GR 61442; (May, 1989) (Digest)
G.R. No. 61442 May 9, 1989
MODESTO A. MAHINAY, petitioner, vs. THE SANDIGANBAYAN AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
The petitioner, Modesto Mahinay, was employed as Cashier I of the Butuan General Hospital. On October 13, 1977, a resident auditor examined his cash and accounts covering the period from July 1, 1973, to October 31, 1977, and found a shortage of P20,619.40. The petitioner signed the report of examination. Following a demand letter, he was charged with Malversation of Public Funds before the Sandiganbayan. He pleaded not guilty, but after trial, the court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt, sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty and ordering him to pay a fine and indemnify the government.
ISSUE
The sole issue is whether the petitioner committed malversation of public funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s decision, ruling that the petitioner was guilty of malversation. The legal logic centers on the application of the prima facie presumption under Article 217, which arises when an accountable public officer fails to have duly forthcoming public funds upon demand. The petitioner argued this presumption was rebutted because the shortage resulted from cash advances extended to co-employees via “vale” slips, a practice he claimed was tolerated. The Court, however, distinguished this case from Quizo v. Sandiganbayan, where such a defense succeeded. Here, the evidence established that the petitioner knowingly violated auditing rules. He admitted awareness of COA regulations prohibiting “vales,” continued disbursements despite the recipient’s transfer and failure to submit justifying vouchers, and manipulated cash book entries with fictitious deposits to conceal the shortages. These acts demonstrated negligence and a failure to safeguard public funds, constituting malversation through consent or permission under Article 217. Consequently, the presumption of conversion was not overthrown, as the petitioner’s actions did not constitute good faith but a violation of his duty as an accountable officer. The petition was denied.