G.R. No. 136462 , September 19, 2002
Pablo N. Quiñon, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Pablo N. Quiñon, the Station Commander of the Calinog, Iloilo PC/INP, was charged with malversation of public property under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code. The Information alleged that on or about March 14, 1988, he received in his official capacity two .38 caliber pistols and one 12-gauge shotgun, valued at P15,000.00, and with grave abuse of confidence, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously applied and converted them to his personal use and benefit. The firearms were issued to him under Memorandum Receipts by reason of his office. Upon his transfer and after an inventory by his successor, Police Sergeant Emilio Aviador, it was discovered that petitioner failed to turn over the firearms. Demands were made for their return. Petitioner surrendered one M16 rifle and one pistol, and the shotgun was later recovered from an informer. However, he failed to return the two .38 caliber pistols (Serial Nos. 310136 and 310150) valued at P11,000.00 despite demands. Petitioner pleaded not guilty but subsequently failed to appear at several hearings, leading the Sandiganbayan to consider his absence a waiver of his right to present evidence. The Sandiganbayan convicted him, and his motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether petitioner Pablo N. Quiñon, as Station Commander, is an accountable public officer under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code and can be validly convicted of malversation of public property for failing to return the government-issued firearms upon demand.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the resolution of the Sandiganbayan convicting petitioner of malversation of public property. The Court held that petitioner is an accountable public officer within the purview of Article 217. An accountable officer is one who has custody or control of public funds or property by reason of the duties of his office, and such accountability is not contingent upon being a bonded official. The decisive factor is the nature of the duties performed, which, in this case, involved the receipt and custody of government firearms, imposing upon him the obligation to account for them. The Court cited the elements of malversation and found all present: petitioner was a public officer; he had custody of the firearms by reason of his office; the firearms were public property for which he was accountable; and his failure to have them forthcoming upon demand by a duly authorized officer constituted prima facie evidence that he had put them to personal use. Since petitioner failed to adduce evidence to rebut this presumption, his conviction was proper. The penalty imposed by the Sandiganbayan, as amended—an indeterminate sentence of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, plus a fine of P11,000.00 and perpetual special disqualification—was affirmed as correct under the law.