G.R. No. 166847, November 16, 2011
GUILLERMO E. CUA, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Guillermo E. Cua was a Revenue Collection Agent of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) in Olongapo City. An audit of his cash account and accountable forms for the period December 2, 1993, to June 29, 1994, was conducted. Initial findings based on his submitted documents (Revenue Official Receipts, deposit slips, and cash book) showed no cash shortage, indicating total collections of ₱340,950.37 were remitted to the Philippine National Bank (PNB). However, a mandatory bank confirmation revealed discrepancies. PNB, through its Department Manager Felixberto De Guzman, certified that three official receipts presented by petitioner had amounts different from the bank’s actual records (e.g., OR No. 977793 reported ₱163,674.87 but actual was ₱12,574.87). PNB also declared that five deposit slips (Nos. 94-5 to 94-9) for June 1994 were “not actually transacted” and void. These discrepancies resulted in a calculated cash shortage of ₱291,783.00. Upon demand by Auditor Remedios Soto, petitioner admitted the shortage in a letter dated August 23, 1994, stating he did it “to get even with the BIR” for a failed promotion and promised to pay. A special arrangement was made for the BIR to withhold his salary to settle the amount. An Information for Malversation of Public Funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code was filed. During trial, petitioner did not testify but submitted evidence of salary deductions totaling ₱291,783.00. The Regional Trial Court convicted him. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and imposing a fine.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of malversation of public funds.

RULING

Yes, the prosecution proved petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the modified decision of the Court of Appeals. The elements of malversation are present: (1) petitioner was a public officer and accountable for public funds; (2) the funds were entrusted to him by reason of his office; (3) he appropriated, took, or misappropriated them; and (4) his acts caused prejudice to the government. Petitioner’s accountability for the funds was established by his position and the audit. The prima facie presumption of malversation under Article 217 arose from the audit showing a shortage, which petitioner failed to rebut sufficiently. His defense that he made full deposits and that PNB irregularities caused the discrepancy was unsubstantiated. His own admission letter acknowledging the shortage and promising payment was a direct evidence of guilt. The Court held that restitution or payment of the shortage, while extinguishing civil liability, does not extinguish criminal liability. The penalty imposed by the CA—an indeterminate sentence of 10 years and 1 day as minimum to 17 years, 4 months and 1 day as maximum, plus a fine of ₱291,783.00—was proper.