Facts:
On December 28, 1988, a COA audit team led by Auditor I Arlene R. Mandin conducted a cash examination on Zenon R. Perez, the acting municipal treasurer of Tubigon, Bohol. The audit revealed a shortage of P72,784.57 in the funds Perez was supposed to have on hand. Perez explained the shortage verbally by saying parts of the money were used to pay for his brother’s loan, for his family’s food, and for his medication. On January 16 and February 1989, Perez made multiple remittances totaling the shortfall amount, effectively restoring the cash he was accountable for. Despite this, an administrative case was still filed against him on February 13, 1989, and Perez faced criminal charges for malversation of public funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code before the Sandiganbayan.
Perez pleaded not guilty and his counsel sought postponement of the pre-trial, which proceeded despite his absence due to the presence of the prosecution witness, Auditor Mandin. Perez’s defense was that the shortage was in the custody of his accountable personnel and that the government did not suffer any damage since the amount was eventually deposited with the Provincial Treasurer, evidenced by official receipts.
The Sandiganbayan convicted Perez on September 24, 2003, sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty of ten years and one day of prision mayor as a minimum to fourteen years and eight months of reclusion temporal as a maximum. Perez appealed, arguing that the delay of over thirteen years in deciding his case violated his rights to a speedy disposition of his case and due process.
Issues:
1. Whether Perez was correctly convicted of malversation.
2. Whether there was a violation of the rights to speedy trial and disposition, due process, and against cruel and unusual punishment.
Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court affirmed Perez’s conviction for malversation, emphasizing that the burden of evidence shifted to Perez to rebut the prima facie presumption of malversation. The Court found no merit in Perez’s contentions regarding the violation of rights to a speedy trial and due process, applying the “balancing test” and concluding that Perez himself did not demonstrate a desire for a speedy disposition. Furthermore, the Court held that the law applied in convicting Perez was not cruel, inhuman, or unconstitutional, and that malversation is punishable regardless of whether the misappropriated funds were returned.
Doctrine:
1. The act, declaration, or omission of a party regarding a relevant fact is admissible against him.
2. The presumption of malversation is rebuttable by sufficient evidence showcasing otherwise.
3. The balancing test is applied to determine the violation of the right to a speedy trial by considering factors like the length of delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant’s assertion of his rights, and the prejudice to the defendant.
Class Notes:
– Malversation (Article 217, RPC): Elements are (a) the offender is a public officer, (b) has custody of funds or property by reason of the duties of their office, (c) the funds or property are public in nature, for which the officer is accountable, and (d) there is appropriation, taking, misappropriation, or consent, through abandonment or negligence, allowing any other person to take such funds or property.
– Presumption of Malversation: Unexplained shortage in an accountable public officer’s accounts is prima facie evidence of conversion or misappropriation.
– Speedy Trial and Disposition of Cases: The “balancing test” involves weighing the conduct of the prosecution and defendant, considering the length of delay, reason for the delay, the assertion of the right by the defendant, and prejudice suffered by the defendant.
– Nonimpairment of Contracts: The nonimpairment clause is subject to the police power of the state.
Historical Background:
This case illustrates the judicial system’s process in dealing with corruption-related offenses within the public sector in the Philippines, highlighting the challenges in case disposition and the balancing act courts perform in protecting the rights of the accused while ensuring justice is served.
Leave a Reply