GR 211543; (December, 2015) (Digest)
G.R. No. 211543, December 09, 2015
Domingo G. Panganiban, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Domingo G. Panganiban, then Municipal Mayor of Sta. Cruz, Laguna, obtained a cash advance of PHP 500,000.00 in May 2006 to finance an official trip to Adelaide, South Australia. The trip did not materialize. A Commission on Audit (COA) audit subsequently revealed the cash advance remained unliquidated. Upon demand, Panganiban arranged for the amount to be settled through salary deductions during his term. By the end of his term in June 2007, a balance of PHP 256,318.45 remained. This balance was later fully paid in November 2007 via deduction from his terminal leave benefits.
An Information for Malversation of Public Funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code was filed against him before the Sandiganbayan. The prosecution established that Panganiban, a accountable officer, failed to liquidate the cash advance for the intended purpose. The defense argued good faith, highlighting the salary deduction arrangement and eventual full restitution.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan correctly convicted petitioner of malversation of public funds despite his eventual restitution of the amount.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The crime of malversation is consummated the moment the accountable officer fails to account for public funds upon demand. The elements are: (1) the offender is a public officer; (2) he has custody or control of funds by reason of his office; (3) the funds are public; and (4) he has appropriated, taken, or permitted their taking. The prosecution proved all elements. Panganiban, as Mayor, was an accountable officer for the cash advance. The funds were public, and his failure to properly liquidate them upon lawful COA demand constituted prima facie evidence of misappropriation.
Restitution does not extinguish criminal liability; it is merely a mitigating circumstance under Article 217. The law penalizes the breach of trust by a public officer. The Court emphasized that allowing restitution to absolve guilt would undermine the fiduciary nature of holding public funds. The Sandiganbayan correctly applied the penalty, considering restitution as mitigation. The conviction stands as a judicial affirmation that accountability for public funds is a strict duty, and subsequent repayment mitigates but does not nullify the penal consequences of its violation.