GR 74259; (February, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 74259 . February 14, 1991. GENEROSO P. CORPUZ, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Generoso Corpuz, a Supervising Accounting Clerk designated as Acting Supervising Cashier in the Office of the Provincial Treasurer of Nueva Vizcaya, was charged with malversation of public funds. Upon the termination of his designation and the subsequent transfer of accountabilities, a Certificate of Turnover revealed a shortage of P72,823.08. After partial restitution, a final demand for the remaining deficiency of P50,596.07 was issued. As the demand was unmet, an information for malversation was filed against him.
Corpuz did not deny the shortage but claimed innocence, asserting that the bulk of the amount (P50,000.00) represented an unliquidated withdrawal made by Paymaster Diosdado Pineda through a check encashed while Corpuz was on official leave. He alleged he was compelled by a superior to post this amount in his cash book despite not having received the funds. The prosecution, however, presented evidence that Corpuz was not on leave during the relevant dates and had himself prepared the checks. Testimony indicated that the delayed entry of the check in his cash book was a method to conceal the shortage.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of malversation of public funds.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The legal logic rests on the prima facie evidence rule under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code. When a public officer accountable for public funds fails to have them forthcoming upon lawful demand, such failure constitutes prima facie evidence that the officer has put the missing funds to personal use. Here, Corpuz, an accountable officer, failed to produce the missing funds despite demand.
His defense—shifting blame to the paymaster and alleging coercion to post the entry—was found unconvincing and unsupported by evidence. The Sandiganbayan correctly found that the prosecution’s evidence was overwhelming. The delayed entry of the specific check, contrasted with the timely entry of others issued for the same purpose on the same dates, indicated a deliberate attempt to camouflage the shortage. The absence of a post-audit is not a prerequisite for prosecution once prima facie guilt is established. The constitutional presumption of innocence yields to positive findings of guilt. Thus, all elements of malversation were proven: Corpuz was a public officer with custody of public funds, he was accountable for them, and he failed to account for them upon demand, which is prima facie evidence of misappropriation.