GR L 77120; (April, 1987) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-77120. April 6, 1987. ARTURO QUIZO, petitioner, vs. THE HON. SANDIGANBAYAN, represented by HON. FRANCIS E. GARCHITORENA, LUCIANO A. JOSON, RAMON V. JABSON, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Arturo Quizo, the Money Order Teller of the Cagayan de Oro Post Office, was found by a Commission on Audit audit to have incurred a shortage of P17,421.74 in his accounts. This shortage consisted of disallowed “vales” or cash advances extended to co-employees (P16,720.00), accommodated private checks (P700.00), and an actual cash shortage (P1.74). Petitioner made full restitution of the entire amount within six days after the audit. Despite this restitution, the Tanodbayan filed an information for malversation of public funds against him before the Sandiganbayan.
Subsequently, upon petitioner’s motion, the Tanodbayan conducted a reinvestigation and filed a Motion to Dismiss, stating that no damage was inflicted on the government due to full restitution and that the accused never pocketed the money, as the shortages were vales for co-employees. The Sandiganbayan denied this motion, ruling that damage is not an element of malversation and that restitution is neither a defense nor a ground for dismissal. It also denied the motion for reconsideration.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the Tanodbayan’s Motion to Dismiss the malversation case against petitioner.
RULING
Yes, the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court emphasized the well-established doctrine that a prosecutor, by the nature of his office, possesses the discretion to determine whether the evidence suffices to support the allegations in an information. A prosecuting attorney should not be compelled to prosecute a case when, in his opinion, the evidence is insufficient to secure a conviction or he is not convinced of its merits. Here, the Tanodbayan, after reinvestigation, was convinced that dismissal was warranted, finding that petitioner never pocketed the funds and that the shortages represented tolerated cash advances to co-workers.
On the merits, the Court found that petitioner successfully rebutted the prima facie presumption of misappropriation under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code. The evidence conclusively showed that not a single centavo was used for his personal benefit; the bulk was for vales extended in good faith, a practice tolerated in his office. The actual cash shortage was minimal (P1.74), and full restitution was made promptly. Without evidence of animus lucrandi (intent to gain) or negligence approximating malice or fraud, the essential element of conversion for personal use was absent. Citing the analogous case of Villacorta vs. People, the Court held that under these circumstances, no prima facie case for malversation exists. Therefore, the Sandiganbayan’s refusal to grant the dismissal constituted a grave abuse of discretion warranting certiorari. The petition was granted and the criminal case was dismissed.