Case Digest (G.R. No. 71581)
Facts:
Carmen Labatagos v. Hon. Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 71581, March 21, 1990, the Supreme Court En Banc, Padilla, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Carmen Labatagos was the cashier and collecting officer of Mindanao State University (MSU), General Santos City, from January 1978 to December 1980; she took a leave of absence for March–May 1978 and did not discharge duties for part of that period. On October 1, 1980, Francisco T. Rivera, under Commission on Audit (COA) General Order No. 8022-117, led a COA team that examined the cash and collection accounts in petitioner’s custody. At the time of inspection the petitioner had no cash on hand and was asked to produce records, books of collection, copies of official receipts, remittance advices and monthly collection reports.
The COA examination, based on official receipts and remittance records, found that for January–August 1978 petitioner collected P113,205.58 but remitted only P78,868.69, leaving an unremitted amount of P34,336.19. For January 1979–June 6, 1980, collections totaled P327,982.00 while remittances amounted to P256,606.25, producing a shortage of P71,365.75. Petitioner signed both Reports of Examination and their summaries. Rivera submitted the reports to the COA Chairman and personally served petitioner with demand letters corresponding to the audit findings; petitioner signed the demand letters but offered no satisfactory explanation thereafter.
On October 27, 1981, the Tanodbayan filed an information in the Sandiganbayan charging petitioner with malversation of public funds under Article 217, par. 4 of the Revised Penal Code, alleging misappropriation of P105,711.94 out of total collections of P441,187.58 for the periods in question. At trial petitioner asserted several defenses: she purportedly signed the audit reports under the understanding that her shortage was only P2,000; she said collections during March–May 1978 should not be charged to her because of maternity leave; she claimed certain disbursements totaling P49,417.12 were not credited by the auditors; and she alleged superiors had appropriated some funds with lost receipts.
The Sandiganbayan (Third Division), in a decision penned by Associate Justice Conrado M. Molina (with the concurrence of Justices Romulo S. Quimbo and Bienvenido C. Vera Cruz), found the defenses unavailing. The court noted documentary evidence showing the shortages, testimony of Mrs. Ester Guanzon that collections turned over to petitioner were accounted for, and the auditors’ justified refusal to credit alleged refunds, uniforms/balls expenses, and vouchers unsupported by proper authorization or competent evidence. The Sandiganbayan emphasized that malversation includes knowingly allowing others to make use of or misappropriate funds and convicted petitioner beyon...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the guilt of petitioner proven beyond reasonable doubt for malversation under Article 217, par. 4 of the Revised Penal Co...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)