G.R. No. 91886; May 20, 1991
ROLANDO ANG, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, FIRST DIVISION—MANILA, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Rolando Ang, a bill collector for the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS), was charged with malversation of public funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code. The Information alleged that from September to October 1979, Ang and other accused conspired to exchange their cash collections for checks drawn in the name of co-accused Marshall Lu, which were subsequently dishonored, thereby misappropriating public funds totaling P48,291.00. Ang’s specific alleged liability pertained to P7,490.00. Following a reinvestigation, the Office of the Special Prosecutor and the Ombudsman recommended the withdrawal of the Information against Ang, finding no prima facie evidence of malversation. The Commission on Audit and MWSS interposed no objection. However, the Sandiganbayan denied the motion to withdraw, holding that probable cause existed because Ang, as an accountable officer, converted collections into a third-party check, temporarily risking the funds. Ang was arraigned, pleaded not guilty, and after trial, was convicted by the Sandiganbayan.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting petitioner Rolando Ang of malversation of public funds beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted Ang. The legal logic centers on the failure of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, a cornerstone of criminal law. Malversation under Article 217 requires proof that the accountable officer appropriated public funds for personal use or consented to their appropriation by another through fraud, negligence, or consent. Here, the prosecution’s evidence was insufficient to establish Ang’s criminal intent or participation in a conspiracy. The Court noted that while Ang’s act of allowing a senior collector to convert cash collections into checks demonstrated poor judgment or negligence, it did not constitute the fraud, malice, or deliberate conspiracy required for conviction. No evidence showed Ang was privy to a scheme or profited from the acts. The prosecution’s case relied on suspicion rather than concrete proof. The Court emphasized that the prosecution must depend on the strength of its own evidence, not on the weakness of the defense. The earlier findings by the Ombudsman and COA, indicating no prima facie evidence and no property accountability, further underscored the absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, Ang’s acquittal was warranted.