GR 172274; (November, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 172274 November 16, 2006
ROMEO D. CABARLO, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Romeo D. Cabarlo, the Deputy Provincial and Municipal Treasurer of Isulan, Sultan Kudarat, was charged with Malversation of Public Funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code. A Commission on Audit (COA) audit revealed a shortage of P4,307,200.00 in the General Fund, Cash Fund, and Special Education Fund under his accountability. When required to explain, petitioner sought an internal audit from the Provincial Treasurer, who, after examining only petitioner’s Cash Book, found no shortage. The Office of the Ombudsman found prima facie evidence, leading to his prosecution. The Regional Trial Court convicted him, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner’s conviction for malversation and in denying his motion for a new trial to present additional vouchers for liquidation.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. On the substantive charge, all elements of malversation were proven: petitioner was a public officer with custody of public funds, a shortage was established by the COA’s comprehensive audit reconciling his books with municipal accounting records, and he failed to account for the missing amount. The internal audit he relied upon was deemed incomplete as it considered only his cash book, not the full accounting records. His failure to explain the shortage gave rise to the presumption under Article 217 that he misappropriated the funds, which he did not rebut.
Regarding the procedural issue, the motion for new trial was correctly denied. The vouchers petitioner sought to present were not newly discovered evidence but were in existence and could have been presented with reasonable diligence during trial. Their purported purpose was to refute the COA findings by showing liquidation of cash advances, which pertains to the very fact of shortage that was the core of the prosecution’s case and should have been addressed during the initial proceedings. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the denial. The penalty imposed by the trial court, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, was also affirmed as correct.