PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. AMELIA DE PABLO GUTIERREZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Gutierrez versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This is the case of People of the Philippines versus Amelia de Pablo Gutierrez, a criminal prosecution for malversation of public funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code. Gutierrez was a Revenue Collection Clerk III of Balayan, Batangas, and the Office of the Ombudsman charged her before the Regional Trial Court with several counts of malversation for withholding collections entrusted to her as liquidating officer. The case matters to a reviewee because it gathers in one decision the elements of malversation, the prima facie presumption that missing funds were put to personal use, and the rule that restitution after the fact does not wipe out criminal liability.

Procedural History

The Ombudsman filed the charges against Gutierrez before the Regional Trial Court of Balayan, Batangas. When arraigned, she pleaded not guilty to all charges, and pre-trial was conducted. After trial, the Regional Trial Court rendered judgment finding her guilty beyond reasonable doubt in one criminal case, with two mitigating circumstances in her favor, and acquitting her in six other cases for failure of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Gutierrez appealed, assigning as reversible error that the trial court erred in finding her guilty beyond reasonable doubt of malversation. The appeal reached the Supreme Court, which decided the case through its Third Division.

Facts

Gutierrez had been in government service for some years and was the Revenue Collection Clerk III of Balayan, Batangas in 1998. She was designated liquidating officer under the Office of the Municipal Treasurer. Among her duties were to verify the Daily Statement of Collections and Accountable Forms, to prepare the Report of Collections by Liquidating Officer, and to turn over the cash collections intact before the close of business day.

At the end of each day, the collectors remitted to Gutierrez, as liquidating officer, all the amounts they had collected, together with the duplicate official receipts and the Daily Statements of Collections and Accountable Forms. Gutierrez withheld certain amounts of these collections and changed the daily statements so that they would tally with what she remitted to the Municipal Treasurer. She also falsified the signatures of the collectors on the daily statements. By this scheme she skimmed sums that accumulated to 103,989 pesos and 59 centavos, which she failed to turn over upon demand.

On June 29, 1998, under a Cash Examination Order of the Provincial Auditor, an audit team examined the cash accounts of the Municipality of Balayan and its accountable officers. The team detected the discrepancies by comparing the post-audited official receipts with the daily statements and the accountable forms on stock. The triplicate copies of the receipts were signed by Gutierrez, signifying her receipt of the amounts reflected therein. Demand letters were sent, and the matter was brought to the Municipal Mayor and Treasurer. The charges against the other officer, Adoracion Confiado, were dismissed, while those against Gutierrez prospered. She later paid the full amount of 109,989 pesos and 59 centavos, corresponding to the subject matter of all the cases.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt all the essential elements of malversation of public funds against Gutierrez.
• Whether or not her belated payment of the amount malversed extinguishes her criminal liability.

Applicable Provisions

Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, as discussed in the decision, defines and penalizes malversation of public funds. The Court distilled its elements as follows:

The essential elements of malversation are that: (1) the offender is a public officer; (2) he has the custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his office; (3) the funds or property involved are public funds or property for which he is accountable; and (4) he has appropriated, taken or misappropriated, or has consented to, or through abandonment or negligence permitted, the taking by another person of such funds or property.

These elements are the framework against which the evidence in this case was measured, and the Court found each of them proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the prosecution proved all the essential elements of malversation beyond reasonable doubt, mostly through admissions on the part of Gutierrez. She was a public officer; she had custody and control of the collections by reason of her duties as liquidating officer; the funds were public funds for which she was accountable; and she appropriated them by withholding amounts and altering the daily statements. Her defense was essentially denial, claiming that the discrepancies went unnoticed because of the voluminous accounts and transactions. The Court held that with her admission it became incumbent on her to prove her defense by substantial evidence, and that her defense was weak and did not even overwhelm the prima facie presumption that she had put the missing funds to her personal use.

On the second issue, the Court held that her belated surrender of the malversed amount did not exonerate her, because payment or reimbursement after the commission of the crime affects only the civil liability of the offender and does not extinguish criminal liability. Rather, the Court said, it even confirms her guilt. The Court quoted the rule as follows:

Her belated surrender of the malversed amount does not serve to exonerate her for in malversation of public funds or estafa, payment, indemnification, or reimbursement of, or compromise as to, the amounts or funds malversed or misappropriated, after the commission of the crime, affects only the civil liability of the offender but does not extinguish his criminal liability.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, malversation of public funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code has four elements: the offender is a public officer; he has custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his office; the funds or property are public funds or property for which he is accountable; and he appropriated, took or misappropriated them, or permitted another to take them through abandonment or negligence. Second, once the prosecution establishes that the accountable officer received the funds and they were not duly forthcoming upon demand, a prima facie presumption arises that the missing funds were put to personal use, and the burden shifts to the accused to rebut it by substantial evidence. Third, payment, indemnification, reimbursement, or compromise after the commission of malversation affects only the civil liability and does not extinguish the criminal liability; it may even confirm guilt.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the decision of the trial court finding Gutierrez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of malversation in the one case, with two mitigating circumstances, and acquitting her in the six other cases.

Remember This

Memorize the line that restitution after the fact affects only civil liability and does not extinguish criminal liability in malversation; it even confirms guilt. Examiners like to use this case to test the four elements of malversation and the prima facie presumption that missing accountable funds were put to personal use.