GR 140833; (November, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 140833; November 29, 2006
LACEPI T. MAGNANAO, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Lacepi T. Magnanao, a Local Treasury Operation Officer IV of Davao City, was charged with malversation of public funds. The Information alleged that in January 1989, he received a manager’s check worth ₱45,540.19 from Sirawan Food Corporation (SFC) as payment for realty taxes, for which he issued an official receipt. However, in his subsequent liquidation report, he declared having received and remitted only ₱3,000 from SFC.
During trial, the prosecution established that petitioner, an accountable officer, received the full check amount. When required to explain the ₱42,540.19 discrepancy, petitioner claimed that only ₱3,000 was the actual tax due. He asserted he took the difference from his cash collections and returned it to SFC’s representative, replacing it with the manager’s check. The Regional Trial Court found him guilty, a conviction affirmed by the Sandiganbayan.
ISSUE
Was petitioner’s guilt for malversation of public funds proven beyond reasonable doubt?
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. All elements of malversation under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code were present: petitioner was a public officer; by reason of his office, he had custody and accountability over public funds; and he appropriated or misappropriated them. It was undisputed he received ₱45,540.19 from SFC, a public fund, as evidenced by the official receipt he issued. His admission that he remitted only ₱3,000 created a shortage in his accountability.
His defense—that he returned the excess cash—was correctly rejected by the lower courts as self-serving and unsubstantiated. His failure to have the public funds forthcoming upon the city treasurer’s demand gave rise to the prima facie presumption under Article 217 that he put such funds to personal use. Petitioner failed to rebut this presumption. The Court found his explanation illogical, noting that if he truly received only ₱3,000, issuing a receipt for ₱45,540.19 was inexplicable. The evidence, therefore, established his guilt with moral certainty. The petition was denied.