsupported by evidence.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- (Unlock)
Ratio:
- Under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, the failure of a public officer to account for public funds upon demand creates a prima facie presumption of misappropriation. This presumption is rebuttable, but Major Cantos failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the missing funds.
- Malversation can be committed either intentionally or through negligence. Even if the mode of commission differs from what is charged, the offense remains the same.
- The burden of proof lies with the accused to rebut the presumption of misappropriation. In this case, Major Cantos failed to present sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption.
- The Court upheld the principle that in malversation cases, the prosecution only needs to prove that the accountable officer received public funds and failed to account for them upon demand. Direct evidence of personal misappropriation is not necessary.