GR 132926; (July, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 132926, July 20, 2001
Elvira Agullo, petitioner, vs. Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Elvira Agullo, the Disbursing Officer of the Ministry of Public Works and Highways (MPWH), Regional Office No. VIII, was charged with malversation of public funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code. An audit on July 14, 1986, revealed a cash shortage of P26,404.26 in her accountability. She was immediately informed of this shortage via a letter of demand. During pre-trial, petitioner admitted the fact of the audit and the cash shortage as stated in the Information but pleaded not guilty, denying she malversed or converted the funds for personal use. Her defense was that the shortage resulted from a “fortuitous event,” claiming the money could have been stolen when she suffered a stroke on October 22, 1985, in Tacloban City. She presented testimonial and documentary evidence, including a medical certificate, to support her claim of having a stroke and letters protesting salary deductions for restitution. The Sandiganbayan convicted her, sentencing her to an indeterminate penalty and ordering her to pay a fine and suffer perpetual special disqualification. She appealed the decision.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting petitioner of malversation of public funds despite her defense of loss due to a fortuitous event (her stroke).
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s conviction. The Court ruled that petitioner’s admission of the cash shortage during pre-trial established a prima facie case of malversation. The burden of proof then shifted to her to rebut the presumption of conversion. Her defense of loss due to a fortuitous event was deemed insufficient. The Court found her claim that the money was lost during her stroke unconvincing and not supported by credible evidence. Her failure to immediately report the alleged loss to her superiors or the police further weakened her defense. The fact that restitution was made through salary deductions did not extinguish criminal liability. The Sandiganbayan correctly found her guilty beyond reasonable doubt based on the presumption arising from the shortage and her failure to satisfactorily explain it.