GR L 60884; (November, 1987) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-60884 November 5, 1987
PEDRO BACASNOT Y CALIAO, petitioner, vs. THE HON. SANDIGANBAYAN & THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Pedro Bacasnot was the Operation and Grains Stock Control Officer of the National Food Authority (NFA) in Malaybalay, Bukidnon, an accountable officer required to post a bond. A 1979 audit by the Commission on Audit (COA) revealed massive shortages in his accountability for stocks of corn, palay, rice, and empty sacks, initially valued at over P4.4 million. After a formal demand and petitioner’s reply attributing the shortages to poor storage, bumper harvests, natural elements, and infestation, the COA recalculated using tolerable allowances for uncontrollable factors. The recalculation still confirmed a net shortage of P3,900,961.39. The Sandiganbayan convicted him of malversation of public funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner is guilty of malversation through misappropriation, embezzlement, or conversion of public funds or property.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. Under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, the failure of an accountable public officer to have public funds or property forthcoming upon lawful demand constitutes prima facie evidence of malversation. The legal logic is that direct proof of misappropriation is not required; a shortage that remains unexplained suffices for conviction. Petitioner admitted the shortage but offered explanations like infestation and poor storage. However, the COA’s recalculation already accounted for tolerable losses from such factors, yet a substantial shortage remained. Crucially, the unexplained disappearance of P361,020.72 worth of empty sacks, which cannot be consumed by insects or totally destroyed by the elements, strongly indicates misappropriation. Furthermore, the prosecution presented evidence of specific irregularities in petitioner’s records, such as altered and cancelled warehouse receipts, rebagged palay mixed with soil and gravel, and poor documentation, which reveal a scheme to conceal losses. These acts contradict good faith and satisfactorily rebut his proffered excuses. Consequently, the prima facie presumption of malversation stands unrebutted, and his guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt.