Title
Mesina vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 162489
Decision Date
Jun 17, 2015
A public officer convicted of malversation for failing to account for missing public funds, despite claims of good character and procedural flaws in the investigation.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 162489)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Charge and Amended Information
    • On July 9, 1998, petitioner Bernardo U. Mesina was initially charged in the RTC of Caloocan City with qualified theft; upon motion, a reinvestigation was granted.
    • On September 17, 1998, an amended information was filed charging him with malversation under Article 217(4) RPC for misappropriating P167,876.90 of patubig (local water system) collections.
  • July 6–8, 1998 Events
    • July 6: Ms. Rosalinda Baclit turned over total collections of P468,394.46 (market fees, taxes, patubig) to Mesina, who signed 13 liquidation statements; funds were placed in envelopes.
    • Later that day, Main City Hall inquiries revealed non‐remittance of the P167,876.90 patubig funds; Mesina denied receipt. His vault was sealed by City Treasurer Santos pending probe.
    • July 7: Mayor Malonzo convened administrative inquiry with city officials; vault was opened before COA auditors, revealing a shortage of P37,876.98 (total found: P89,965.72 versus P167,876.90).
    • Affidavits by city officers and Ms. Baclit, supporting documents, and later recovery of Mesina’s signed liquidation statement under Baclit’s desk.
  • Trial and Appellate Proceedings
    • RTC Decision (Nov. 8, 2001): Convicted Mesina of malversation, imposed indeterminate reclusion temporal (12 years + 1 day to 20 years), perpetual disqualification, fine of P167,876.90.
    • CA Decision (July 24, 2003): Affirmed with modification—reduced fine to P37,876.98; otherwise maintained conviction and penalty.

Issues:

  • Evidence of Funds Found
    • Whether the CA erred in convicting despite testimony (Colito) that more than P130,000 in bundles was seen in the vault, suggesting no misappropriation.
    • Whether inconsistencies in vault inventory and failure to list certain bundles created reasonable doubt.
  • Validity of Investigation
    • Whether the administrative/audit inquiry was a custodial investigation requiring Miranda warnings; failure to advise Mesina violated his constitutional rights.
    • Whether noncompliance with audit manuals and guidelines rendered the audit null and void, overcoming the presumption of malversation under RPC Art. 127.
  • Character Evidence
    • Whether evidence of Mesina’s good moral character and public service awards should have led to acquittal under Rule 130, Sec. 46, Rules of Court.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.