G.R. No. 81337 ; August 16, 1991
RICHARD V. PETRALBA, petitioner, vs. THE SANDIGANBAYAN and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Richard V. Petralba, the Officer-in-Charge of the Municipal Treasury of Alcoy, Cebu, was subjected to a cash audit upon his turnover of duty on March 15, 1981. The audit team found a shortage of P50,447.06 in his accounts. Upon demand, petitioner presented various vouchers to liquidate part of this amount. The auditors allowed vouchers worth P21,348.87 but disallowed others totaling P22,119.97 for lack of administrative approval. Consequently, his accountable shortage was reduced to P29,098.19, for which he was charged with malversation of public funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code. During pre-trial, petitioner admitted the factual findings of the audit, including the existence of the shortage, but denied liability, promising to explain during trial.
At trial, the prosecution relied on the stipulated facts and documentary evidence. The Sandiganbayan found that petitioner successfully explained the disallowed P22,119.97 by showing the vouchers were supported by receipts or signed by payees. However, he failed to account for the remaining balance of P6,978.22. The court convicted him of malversation. Petitioner appealed, arguing the Sandiganbayan erred in relying on the audit report over his own summary of transactions and in not crediting certain additional vouchers.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan correctly convicted petitioner of malversation based on the unexplained shortage of P6,978.22.

RULING

Yes, the conviction is proper. The legal logic is anchored on the prima facie evidence rule under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code. When a public officer fails to have duly forthcoming public funds or property upon demand, and cannot provide a satisfactory explanation, the law presumes they have misappropriated the funds for personal use. Here, petitioner, as an accountable officer, admitted the audit findings showing a shortage. His attempt to discredit the official audit report with his self-serving summary was correctly rejected by the Sandiganbayan, as he had previously acknowledged and signed the audit findings, estopping him from later impugning its veracity.
Furthermore, his claim that additional vouchers were not considered is unfounded. The court found these vouchers were already included in the amounts previously allowed by the auditors during the reduction of his shortage from P50,447.06 to P29,098.19. Since petitioner could only explain P22,119.97 of the P29,098.19 shortage, the unexplained P6,978.22 stands as prima facie evidence of misappropriation. His failure to overturn this presumption with clear and convincing evidence warranted his conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s decision but modified the penalty, sentencing his estate to indemnify the government for the unexplained amount.