G.R. No. 103584 September 2, 1994
MAYOR SUBO TANGGOTE, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, SECOND DIVISION, and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Subo Tanggote, then Municipal Mayor of Poonapiagapo, Lanao del Norte, was convicted by the Sandiganbayan of malversation of public funds under Article 217(4) of the Revised Penal Code. The information alleged that on February 23 and 28, 1982, he received cash advances totaling P32,424.00 from the Municipal Treasurer for the repair of the municipal building and public market and the construction of a municipal stage. He was accused of willfully misappropriating these funds for his personal use.
At trial, the prosecution presented witnesses, including the Municipal Treasurer, who testified that no such repairs or constructions were ever undertaken. The defense, including the petitioner, presented contrary testimonies asserting that the projects were completed. Petitioner also argued the charge was politically motivated and noted that the Municipal Treasurer had liquidated the advances, which should absolve him.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting petitioner of malversation of public funds based on the evidence presented.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The crime of malversation under Article 217 is committed by a public officer accountable for public funds who appropriates, misappropriates, or permits their misappropriation. The failure of the accountable officer to have the funds forthcoming upon demand is prima facie evidence of misappropriation. The Court upheld the Sandiganbayan’s factual findings and credibility assessments, emphasizing that such determinations are primarily within the trial court’s domain, which is in the best position to evaluate conflicting testimonies.
The Court rejected petitioner’s arguments. First, the Municipal Treasurer’s liquidation of the cash advances by issuing vouchers receipted by petitioner did not constitute petitioner’s own liquidation; he remained obligated to account for and prove the lawful use of the funds. Second, petitioner qualified as an accountable officer because he received public funds in the discharge of his duties, obligating him to account for them, regardless of his official title. The evidence, including discrepancies between the materials allegedly purchased (cement, sand, gravel, iron bars) and the repairs claimed (which would require plywood and lumber), supported the conclusion that the funds were not used for their intended purpose. Thus, the prima facie evidence of misappropriation stood unrebutted.