G.R. No. 71581 March 21, 1990
Carmen Labatagos, petitioner, vs. Hon. Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Carmen Labatagos was the cashier and collecting officer of the Mindanao State University (MSU) in General Santos City. A Commission on Audit (COA) examination of her accounts for specified periods in 1978 and 1979-1980 revealed a total shortage of P105,711.94. The audit reports, which detailed the unremitted collections, were signed by Labatagos without exception. Subsequent demand letters for her to explain the shortages were also signed by her, but she failed to provide any justification.
At trial, Labatagos presented several defenses. She claimed she signed the audit reports under the mistaken belief her shortage was only P2,000. She argued she could not be accountable for collections during her maternity leave, that several disbursements were not credited to her, and that portions of the missing funds were taken by her superiors for official purposes, supported by informal receipts or chits. The Sandiganbayan rejected these defenses, finding her guilty of malversation of public funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of the petitioner for the crime of malversation of public funds has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes, the Sandiganbayan correctly convicted the petitioner. The legal logic rests on the prima facie presumption of malversation under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, which arises when a public officer fails to account for public funds upon demand. Here, the audit established a cash shortage, and Labatagos failed to satisfactorily explain the missing amounts despite demand. Her defenses were properly found unmeritorious by the trial court.
The claim of signing the reports under a misunderstanding is belied by the clear figures stated therein. The accountability for funds collected during her leave remained with her as the designated cashier, especially as evidence showed she received and was responsible for turn-overs from her substitute. The alleged disbursements for refunds, uniforms, and other items were correctly disallowed for lack of proper official vouchers and supporting documentation. Crucially, the Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s ruling that malversation is committed not only by personal misappropriation but also by knowingly permitting others to take such funds. Even assuming her superiors received money via informal chits, her failure to secure proper documentation and her allowing the diversion constituted gross negligence, making her liable. The petition, raising essentially factual issues, was denied, and the conviction affirmed.