Title
Supreme Court
Rueda, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan
Case
G.R. No. 129064
Decision Date
Nov 29, 2000
Municipal treasurer acquitted of malversation as alleged "shortage" was due to unliquidated cash advances, not misappropriation; funds fully restituted, no evidence of personal use.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 129064)

The Charge

On April 19, 1991, a charge of malversation of public funds was filed against Rueda based on Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code due to an alleged cash shortage during the period from February 8, 1989, to September 20, 1989. The Sandiganbayan's findings were based on an audit revealing a cash shortage, resulting in Rueda’s conviction and a subsequent sentence of 10 to 17 years in prison, a fine, and perpetual disqualification from holding public office.

Proceedings and Defense

Upon his arraignment on November 29, 1991, Rueda entered a plea of not guilty. He defended himself by contesting the claim of a cash shortage, asserting it resulted from unliquidated cash advances by municipal officials rather than any wrongdoing on his part. Rueda explained that these advances, made prior to fund remittances to him as the municipal treasurer, had been liquidated by the respective municipal employees and officials before the preliminary investigation commenced.

Findings of the Court

The Sandiganbayan asserted Rueda had failed to account for the alleged cash shortage, leading to a presumption of malversation. However, the Supreme Court found that the failure to account did not equate to misuse or personal appropriation of those funds, especially as Rueda successfully demonstrated that he had accounted for all funds and that the supposed shortage had been liquidated.

Arguments and Legal Basis

Rueda's appeal highlighted the Sandiganbayan's erroneous reliance on the presumption of malversation under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code. He argued that the facts were not satisfactorily established to prove that public funds were misappropriated for personal use. The Supreme Court analyzed whether or not all essential elements of malversation were present and ultimately found that the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence of personal use or misappropriation.

The Supreme Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Rueda, emphasizing the constitutional presumption of innocence as well as the evidentiary standard of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It asserted that the Sandiganbayan had convicted Rueda based on conjecture rather than established facts, determini

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.