EMILIA M. MENESES, PETITIONER, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45
of the Revised Rules of Court to reverse and set aside the decision of the Sandiganbayan (Second Division) in
Criminal Case No. 14254, finding petitioner
guilty of Malversation of Public Funds.

We deny the petition.

I

The Amended Information filed against petitioner reads as
follows:

“That during the period from May to
June, 1988 in Legaspi City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, a public officer, having (sic) duly
appointed and qualified as Cashier of the Treasurer’s Office of the Province of
Albay and as such is accountable and responsible for public funds entrusted to
her by reason of her position, with grave abuse of confidence and taking
advantage of her position as such, did then
and there willfully and unlawfully misappropriate, embezzle and take away from
said public funds the total amount of TWO MILLION FIVE HUNDRED TWO THOUSAND ONE
PESO and THIRTY THREE CENTAVOS (P2,502,001.33), Philippine Currency, which she
misappropriated and converted to her personal use, to the damage and prejudice
of the government in the aforestated amount” ( Rollo, p. 25).

Upon arraignment, petitioner entered a plea of not guilty.

On June 17, 1991,
the Sandiganbayan rendered decision, finding petitioner guilty of the offense
charged. The dispositive portion of the
decision reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE,
judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Emilia Meneses y Molod GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt as principal in the offense of Malversation of Public
Funds, as defined and penalized under Article 217, paragraph 4, of the Revised
Penal Code and favorably appreciating the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender, without any aggravating circumstance in offset and after applying
the Indeterminate Sentence Law, she is hereby sentenced to suffer the
indeterminate penalty ranging from TEN
(10) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor as the minimum
to SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS, FOUR (4)
MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY OF reclusion
temporal as the maximum; to further suffer perpetual special
disqualification, to pay a fine of P2,502,001.33 equal to the amount malversed;
to indemnify the Government of the Republic of the Philippines in the amount of
P2,442,809.33 representing the amount malversed and unrestituted and to pay the
costs of this action” (Rollo, pp. 47-48).

Hence this petition.

II

Petitioner does not dispute, as a matter of fact, she adopted,
(Rollo, p. 95) the findings of facts of the Sandiganbayan, which are reproduced
as follows:

“There being no dispute as to the accused’s public position,
said fact having been established by her appointment as Cashier VI of the Provincial Treasurer’s Office of Albay,
then all that remain (sic) to be resolved is whether the shortage of
P2,502,001.33 in her accountabilities found after the audit examination
conducted by State Auditor Ernesto Ala had been duly proven by the prosecution’s evidence and,
contrariwise, whether the accused’s
explanation thereon is satisfactory enough to absolve her from any criminal
liability therefor.

From the prosecution’s evidence, the Court finds the following
facts to have been clearly and indubitably established:

1. Under Office Orders dated June 7, 1988 and
August 5, 1988, issued by Provincial Auditor Virgilio T. Verdadero, an audit
team, composed of Auditor Ernesto Ala, Norman Devora, Alex Amoranto and Adenda
Buan, was directed to conduct the audit examination of the cash and accounts of
the accused.

2. Audit examination revealed that, as of June
22, 1988, the accused had a shortage of P2,517,250.60, as determined from her
cash book. However, said shortage was
increased by P5,411.33 which was found to be due to a double entry of
disbursement (Voucher NM. 211-8805-190), dated May 31, 1988, hence, total
shortage reached P2,522,661.93.

3. During the audit examination, no cash and
valid cash items were produced by the accused to effect the shortage found in
her accountabilities.

4. On June 28, 1988, Auditor Ala sent a letter
of demand to the accused, which the latter received on July 4, 1988, per
certification of Asst. Provincial Treasurer Astrid G. Natividad.

5. In her reply, dated October 14, 1988,
accused made the following explanation:

‘This refers to your letter of June 28, 1988 as reiterated by the
Officer?in-Charge, Provincial Treasurer’s Office, in his letter of
September 27, 1988.

The amount demanded consists of various chits of several employees
of the province. However, the process
of recovering from them the amount involve needs patience, time, humanitarian
consideration. I have approached each
of them and they were willing to pay their accounts in installments and by
doing so, I was not able to submit my explanation as required due to the time
consumed. As a matter of fact, the
amount of P12,860.00 was remitted this month
and it is hoped we will be able to recuperate (sic) a substantial amount in the
days ahead. This will show our sincere
intention and desire to settle the account. It is hoped we will be given time and a responsive chord of
consideration and understanding in your heart to help and save us from this
predicament.

It is also informed that undersigned has no intention to refuse and
disobey reasonable office regulations. It is only by force of
circumstances that she could not comply with them immediately.’

6. On
November 28, 1988, the audit team submitted their Memorandum to the COA
Regional Director, containing a narration of the steps taken in the course of
their audit examination and the results thereof, with the recommendation to
institute criminal and administrative charges against the accused for failure
to account for the shortage of
P2,502,006.33.

7. Pursuant to said recommendations, the
corresponding complaint for Malversation
of Public Funds was filed by Provincial Auditor Verdadero with the
Tanodbayan on January 26, 1989, supported by the Joint Affidavit of Auditors
Ala, Devora, Amoranto and Buan, with annexes.

8. On separate occasions, commencing from June
6, 1988 up to November 28, 1988, the accused made partial restitutions
amounting to P20,660.60” (Rollo, pp. 38-41).

Petitioners defense, relying on Quizo v. Sandiganbayan,
149 SCRA 108 (1987) is that she had not benefitted a single centavo from the
missing funds; rather, said funds were disbursed as cash advances to her
co-employees in good faith and in continuance of a practice tolerated in her
office.

Petitioner’s theory need not detain us. The practice of disbursing public funds, under the
“vale” system as a defense in malversation cases, was advanced,
briefed and argued in Cabello v. Sandiganbayan, 197 SCRA 94 (1971), and found not meritorious.

In Cabello, we held that the giving of “vales”
by public officers out of their accountable funds is prohibited by P.D. No 1145,
otherwise known as the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines and
Memorandum Circular No. 570, dated June
24, 1968 of the General Auditing Office.

Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code provides that any public
officer who, by reason of the duties of his office, is accountable for public
funds or property, shall appropriate
the same, or shall take or misappropriate or shall consent,
or through abandonment or negligence, shall
permit any other person to take such public funds
or property, wholly or partially, shall be guilty of the misappropriation
or malversation of such funds or property (Underlining supplied).

Section 105 of the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines
provides:

“(1) Every officer accountable for government
property shall be liable for its money value in cases of improper or unauthorized use or misappropriation thereof, by himself or any person
for whose acts he may be responsible. He shall likewise be liable for all losses, damages, or deterioration
occasioned by negligence in the keeping or use of the property whether or not
it be at the time in his actual custody.

(2) Such Officer accountable for government funds shall be liable for all
losses resulting from the unlawful deposit, use or application thereof and for
all losses attributable to negligence in the keeping of the funds”
(Underlining supplied).

The grant of loans through the “vale” system is a clear
case of an accountable officer consenting to the improper or unauthorized use
of public funds by other persons, which is punishable by the law. To
tolerate a such practice is to give a license to every disbursing officer to
conduct a lending operation with the use of public funds.

There is no law or regulation allowing accountable officers to
extend loans to anyone against “vales” or chits given in exchange by
the borrowers. On the other hand, the
General Auditing Office (now the Commission on Audit) time and again, through
repeated office memoranda and rulings had warned against the acceptance of
“vales” or chits by any disbursing officer because such transactions
are really forms of loans (Memorandum Circular No. 570, June 24, 1968, General
Auditing Office).

To put an end to the unauthorized practice of the
“vale” system, the General Auditing Office laid down the following
rules for the observance of all concerned:

“1. A vale, IOU, chit or other form of
promissory note, is not acceptable credit to the cash account of any
accountable officer, and is at once excluded during the cash examination from among
the cash items.

2. The yellow reimbursement receipt properly used only as receipt or proof
of petty expenses in the field, should not be used to replace the general
voucher for drawing amounts which need the approval of several officials before
payment, and require adequate description of the goods or services being paid
for.

3. Cash advance asked by any auditing personnel requires the prior approval
of the Auditor General, Deputy Auditor General, or the proper department
manager” (Memorandum Circular No. 570, June 24, 1968; General Auditing
Officer).

Assuming that we accept petitioner’s claim of good faith in
giving loans to her co-employees, the amount of said loans totalled only
P1,099,073.34 by her own admission and this amount already included the loans
allegedly covered by “vales” or chits that had been lost during the
flood brought about by the typhoon that visited Legaspi City. Petitioner claims that she was able to trace
the loans and the amounts given as advances by referring to her notebook with
her handwritten entries (Exhs. “4” to “4-K”; Rollo, pp. 15-16). According to the audit
report of petitioner’s cash accountability, the cash shortage as of June 22,
1988 totalled P2,522,661.93, consisting of the General Fund, Infrastructure
Fund, Special Education Fund and Trust Fund (Exh. “C”).

So even if petitioner would be credited with the amount of
P1,099,073.34 disbursed in exchange of the “vales,” she still has to
account for the amount of P1,423,588.59.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero,
Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, and
Kapunan, JJ., concur.

Narvasa, C.J. and Cruz,
J., on leave.