G.R. Nos. 112761-65. February 3, 1997.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PORFERIO M. PEPITO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Porferio Pepito, the Acting Postmaster of Iligan City, was charged with five counts of Malversation of Public Funds through Falsification of Official Documents. An audit of his postal money order transactions for specific months in 1975 and 1976 revealed cash shortages totaling over P100,000. The audit team discovered that appellant’s records listed numerous postal money orders as paid, but these entries were not supported by the corresponding paid cards, which are the primary evidence of payment. Appellant was formally notified of the shortages and demanded to restitute the funds and explain the discrepancies, but he failed to do so.
During trial, after the prosecution rested its case, appellant moved to suspend proceedings, claiming he had been conditionally granted amnesty under P.D. 1082. The trial court denied the motion, finding the amnesty inapplicable as it covered political offenses, not the crimes of malversation and falsification with which he was charged. Appellant was subsequently convicted by the trial court, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the trial court erred in convicting appellant of malversation through falsification and in denying his motion to suspend proceedings based on a conditional amnesty grant.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. On the amnesty issue, the Court upheld the trial court’s denial of the motion to suspend proceedings. Presidential Decree No. 1082 grants amnesty for political offenses. The crimes of malversation of public funds and falsification of official documents, being common crimes not committed in furtherance of a political belief, are expressly excluded from its coverage. Therefore, the conditional amnesty was correctly deemed inapplicable, and the trial court properly continued with the proceedings.
On the merits, the Court found the conviction solidly based on evidence. In malversation cases under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, the accountable officer’s failure to account for public funds upon demand, absent a satisfactory explanation, gives rise to a presumption of misappropriation. The audit established appellant’s cash shortages. His failure to restitute the amounts or provide a valid justification upon official demand conclusively proved his guilt. The falsification was inherent in his act of manipulating official records to conceal the malversation. The Court also correctly rejected appellant’s claim of voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance, as the records showed he was arrested and detained pursuant to a court order.