GR 178626; (June, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. 178626 ; June 13, 2012
CECILIA U. LEGRAMA, Petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Cecilia U. Legrama, the Municipal Treasurer of San Antonio, Zambales, was subjected to a cash audit by the Commission on Audit (COA). The audit report dated October 1, 1996, revealed a total cash shortage of ₱1,152,900.75 in her accountability. This shortage included a cash shortage of ₱289,022.75, an unaccounted Internal Revenue Allotment of ₱863,878.00, and ₱709,462.80 in disbursements disallowed for lack of supporting documents. Petitioner made an initial restitution of ₱60,000.00. Consequently, an Information was filed charging her and the Municipal Mayor with Malversation of Public Funds.
The Sandiganbayan, after trial, acquitted the Mayor due to lack of evidence proving conspiracy. However, it convicted petitioner Legrama, finding her guilty of malversing ₱1,131,595.05. The court ruled that the prosecution established all elements of the crime and that petitioner failed to sufficiently explain the shortage. It sentenced her to an indeterminate penalty and ordered her to pay a fine and the balance of the shortage. Her motion for reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting petitioner of Malversation of Public Funds.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s decision. The crime of malversation under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code is established when a public officer, accountable for public funds or property, appropriates the same, or takes or misappropriates it, or consents to, or through abandonment or negligence, permits another person to take such funds. The law creates a presumption of misappropriation when a shortage is shown, and the accountable officer fails to provide a satisfactory explanation.
The Court held that all elements were present: petitioner was a public officer accountable for municipal funds; the audit conclusively established a shortage in her cash accountability; and she failed to overcome the legal presumption of misappropriation. Her defense, which attributed the shortage to unliquidated cash advances and disallowed disbursements, was correctly rejected. The Court emphasized that the failure of an accountable officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property upon demand is prima facie evidence of misappropriation. Petitioner’s restitution of a portion of the amount, while considered a mitigating circumstance, does not absolve her of criminal liability. The Sandiganbayan correctly applied the law and its factual findings are accorded finality.