Case Summary (G.R. No. 150910)
Administrative Proceedings and Restitution
Following the audit, a memorandum recommended criminal charges. Between January 16 and April 17, 1989, Perez remitted ₱72,784.57 in six payments, fully restoring the missing funds as confirmed by official receipts.
Criminal Charge and Trial before Sandiganbayan
Perez was charged with malversation under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, arraigned March 1, 1990, and pleaded not guilty. Pre-trial was dispensed with on June 5, 1990. Prosecution witness Mandin testified to the audit findings and Perez’s admissions. Perez testified in his own defense, denied his initial administrative answer, filed a revised answer, and argued that funds were held by subordinates and later remitted. He rested his case on October 20, 1990.
Sandiganbayan Conviction and Sentence
On September 24, 2003, the Sandiganbayan convicted Perez of malversation, finding one mitigating circumstance (payment/restoration) and no aggravating circumstances. It imposed an indeterminate sentence of ten years and one day to fourteen years and eight months (prision mayor to reclusion temporal), perpetual special disqualification, and a fine equal to ₱72,784.57. A motion for reconsideration was denied on August 6, 2004.
Issues on Appeal
Perez invoked two errors:
- Violation of his rights to speedy trial and speedy disposition of his case, and due process, due to a twelve-year delay.
- Cruel and unusual punishment in imposing penalties under Article 217 despite full restitution.
Supreme Court Analysis on Malversation
Article 217 defines malversation by (1) a public officer; (2) custody of public funds; (3) accountability for those funds; and (4) appropriation or misappropriation. A presumption arises when an accountable officer fails to produce funds on demand. Perez’s own admissions—both verbal and in his first administrative answer—established appropriation for personal or family use. His later denial did not rebut the prima facie presumption, and the Sandiganbayan correctly upheld his conviction.
Analysis on Speedy Disposition and Due Process
Under the 1987 Constitution, Perez had rights to due process and speedy disposition. The Court applied the Barker v. Wingo balancing test—considering delay length, government and defendant conduct, assertion of rights, and prejudice. Perez never sought an earlier resolution or asserted his right during twelve years of inactivity. The delay did not result from bad faith or oppressive conduct by the Sandiganbayan, nor did it cause substantial prejudice. His claim thus fails.
Analysis on Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Section 19, Article III of the 1987 Constitution proscribes cruel, degrading, or inhuman punishments. Jurisprudence rejects restitution as a defense to malversation; at most, it is mitigating. There is a strong presumption of constitutionality in Article 217. The penalties imposed—prison terms and a fine equal to the misappropriated amount—are neither cruel nor unusual.
Penalty Modification
For malversation above ₱22,000, the law prescribes reclusion temporal (maximum) to reclusion perpetua. Two mitigating circumsta
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 150910)
Facts of the Case
- On December 28, 1988, COA audit team led by Auditor I Arlene R. Mandin conducted cash examination of petitioner, then Acting Municipal Treasurer of Tubigon, Bohol.
- Petitioner absent on first scheduled audit; notified by radio and appeared December 29, 1988 and January 4–5, 1989.
- Audit found ₱21,331.79 in petitioner’s safe against ₱94,116.36 expected—shortage of ₱72,784.57.
- Findings were embodied in Report of Cash Examination, including inventory and Cash Production Notice dated January 4, 1989 demanding production of missing funds.
- Petitioner acknowledged cash count sheet and received separate demand letter on January 5, 1989.
- Verbal explanation: funds used partly to pay loan of his late brother, for family food, and for his medicine.
- Petitioner made remittances totalling ₱72,784.57 between January 16 and April 17, 1989, as evidenced by official receipts.
Procedural History
- Administrative case filed February 13, 1989; petitioner answered February 22, 1989 (first Answer) and March 2, 1989 (second Answer).
- Criminal Information for malversation under Article 217, RPC, filed in Sandiganbayan (Criminal Case No. 14230).
- On March 1, 1990, petitioner pleaded not guilty, assisted by counsel de parte.
- Pre-trial set June 4–5, 1990; defense sought postponement but Sandiganbayan proceeded June 5, 1990, dispensed with pre-trial and heard evidence.
- Prosecution presented Auditor Mandin; defense presented petitioner, who denied earlier admissions and claimed illness and oversight.
- Petitioner completed testimony September 20, 1990; rested October 20, 1990.
- Sandiganbayan convicted petitioner on September 24, 2003; motion for reconsideration denied August 6, 2004.
- Appeal to the Supreme Court filed September 23, 2004 raising speedy–disposition, due process, and cruel–punishment issues.
Issues on Appeal
- Whether undue and unreasonable delay (over twelve years) in decision violated petitioner’s rights to speedy disposition and due process.
- Whether Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code and the sentence imposed constitute cruel and unusual punishment under Section 19, Article III of the Constitution.
Ruling on Malversation Conviction
- Petitioner was properly convicted of malversation under Article 217, RPC.
- All four elements of malversation were present: public officer status, custody/control of funds, accountability for public funds, and misappropriation/appropriation.
- Peti