GR 93885; (May, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 93885; May 14, 1991
FELIX H. CABELLO, petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Felix H. Cabello, as the Postmaster of San Juan, Southern Leyte, was subjected to an audit covering the period from August 29, 1984, to May 28, 1985. The audit examination revealed a shortage of P160,905.63 in the public funds for which he was accountable. Upon being required to produce the missing amount and to submit a written explanation within seventy-two hours, petitioner neither restituted the funds nor provided the required explanation. Consequently, he was charged with willful malversation of public funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code before the Sandiganbayan. After trial, the Sandiganbayan rendered a judgment convicting him of the crime.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether petitioner can be convicted of intentional malversation despite his claim that the shortage resulted from cash advances to employees and other office expenses, not personal use. Corollarily, he argues that he cannot be convicted of malversation through negligence since the information charged only willful malversation.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s decision. On the first issue, the Court held that under Article 217, the failure of an accountable officer to have public funds forthcoming upon demand is prima facie evidence that he put them to personal use. While this presumption is rebuttable, petitioner failed to overthrow it. The Court distinguished this case from precedents like Villacorta and Quizo, where restitution was made and advances were proven to be for legitimate purposes. Here, there was no restitution, and petitioner’s claimed disbursements, including “vales” to employees, were not shown to be for official use or sanctioned by proper procedures, thus failing to constitute a satisfactory explanation for the shortage.
On the second issue, the Court ruled that an accused charged with willful malversation can be validly convicted of malversation through negligence if the evidence supports it, citing People vs. Consigna. The variance between the mode alleged and that proved is not fatal, as the essential elements of the crime remain the same: the accused is an accountable officer, funds are missing, and he cannot give a satisfactory excuse. Furthermore, the penalty for malversation is identical whether committed with intent or through negligence. Therefore, petitioner’s conviction stands.