Facts:

The case involves Pamela Chan as the petitioner and the Sandiganbayan as the respondent. The events leading to the case began in November 1989 when Pamela Chan was hired as Accounting Clerk II at the Regional Office of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in Cebu City, where she served as the Cashier or Collection Officer. Chan went on leave from December 7 to December 27, 1995. During her absence, Delza Bas was designated by the Regional Director to act as the Collection Officer. An audit conducted by Josephine Daclan, an auditor from the Commission on Audit (COA), on December 27, 1995, found that all collections during Chan's leave were accounted for, as reflected in Bas's Cash Report.

However, upon Chan's return, a subsequent audit on January 24, 1996, revealed a cash shortage of P290,228.00 in Chan's accountability. A demand letter was issued to Chan to explain the shortage. Following this, another audit on March 1, 1996, showed a cumulative shorta...

Facts:

Employment and Role of Petitioner:
Pamela Chan was hired as Accounting Clerk II at the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Regional Office in Cebu City in November 1989, serving as the Cashier or Collection Officer.

Audit Examinations:

1. First Audit (December 27, 1995):

   • Conducted while Chan was on leave.
   • Delza Bas, designated as Collection Officer during Chan's absence, was audited.
   • No discrepancies found; collections were accounted for.

2. Second Audit (January 24, 1996):

   • Conducted after Chan returned to work.
   • Covered the period from June 15, 1995.
   • Shortage of P290,228.00 discovered in Chan’s accountability.
   • Chan signed the Cash Report acknowledging the shortage.

3. Third Audit (March 1, 1996):

   • Conducted after Chan was relieved as Collection Officer.
   • Cumulative shortage of P333,360.00 found.
   • Chan again signed the Cash Examination Report.

Demand for Restitution and Legal Actions:

• COA issued demand letters for restitution and explanations, which Chan ignored.
• COA filed a complaint for Malversation of Public Funds against Chan.
• The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman found probable cause and recommended filing charges.

Court Proceedings and Conviction:

• Chan pleaded not guilty and claimed partial liability should be assigned to Bas.
• The trial court found Chan guilty of Malversation of Public Funds, sentencing her to imprisonment and a fine.
• The Sandiganbayan affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Due Process and Re-Audit:

   • Petitioner failed to prove that the audit reports contained significant errors warranting a re-audit.
   • The COA’s audit was presumed complete and thorough, and petitioner had the opportunity to contest it during the trial.

2. Audit Reports:

   • The discrepancies in the findings of the COA, trial court, and Sandiganbayan were due to remittances made during the case, not errors in the audit.
   • Minor discrepancies (e.g., P310.00) were insufficient to justify a re-audit.

3. Liability for Unremitted Collections:

   • Petitioner was the officially designated Collecting Officer and was responsible for all collections, including those made by Bas.
   • Petitioner failed to exercise proper supervision over Bas and even assisted in concealing Bas’s shortages by lending public funds.
   • The practice of granting "vales" (IOUs) was held to be illegal and contrary to COA regulations.
   • Petitioner’s liability was not mitigated by Bas’s actions or alleged official designations.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, stating that petitioner failed to rebut the presumption of malversation and that her actions, including lending public funds and failing to supervise Bas, established her liability.