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 Summary (G.R. No. 162489)

Facts Established by the Courts

On July 6, 1998, Mesina received ₱468,394.46 from various fees, including a patubig (water system) collection of ₱167,876.90. After counting and sealing the envelopes, Mesina returned to Main City Hall. Phone calls later revealed the patubig collection was unremitted. Inquiries by City Treasurer Santos and Mayor Malonzo produced conflicting accounts: Baclit insisted Mesina received the money; Mesina repeatedly denied it. Inspection of his sealed vault on July 7 found cash short by ₱37,876.98. Various officers executed affidavits supporting the discrepancy.

Defense Evidence and Assertions

Mesina admitted collecting the full amount but maintained that he safely kept the patubig collection in his vault pending recount, explaining urgency due to his wife’s medical emergency. He claimed the accusation was politically motivated and cited his reputation for honesty and service awards. He denied misappropriation, asserting the missing amount was actually intact.

Issues on Appeal

  1. Whether the CA erred in affirming his malversation conviction despite evidence that over ₱130,000 was inside the vault.
  2. Whether his constitutional rights were violated by failure to inform him of right to counsel during investigation.
  3. Whether his good moral character evidence required acquittal under Rules of Court.

Elements of Malversation under Article 217 RPC

  1. Public officer status – established by Mesina’s position.
  2. Custody or control of public funds by virtue of office.
  3. Accountability for public funds.
  4. Misappropriation, conversion, or failure to return funds to which presumption of personal use applies upon demand.

Application of Law to Facts

The Court held all elements proven: Mesina was public officer and accountable for collections; he denied receipt until vault inspection; the missing ₱37,876.98 triggered the statutory presumption of personal use upon demand; and he offered no satisfactory explanation. Direct proof of intent was unnecessary.

Miranda Rights and Nature of Investigation

The Court rejected Mesina’s claim of custodial investigation requiring Miranda warnings. The inquiry by Mayor and city officials was an administrative probe into missing funds, not a focused custodial interrogation by law enforcement. Mesina was not in police custody or deprived of freedom such that constitutional safeguards on custodial interrogation attached.

Sentencing under the Indeterminate Sentence Law

With the misappropriated amount exceeding ₱22,000, the penalty range is reclusion temporal in maximum period to reclusion perpetua (17 years 4 months 1 day to reclusion perpetua). The indeterminate sentence was adjusted to 12 years 1 day to 18 years 8 months 1 day of recl





...continue reading

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