G.R. No. L-33052 - Quimpo vs. Mendoza

Petitioner Lucilyn T. Zambrano, employed as Cashier I and Special Disbursing Officer of the National Grains Authority (now National Food Authority), was charged with malversation of public funds.
The alleged criminal act occurred within the period from January 20, 1976 to January 24, 1980 in Cotabato City and its surrounding jurisdiction.
The charge centered on the misappropriation, misapplication, embezzlement, and conversion of public funds amounting to P1,207,835.19.

The prosecution’s sole witness, auditor Carlito Capinpin of the COA assigned to the National Food Authority, conducted an audit based on the petitioner’s cash books and related documents.
The audit report revealed:

A shortage of P427,545.07 from the cash advances under the Cereal Procurement Fund (CPF).
A shortage of P576,392.96 from the operational funds disbursed by the petitioner.
A discrepancy of P203,897.16 in the record of collections and deposits.
A total aggregated shortage of P1,207,835.19.

Capinpin’s examination confirmed that all entries in the cash books were supposedly supported by corresponding vouchers, and that the audit team followed COA standard procedures despite noting the absence of cross-references to specific supporting documents.

The Sandiganbayan convicted Zambrano on August 28, 1986 for malversation of public funds based on the audit report and supporting documentary evidence.
A motion for a new trial was filed and granted on October 13, 1986; despite this, the case proceeded with further evidentiary hearings and testimonies.
Defense testimony was presented by Cesario Mateo, a Certified Public Accountant and former government employee, who reviewed exhibits and questioned the classification and supporting documents of certain cash advances.
During the trial, petitioner Zambrano testified that:

She had long held positions within the defunct Rice and Corn Administration (RCA), later incorporated into the NFA, and was never previously charged for any administrative or criminal irregularities.
She was appointed as Cashier I on February 6, 1975, despite her academic background being in nursing rather than accounting.
Her official duties included both collecting funds from cereal sales and disbursing funds, with responsibilities covering Cotabato City and Maguindanao province.
She received and processed disbursements despite exceeding her prescribed disbursement ceiling of P150,000.00 on several occasions.

Petitioner’s issuance of cash advances to government officials such as Auditor Abundo and Regional Director Juanito Cabalu.
Irregularities in handling a one-million peso cash advance that was processed contrary to her limited disbursement authority.
Her failure to provide a satisfactory explanation or restitution for the shortfalls, despite a demand letter issued on July 2, 1980.

The Sandiganbayan rendered its decision on January 8, 1988, finding Zambrano guilty beyond reasonable doubt of malversation of public funds.
The decree imposed:

An indeterminate sentence ranging from 12 years, 5 months, and 11 days to 18 years, 8 months, and 1 day of reclusion temporal.
A fine and indemnification equivalent to the malappropriated sum of P1,207,835.19.
The payment of legal costs.

The petitioner later filed a petition for review on certiorari, which was eventually denied by the Court En Banc, leading to the affirmation of the Sandiganbayan’s decision.

Whether the evidence presented conclusively establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

The central question is if the prosecution’s presentation—primarily the audit report and corroborating documentary evidence—is sufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence.
Whether the discrepancies in the petitioner’s cash books and her inability to produce the missing funds or valid explanations constitute a prima facie case of malversation.

Whether the alternative explanations offered by petitioner (acting under orders, fear of losing her job, etc.) could exonerate her from criminal liability.
Whether the defense expert’s (Cesario Mateo) reclassification of certain cash advances undermines the prosecution’s evidence of a significant shortage.

Whether the absence of proper supporting documentation (cash vouchers, check vouchers) for certain disbursements inevitably establishes the misappropriation of public funds.
Whether the established legal presumption under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code applies in situations where an accountable officer fails to account for the funds upon demand.