G.R. No. 145229 ; April 20, 2006
Romeo L. Davalos, Sr., Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Romeo L. Davalos, Sr., the Supply Officer of the Office of the Provincial Engineer of Marinduque, received a cash advance of P18,000.00 on January 14, 1988, for the procurement of working tools for a “NALGO” project. He failed to liquidate this amount despite two written demands from the Provincial Treasurer in May 1988. The prosecution established that petitioner, as an accountable officer, received the funds but could not account for them or prove their lawful use.
Petitioner defended himself by claiming the new provincial administration, under Governor Luisito Reyes, scrapped the intended purchase and subsequently terminated his services. He asserted that his terminal leave benefits, which he applied for, should have been applied to offset the cash advance, but these vouchers were disapproved. He eventually restituted the P18,000.00 in January 1995, nearly seven years after the demand and after his prosecution for malversation had commenced.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan correctly convicted petitioner of the crime of malversation of public funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The elements of malversation are: (1) the offender is a public officer, (2) he had custody or control of funds or property by reason of his office, (3) those funds or property were public, and (4) he appropriated, took, misappropriated, or consented to, or through abandonment or negligence, permitted another to take them. The prosecution successfully proved all elements. Petitioner, an accountable officer, admitted receiving the cash advance. His failure to account for the funds upon demand, coupled with his inability to present convincing proof that the money was spent for its intended public purpose, gave rise to the presumption of misappropriation under Article 217.
The Court rejected petitioner’s defenses. His claim that the transaction was scrapped did not excuse him from liquidating the cash advance or returning the money promptly. His act of applying for leave benefits to offset the debt did not constitute proper liquidation or accounting. Crucially, his eventual restitution in 1995 did not extinguish his criminal liability; it merely affected his civil liability and could not be considered a mitigating circumstance analogous to voluntary surrender due to the seven-year delay. The conviction and penalties imposed by the Sandiganbayan were thus upheld.