Title
Venezuela vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 205693
Decision Date
Feb 14, 2018
A mayor misappropriated public funds, failed to account for shortages, and was convicted of malversation despite claims of payment; penalties adjusted retroactively.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 36701)

Petitioner and Respondent

Petitioner: Manuel M. Venezuela
Respondent: People of the Philippines

Key Dates

  • Audit Period: December 4, 1997 to June 10, 1998
  • Information Filed: March 20, 2000
  • Sandiganbayan Decision: May 10, 2012; Resolution Denying Reconsideration: February 4, 2013
  • Supreme Court Decision: February 14, 2018

Applicable Law and Constitution

  • 1987 Philippine Constitution
  • Revised Penal Code, Article 217 (as amended by RA No. 10951)
  • Rule 45, Revised Rules of Court

Audit Investigation and Findings

The COA team discovered a joint shortage of ₱2,872,808.00 in the accounts of Venezuela and Costes, identified 17 cash advances by Venezuela lacking required purpose statements, supporting documents, approved resolutions and certifications, and noted that Venezuela was neither bonded nor authorized to receive advances. Payments exceeding ₱1,000.00 were improperly made in cash.

Demand and Admission

State Auditor Ruiz issued demand letters for liquidation. Venezuela admitted liability for ₱943,200.00 and denied the balance. He disputed the subsequent COA audit report.

Charges and Trial

The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman filed an Information for Malversation under Article 217, RPC. Venezuela surrendered on May 11, 2000, posted bail, and sought reconsideration and reinvestigation, which were denied. Trial proceeded solely against him; key prosecution witnesses were Auditor Ruiz and Municipal Accountant Marita Laquerta.

Evidence Presented by Prosecution

Prosecution established (i) the ₱2,872,808.00 shortage, (ii) unauthorized advances, (iii) Venezuela’s lack of bonding and authority, and (iv) demand letters. Laquerta confirmed signatures on vouchers and that only ₱300,000.00 was liquidated.

Defense’s Evidence and Claims

Venezuela denied wrongdoing, claiming full liquidation via official receipts dated November–December 1999. Witnesses Caparas and Ferrer testified to submission of liquidation documents, though Ferrer conceded he did not directly observe the payments.

Rebuttal Evidence on Receipts

The Municipal Treasurer’s Office and Municipal Accountant contradicted the receipts: they bore serial numbers matching 2007 issues, were issued to others for different purposes, and Costes was not in office at the dates indicated. COA had no record of such payments beyond ₱300,000.00.

Sandiganbayan Decision

The Sandiganbayan found all elements of malversation proved beyond reasonable doubt, discredited the payment defense, and recognized the ₱300,000.00 refund as a mitigating circumstance. Venezuela was sentenced to ten years and one day to seventeen years, four months and one day of imprisonment, a fine of ₱2,572,808.00, and perpetual special disqualification.

Issues on Appeal

Venezuela argued (i) guilt not proven, (ii) valid payment proof, (iii) mischarge under Article 217 instead of Article 218, and (iv) improper lone prosecution without co-conspirator Costes. The People maintained proof of malversation, correct charge, and that demand or co-accused presence was unnecessary.

Appellate Jurisdiction and Standard of Review

Under Rule 45, the Supreme Court’s review is limited to questions of law; factual findings and credibility assessments by the Sandiganbayan are conclusive.

Definition and Elements of Malversation

Article 217, RPC defines malversation as a public officer’s misappropriation or failure to account for public funds. Elements: (i) public office, (ii) custody or control of funds, (iii) accountability, and (iv) appropriation, misappropriation, or failure to account.

Proof of Malversation in This Case

Venezuela, as mayor, was an accountable officer who received ₱2,872,808.00 in advances and failed to return or satisfactorily explain ₱2,572,808.00 upon demand, creating a prima facie presumption of personal use.

Rejection of Payment Defense

Reimbursement is not a defense in malversation; valid only to mitigate civil liability. Venezuela’s receipts were invalidated by serial-number and employment records. Only ₱300,000.00 was proven and credited as mitigation.

Demand Not Essential

Demand serves to raise a presumption of misappropriation but is not an element

...continue reading

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