G.R. No. 94408 ; February 14, 1991
EMILIANO CIMAFRANCA, JR., petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (Second Division) and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Emiliano Cimafranca, Jr., a former Provincial Fisheries Inspector of Bohol, was issued a revolver and a Briggs and Stratton engine as accountable public property. Upon the expiration of his temporary appointment on May 2, 1986, he was advised to return these properties. Despite follow-up demand letters from the Officer-In-Charge of the Treasurer’s Office in June 1986 and from an audit team in July 1986, petitioner failed to produce the items. Consequently, an information for Malversation of Public Property under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code was filed against him.
During his trial, petitioner claimed the engine was stolen after he placed it behind a convent and that the revolver fell into the sea during patrol. He alleged a diligent search for both items. Notably, on July 14, 1989, after the information was filed and during the trial, he returned the revolver and engine to the Provincial Treasurer. The Sandiganbayan convicted him, appreciating the belated return as a mitigating circumstance analogous to voluntary surrender but not as a ground for acquittal.

ISSUE

Whether an accountable public officer is criminally liable for malversation when he fails to return public property upon demand, even if he returns the property after the filing of the information and during the trial.

RULING

Yes, the petitioner is criminally liable. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the crime of malversation was consummated at the moment petitioner, an accountable officer, failed to produce the public properties upon lawful demand. The essence of the crime under Article 217 is the failure of a accountable officer to have duly forthcoming public funds or property when demanded. The subsequent return of the property does not extinguish criminal liability; it is not a justifying or exempting circumstance. At best, it may be considered a mitigating circumstance, but only if done voluntarily and promptly.
In this case, the Court found the return was not prompt. The properties were returned only after several years and after the criminal proceedings had commenced, which the Court viewed as a desperate act after realizing the weakness of his defense. The engine was returned as scrap and the revolver needed rebluing, indicating misappropriation or permitting another to take the property. Thus, the Sandiganbayan correctly convicted him. The Court only modified the maximum penalty to eleven years and six months of prision mayor, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and affirmed the fine and other penalties.