G.R. No. 129064 - Rueda, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan

Juan A. Rueda, Jr., then Municipal Treasurer of Tigaon, Camarines Sur, was charged with malversation of public funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code.
The charge arose from an audit examination covering the period from February 8, 1989, to September 20, 1989, which purportedly showed a “cash shortage” of P107,299.02.
The audit was conducted by a team of state auditors led by Amparo O. Albeus and later corroborated by internal auditors from the provincial treasurer’s office.

The audit report indicated a cash shortage based on the assumption that the total funds should have matched certain accounting entries.
Items included in the audit error were “chits,” “vales,” disbursement vouchers, and unsettled collection deposits, which were erroneously treated as cash.
A written demand dated October 3, 1989, required petitioner Rueda to produce the missing funds and to explain within seventy-two hours the cause of the shortage.
Upon receiving the demand, petitioner signed the certification on the dorsal portion of the audit report, which he later contended was only an acknowledgment of receipt and not an admission of the alleged shortage.

Rueda maintained that the alleged “shortage” resulted from unliquidated cash advances provided by municipal officials and employees prior to the official remittance of cash collections.
These cash advances were evidenced by “chits” and “vales” and were taken from the cash collections before they were turned over to him as municipal treasurer.
He explained that these advances, along with legitimate municipal expenses recorded in disbursement vouchers and unsettled cash deposits, did not reflect his actual custody of cash.
The petitioner further argued that he had subsequently submitted supporting documents and that the amounts in question were either liquidated or did not pertain to cash on hand.
His defense was bolstered by documentary evidence including official receipts, certification by the in-charge-of office of the municipal treasurer, and subsequent rectification of the alleged discrepancies.

After arraignment on November 29, 1991, and ensuing trial proceedings, the Sandiganbayan (Third Division) convicted petitioner Rueda on March 19, 1996.
The conviction was based on the findings that he failed to account for the alleged cash shortage, thereby triggering the statutory presumption that missing funds were used for personal purposes.
A motion for reconsideration filed on March 29, 1996, was denied on May 7, 1997, reinforcing the Sandiganbayan’s earlier determination.

On appeal via certiorari, petitioner Rueda challenged the conviction on several grounds, arguing that he had not misappropriated or taken the funds for personal use.
He contended that his signature on the audit report should not be construed as an admission of any shortage.
He further argued that the “shortage” was the result of an accounting and auditing error where non-cash items (such as “chits”, “vales”, and disbursement vouchers) were erroneously classified as cash.
Petitioner also stressed that the funds he was questioned about were never actually received by him, but were instead representatives of cash advances taken by others from municipal collections.

Whether petitioner Rueda is liable for malversation due to an alleged “shortage” of P107,299.02 in his cash accountability.
Whether the elements of malversation—specifically, the appropriation or misappropriation of public funds—have been established against him.

Whether the signature by petitioner on the audit report constitutes an admission of the shortage.
Whether the failure to produce the alleged missing funds automatically creates a prima facie case of personal appropriation under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code.

Whether the “shortage” actually existed, given that the audit erroneously included non-cash items such as “chits”, “vales”, and unsupported disbursement vouchers.
Whether the prosecution adequately proved that the funds missing were indeed public funds that were put to personal use by petitioner Rueda.

Whether the prevailing doctrines from Villacorta v. People, Quizo v. Sandiganbayan, Meneses v. Sandiganbayan, and other cases apply to the determination of malversation in this case.
Whether the statutory presumption should be rebutted in light of the complete restitution and proper explanation provided by petitioner.