G.R. No. 184908 ; July 3, 2013
Major Joel G. Cantos, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Major Joel G. Cantos, Commanding Officer of the 22nd Finance Service Center, Presidential Security Group, was charged with Malversation of Public Funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code. The Information alleged that on or about December 21, 2000, he willfully misappropriated public funds amounting to ₱3,270,000.00 entrusted to him by reason of his office. The prosecution established that Major Cantos, as an accountable officer, received and encashed a check for personnel allowances and combined this with other funds, placing the total cash in a duffel bag inside a steel cabinet in his office instead of the available safety vault.
The defense presented a different narrative. Major Cantos testified that he discovered the money missing on December 21, 2000. He claimed his subordinate, Major Eligio Balao, suggested making it appear the money was stolen from the safety vault and even began unscrewing it. Cantos asserted he was not the only one with access to his office and that he did not use the vault because his predecessor informed him it was defective. After discovery, an investigation was conducted, and a polygraph examination was administered to Cantos.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan correctly affirmed petitioner Major Joel G. Cantos’s conviction for the crime of Malversation of Public Funds.

RULING

Yes, the Sandiganbayan’s affirmation of conviction is correct. The Supreme Court upheld the finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In malversation cases under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, the elements are: (1) the offender is a public officer, (2) he has custody or control of funds or property by reason of his office, (3) the funds or property are public, and (4) he has appropriated, taken, misappropriated, or consented, through abandonment or negligence, to their taking. The court emphasized that when a public officer is an accountable officer for public funds and a shortage is shown, the presumption under Article 217 arises that he misappropriated the funds. The burden then shifts to the officer to present evidence that the loss was not due to his personal misappropriation, criminal negligence, or consent.
Here, Major Cantos, an accountable officer, admitted the shortage. His explanation for the loss—theft by an unknown person—was found unsatisfactory and incredible by both the trial court and the Sandiganbayan. His failure to use the functional safety vault, his act of storing a large sum in an insecure steel cabinet, and the unrestricted access to his office constituted gross negligence, if not consent to the taking. The presumption of malversation stood unrebutted. Direct evidence of personal misappropriation is not required; the accused’s inability to explain the shortage satisfactorily suffices for conviction. The petition was denied, and the Sandiganbayan decision was affirmed.