G.R. No. 205693 February 14, 2018
MANUEL M. VENEZUELA, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Manuel M. Venezuela was the Municipal Mayor of Pozorrubio, Pangasinan. An audit for the period December 4, 1997, to June 10, 1998, revealed a shortage of Php 2,872,808.00 in the joint account of Venezuela and the Municipal Treasurer. The audit team discovered 17 illegal cash advances made by Venezuela, lacking essential supporting documents and made despite his lack of bond or authorization. The amounts also exceeded Php 1,000.00 but were paid in cash, violating COA rules. Demand letters were issued, to which Venezuela admitted accountability for only Php 943,200.00. He was subsequently charged with Malversation of Public Funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code.
During trial, prosecution witnesses, including the state auditor, affirmed the shortage and the illegality of the cash advances. The Municipal Accountant confirmed Venezuela’s signatures on the disbursement vouchers. Venezuela claimed he had liquidated his advances and even made partial payments, presenting official receipts. However, a rebuttal witness from the Treasurer’s Office testified that the receipts presented were for different transactions and not for the liquidation of the specific cash advances in question.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan correctly convicted petitioner Venezuela of the crime of Malversation of Public Funds.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The legal logic rests on the prima facie evidence of malversation established under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code. When a public officer is accountable for public funds and a shortage is discovered upon audit, and the officer fails to provide a satisfactory explanation for the missing funds, the law presumes the funds were put to personal use. Here, the audit conclusively established a shortage in Venezuela’s account. His defense of liquidation and payment failed because the official receipts he presented were convincingly shown by the prosecution’s rebuttal witness to pertain to other transactions and not to the liquidation of the specific cash advances subject of the audit. His failure to account for the shortage, coupled with the prima facie presumption, sufficiently established his guilt.
The Court also applied the principle that malversation may be committed with negligence. Given that the cash advances were illegal from inception for lacking supporting documents and authorization, Venezuela’s failure to properly account for them constituted gross negligence amounting to malversation. The penalty was modified pursuant to Republic Act No. 10951 , which adjusted the fines under the Revised Penal Code. The Court imposed an indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, with accessory penalties, and ordered him to pay a fine and indemnify the government.