G.R. No. L-6201; April 20, 1954
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FELIPE A. LIVARA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Felipe A. Livara was the provincial disbursing officer of the Philippine Constabulary in Romblon from January 1947 to July 22, 1948. On July 22, 1948, he came to Manila, secured a Treasury Warrant for over P8,000 from Camp Crame, and cashed it. In November 1948, an examination of his accounts by Major Emilio Baldia revealed a net shortage of P9,597. A board of officers investigated and recommended his prosecution for malversation. An information was filed on September 10, 1949. At trial, prosecution evidence established the shortage. Provincial Auditor Aproniano S. Celajes testified that as of July 16, 1948, appellant’s accountability showed a balance of P14,984, represented by cash and vouchers. Capt. Teofilo V. Dayao testified that in August 1948, appellant’s safe was sealed and brought to Manila, where it was opened and found to contain no cash. Appellant, as lone defense witness, claimed he lost a portfolio containing the money (over P8,000 from the warrant plus about P1,000 more) and documents while riding a jeepney in Manila bound for North Harbor. The trial court found his story incredible, noting he had admitted liability and even used a false check in an effort to pay. He was convicted of malversation.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of First Instance of Romblon had jurisdiction over the case, given that the accused was a member of the Philippine Constabulary.
2. Whether the last paragraph of Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides that failure to have public funds forthcoming upon demand is prima facie evidence of personal use, is unconstitutional for violating the presumption of innocence.

RULING

1. On jurisdiction: The civil courts and courts-martial have concurrent jurisdiction over offenses committed by a member of the Armed Forces in violation of military and public law. The first court to take cognizance of the case does so to the exclusion of the other. Since the accused was first tried and convicted by the Court of First Instance of Romblon, he cannot now claim the action should have been brought before a court-martial.
2. On constitutionality: The constitutional challenge to the last paragraph of Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code is without merit. Its validity has been upheld in People vs. Mingoa (92 Phil., 856), which held that there is no constitutional objection to a law providing that the presumption of innocence may be overcome by a contrary presumption founded on human experience, and enacting what evidence shall be sufficient to overcome it.
The court found the appellant’s explanation for the loss of the portfolio incredible and affirmed that the shortage constituted prima facie evidence of personal use under Article 217. The judgment of conviction was affirmed.