G.R. No. 241383, June 08, 2020
Nida P. Corpuz, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Nida P. Corpuz, a Revenue Officer I of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) in Alabel, Sarangani Province, was charged with Malversation of Public Funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code. The Information alleged that from January to December 1995, through negligence, she allowed Rolinda Bantawig, another BIR officer, to take and appropriate P2,873,669.00, which she failed to return despite demand. A Special Audit revealed a total misappropriation of P2,873,669.00, consisting of P2,684,997.60 from tampered official receipts and P188,671.40 as cash shortage under petitioner’s accountability. Petitioner pleaded not guilty. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found her guilty of malversation through negligence, specifically for failing to account for the cash shortage of P188,671.40, despite her defense that the tampered receipts were issued by Bantawig and that the cash shortage was not for her personal use. The RTC sentenced her to imprisonment and ordered her to pay a fine and indemnity. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing her right to be informed of the charge was violated and that the RTC lacked jurisdiction.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s Decision which found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Malversation of Public Funds.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA Decision with modification. The Court held that all elements of malversation through negligence were proven: (1) petitioner was a public officer accountable for public funds; (2) she was accountable for the funds by reason of her office; (3) she misappropriated, consented, or, through negligence, permitted the misappropriation of said funds; and (4) the audit showed a cash shortage of P188,671.40 under her accountability, which she failed to satisfactorily explain or produce upon demand. Her failure to account for the shortage upon demand constituted prima facie evidence of malversation. The Court rejected her arguments, ruling that the Information sufficiently informed her of the charge and that the RTC had jurisdiction. Applying Republic Act No. 10951, which adjusted penalties, the Court modified the indeterminate penalty to two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum. She was also ordered to pay a fine of P188,671.40 with 6% interest from finality until full satisfaction, and suffered perpetual special disqualification.