G.R. Nos. 148682-85 November 30, 2005
People of the Philippines vs. Angel A. Enfermo

FACTS

Appellant Angel A. Enfermo, a Disbursing Officer II at the National Research Council of the Philippines (NRCP), was charged with two counts of Malversation through Falsification of Public Documents and two counts of Malversation. For the falsification charges, evidence established that in 1993, the NRCP issued legitimate checks to researchers Aurora Dacanay and Jose Bernaldez, which they duly received and encashed. Subsequently, appellant caused the issuance of duplicate checks for the same amounts and supported by the same vouchers. He then encashed these second checks at a Land Bank branch by forging the payees’ signatures and signing his own name as receiving the payment, misappropriating the proceeds. For the simple malversation charges, evidence showed appellant failed to turn over the salary of employee Mary Christine Avanzado and the productivity pay of Lanie P. Manalo, admitting to them that he had used the money for personal purposes.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved appellant’s guilt for the crimes of Malversation through Falsification and Simple Malversation beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the appellant’s conviction. For Malversation through Falsification, the Court ruled that the prosecution successfully proved all elements. Appellant, a public officer, took advantage of his position as disbursing officer to facilitate the issuance of duplicate checks. His act of forging the payees’ signatures on the checks and signing as recipient constituted falsification of a commercial document. The subsequent encashment and misappropriation of the funds, which were under his custody by virtue of his office, completed the crime. The Court held that the failure to present a handwriting expert was not fatal, as the payees’ testimonies that they did not receive or sign the second checks, coupled with appellant’s own signatures on the checks as recipient, sufficiently established the forgery.
For Simple Malversation, the Court found the elements present. Appellant, a public officer accountable for public funds, had the salaries and incentives of Avanzado and Manalo in his custody. By failing to deliver these funds upon demand and admitting he used them for personal obligations, he was deemed to have misappropriated them. His failure to account for the funds, coupled with his admissions, gave rise to the presumption of malversation under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, which he failed to rebut. The Court modified the penalties, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Appellant was sentenced to imprisonment and ordered to pay fines and indemnities, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.