LUCILYN T. ZAMBRANO, PETITIONER, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN (SECOND DIVI­SION) AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the
decision***dated January
8, 1988 of the respondent Sandiganbayan
in Crim. Case No. 2559 entitled “People of the Philippines
v. Lucilyn Zambrano y Tesoro” which convicted petitioner of malversation
of public funds.

The petitioner was charged before the Sandiganbayan
with malversation of public funds, allegedly
committed as follows:

“That on or about and during the period from January 20, 1976 to
January 24, 1980, in Cotabato and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused LUCILYN T. ZAMBRANO, being
then employed at the National Grains Authority, now the National Food Authority
as Cashier I and designated as
Special Disbursing Officer at Cotabato City and as such, accountable for the public
funds collected and received by reason of her position, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and with grave abuse of confidence,
misappropriate, misapply and embezzle and convert to her own personal use and
benefit from said funds the sum of
ONE MILLION TWO HUNDRED SEVEN THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED THIRTY FIVE PESOS AND
NINETEEN CENTAVOS (P1,207,835.19), Philippine Currency, to the damage and
prejudice of the National Grains Authority, now the National Food Authority.

“ALL CONTRARY TO LAW.” (Original Record, p. 1; Rollo,
pp. 6-7).

On August 28, 1986,
the Sandiganbayan rendered a decision convicting
petitioner for malversation of public funds (Original
Record, pp. 301-341) but petitioner filed a motion for new trial (Ibid., pp. 348-350) and said
motion was granted in a resolution issued by the Sandiganbayan
on October 13, 1986 (Ibid.,
pp. 363-366).

Upon arraignment, the accused-petitioner Lucilyn
T. Zambrano entered a plea of not guilty to the crime
charged (Ibid., pp. 28; 30-31).

The trial of the case ensued.

The prosecution’s lone witness, Carlito
Capinpin, an auditor of the COA assigned in National
Food Authority (NFA) whose duties were to pre-audit, and post-audit claims and
disbursements of accountable officers in said office, declared that he
conducted an audit examination of the accounts and accountabilities of the
accused comprising the period from January 20, 1976 to January 24, 1980 after
receipt of a copy of “Cash on Hand Per Count Report” made by the resident
auditor.  He and together with the other
members of the special audit team created by NFA who conducted the
investigation, divided the work by the assignment of a particular account to
audit to each of them and came up with a report, the results of which may be
summarized in the following manner:

The cash advances of herein petitioner under the Cereal
Procurement Fund (CPF) as Special Disbursement Officer have a total of
P10,543,165.56 while her cash disbursements amounted to P10,115,620.49, leaving
a shortage of P427,545.07.  Her
operational funds from January 20,
1976 to January 24, 1980
amounted to P13,019,344.78 while credits to her accountability totalled P12,442,951.82, thus leaving a shortage of P576,392.96.  Her record of collections and deposits for
the same period shows that she had debits to her accountability in the total amount of P13,305,659.18,
whereas the credits thereto amounted to P13,101,762.02.  Thus, there is a shortage of
P203,897.16.  All these shortages reached
a total of P1,207,835.19.  (Hearing of August 3, 1981, TSN, 9-21;
Hearing of February 28, 1984, TSN, pp. 93-97).

When asked to explain the entries in the Audit Examination
Report, Capinpin clarified each and every item under
investigation, such as:  Cereal
Procurement Fund which is the summary of the accountabilities of the accused as
special disbursing officer for the period covered, July 30, 1977 to January 24, 1980. 
Debit to accountability refers to the cash advances and replenishments
made by the special disbursing officer to serve as her fund for the purchase of
palay in connection with the procurement operation of
the NFA.  The advances were in the form
of cash supported by cash vouchers, replenishment vouchers which are also
supported by purchase receipts.  These
purchase receipts were the actual expenses or disbursements made by the special
disbursing officer for the procured palay in her
capacity as special disbursing officer (Hearing of February 28, 1964, TSN, pp.
66-68).

In view of the shortage found, a demand letter was sent to Lucilyn Zambrano dated July 2, 1980 requiring her to
restitute or pay the said shortage.  To
date no restitution has been made by the accused (Hearing of August 3, 1981,
TSN, pp. 9-21).

On clarificatory questions made by the
Court, Capinpin admitted that the report submitted by
the team does not contain references or cross references to the pertinent
supporting documents.  What was embodied
in the transmittal letter was the total accountability on the net shortage of
the accused.  The summary of
accountability of the accused, both as disbursing
officer and as special collecting officer are duly supported by general
schedules with references to their respective amount (Decision, Crim. Case No. 2559, Rollo, p.
24).

He claimed that he personally examined all the entries contained
in the cash books, despite the absence of his signature to show that he had
actually made examinations thereon.  In going over the cash books he
counter-checked them with entries made by the accused herself, under the
columns “Treasury Warrant”, “Journal Voucher” or “Official Receipts” as against
the documents themselves, and found
that all the entries appearing in the cash books have their corresponding
vouchers (Hearing of November 26, 1984, TSN, pp. 155-156).

Capinpin further declared that (a) the
number of the vouchers representing cash advances or replenishments to the
accused are all reflected in the schedules attached to the audit report; (b)
all vouchers recorded in the registers were obtained by the team and duly
accounted for; (c) the vouchers were not only checked but the audit team saw to
it that the supporting papers were complete; and (d) the audit team followed
COA standard procedures in conducting their examination (Decision, Criminal
Case No. 2559, Rollo, p. 62).

On the other hand, the defense presented Cesario
Mateo as an expert witness, who is a Certified Public Accountant (CPA) and
private practitioner.  Long before he
became a free lancer, he was connected with the government, employed as
Auditing Clerk of the Rice and Corn Administration (RCA) now NFA, then as a
proof clerk of the First United Bank, then with the COA as Assistant Auditor
until he worked abroad as Assistant Account of Bauchi
State Investment and Development Corporation in Nigeria which is a government
corporation.

Mateo claimed that he, together with a former COA Auditor and
personnel of the Sandiganbayan, started examining and
reviewing ten (10) boxes of exhibits of the prosecution late in September and
ended early in January 2, 1986.  Thereafter, he submitted a written report to
Atty. Ontimare, with a summary of his findings and
observations (Hearing of January 29, 1986, TSN, pp. 163-171).

Cross-examined on his report, particularly on his statement that
the cash advances amounting to P1 million pesos were neither supported by cash
vouchers nor check vouchers, he explained that nowhere in the documents
submitted by the prosecution was he able to find the particular vouchers in
support thereof and hence should not be included as cash advances.  Confronted with Exhibits “YYYYY-1” to
“YYYYY-20” pertaining to twenty (20) check vouchers in the amount of P50,000.00
each with a total of P1 million pesos, he denied having seen them.  However, his examination shows that the
accused made disbursements amounting to more or less P1 million pesos but he
could not determine the total amount of disbursements as well as the total
accountability of the accused.  According
to his report, more than P800,000.00 was overstated.

Specifically, Mateo pointed out that the accused instead of
having a shortage of P1,207,835.19 as determined by the audit team, should be
credited with an average of P1,912,065.00 as follows:

Otherwise stated, the government owes the
accused P704,229.81 (Hearing of April 14, 1986, TSN, pp. 191-197; Decision,
Criminal Case No. 2559, pp. 48-49; Rollo, p. 62).

As previously stated, accused’s
testimony was taken during the new trial granted by the Court after she had
waived her right to testify in her defense.

Lucilyn T. Zambrano
declared that since September 1, 1966
she occupied various positions in the defunct RCA, now NFA, during which time
she was never charged administratively
or criminally nor was her attention ever called to
any anomally or irregularities in the discharge of
her duties.

On February 6, 1975,
she was appointed Cashier I on a permanent basis at the NGA National Branch,
allegedly offered to her by Director Juanito Cabalu, despite the fact that she had no units in accounting
but only in nursing.  Nevertheless, she
accepted the position as an opportunity for promotion (Hearing of February 5,
1987, TSN, pp. 224-227).

As Cashier I, her duties were to collect and disburse funds.  While her actual station was in Cotabato City,
Regional Office, her area of responsibility includes Maguindanao
province.

As a collecting officer, she collects the proceeds of the sale of
cereals like rice, corn and sorgum.  Although she did not actually participate in
the selling of cereals, the proceeds of the sale were turned over to her which
were evidenced by proper receipts and these receipts together with the amounts
that she received were entered by her in the cash books.  She pre-signed the receipts she issued
especially in the remote areas in the different buying stations and then she
collected the proceeds from her aides as against the receipts issued by
her.  The transactions made were paid
either in cash by direct retailers or consumers or in checks by government
agencies or offices.  These checks were placed in the collection
report, made payable to the NGA, main office, and deposited in the Philippine
National Bank (PNB) on the following day.

As Special Disbursing Officer (SDO), she went out to Cotabato City
and to Maguindanao for the purpose of disbursing
funds in her accountability.  She
submitted her periodic report weekly to the accounting section.  These reports were denominated as Collection
and Disbursement reports.  The former
included the sales of cereals while the latter was divided into many
accounts.  During this period, she was
also audited in her accountabilities and there was no shortage found (Hearing of February 5, 1987, TSN, pp.
233-243).

During the fiscal year 1978, Auditor Abundo
of the NGA, called her to his office and he told her that her account was
liquidated by him and he found a shortage of ten thousand (P10,000.00) pesos in
the Cereal Procurement Funds.  Aside from
the fact that she was still under liquidation
at that time, the finding of Abundo was not
reflected in any report nor was any official action taken thereon.

Nevertheless, Abundo offered to help
her with the shortage, for a certain amount. 
And so she gave him P5,000.00 from her personal funds and later for cash
advances of P200,000.00 from the office funds for which Abundo
did not sign receipts nor did he liquidate them.

Aside from Abundo, she gave also cash
advances to Regional Director Juanito Cabalu amounting to P80,000.00 for his representation
expenses, salaries, fish to be sent to Malacanang and
also personal expenses.  These cash
advances were covered by receipts but Cabalu was able
to liquidate the amount of P70,000.00 only which she turned over to Imelda
Marquez, Cashier of the NGA, after she was investigated by the MSD and she did
not know if the MSD was aware of the unliquidated
cash advances of Cabalu.  She was informed later that the investigation
conducted by MSD revealed that she incurred a shortage of P500,000.00, more or
less (Hearing of February 6, 1987, TSN, pp. 253-270).

She also admitted that she has a cash advance of one million
pesos in one voucher only but she did not use this amount for her own personal
use.  This cash advance was given to
Manager Serio Pituc of
Sultan Kudarat on the instructions of Director Cabalu.  The one
million pesos cash advance was recorded in her name, then it was given to
Manager Pituc, who signed the original of the voucher
in the presence of the cashier of Sultan Kudarat and
Mrs. Marquez.  Although she was furnished
a copy of the report of the audit team finding her short of one million plus,
she was not given a chance to explain her position (Hearing of May 28, 1987,
TSN, pp. 285-291).

On cross-examination, she admitted that she cannot validly
disburse an amount of P1 million pesos because her disbursement ceiling was
only P150,000.00 (Hearing of May 29,
1987, TSN, pp. 296-302).

On re-direct, she explained that the cash advances given to Cabalu were not credited in her favor and that the cash
advance of P1 million pesos in one single transaction despite her cash
disbursement ceiling of P150,000.00 was approved by the Regional Director and
it passed through accounting procedures leading her to presume that the voucher
was in order (Hearing of May 29, 1987, TSN, pp. 303-306).

In reply to the questions asked by the Court, she said that she gave cash advances to Abundo and Cabalu, Regional
Auditor and Regional Director of the NGA respectively ranging from the amount
of P200,000.00 to P1 million pesos despite their failure to execute the proper
documents or receipts out of fear, that she might be kicked out of her job or
transferred to another station.  On the
other hand, she believes that she will not be held liable for the shortage
because these are circumstances that would justify or exempt her from criminal
liability (Hearing of May 29, 1987, TSN, pp. 307-312).

On January 8, 1988,
the Sandiganbayan rendered its decision, the decretal portion of which reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Lucilyn Zambrano y Tesoro GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as Principal in the
offense of Malversation of Public Funds as defined
and penalized in Article 217, paragraph 4, of the Revised Penal Code, and there
being no modifying circumstance in attendance, after applying the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, hereby sentences her to suffer the indeterminate penalty ranging
from TWELVE (12) YEARS, FIVE (5) MONTHS and ELEVEN (11) DAYS of reclusion
temporal as the minimum, to EIGHTEEN (18) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS and
ONE (1) DAY, likewise of reclusion temporal as the maximum; to
pay a fine of P1,207,835.19 equal to the funds malversed;
to indemnify the Government of the Republic of the Philippines in the same
amount of P1,207,835.19, and to pay the costs of this action.

“SO ORDERED.” (Rollo, p. 70).

Hence, this petition.

The Court En Banc of this Court in its resolution dated
November 15, 1988 gave due
course to the petition and considered this case submitted for decision (Rollo, Resolution, p. 109).

The main issue in this case
is whether or not the guilt of the accused-petitioner had been
established beyond reasonable doubt.

The petition is devoid of merit.

After a careful study of the records of this case, including the
detailed testimony of the witnesses, no cogent reason can be found to depart
from the conclusion reached by the Sandiganbayan that
petitioner had indeed been negligent in
the handling of the funds which had been turned over to her.

In the crime of malversation, all that
is necessary for conviction is proof that the accountable officer had received
the public funds and that he did not have them in his possession when demand
therefore was made and he could not satisfactorily explain his failure so to
account.  An accountable public officer
may be convicted for malversation even if there is no
direct evidence of personal misappropriation, where he has not been able to
explain satisfactorily the absence of the public funds involved (De Guzman v.
People, 119 SCRA 337 [1982]; Bacasnot y Callao v. Sandiganbayan, 155 SCRA 379 [1987]).

Under Article 217 of the
Revised Penal Code, there is prima facie evidence of malversation where the accountable public officer fails to
have duly forthcoming any public funds with which he is chargeable upon demand
by duly authorized officer.  As this
Court has pointed out, this presumption juris tantum is founded upon human experience (Estepa v. Sandiganbayan, 182 SCRA
269 [1990]) and shall be prima facie evidence that he/she has put
such missing funds or property to personal use (Corpuz
v. People, 194 SCRA 73 [1991]).

In the case at bar, petitioner was neither able to produce the
missing amount of P1,207,835.19 nor adequately explain her failure to produce
that amount.

Petitioner failed to offer any convincing evidence to support her
alternative claims that she did not incur any shortage in her
accountabilities.  She even tried to
exculpate herself but in vain, by throwing blame on others for her failure to
account for the missing money, making it appear that she was either acting
under orders of her superiors or that she acted out of fear or duress, but as
correctly found by the Sandiganbayan her testimonial
evidence does not clearly or positively establish the legal or factual bases
thereof.  Among others, she knew that the
supposed orders of her superior were not for a lawful purpose or even if
lawful, as she claimed them to be, the means used to carry out said orders were
not lawful.  She admitted she did not use
the proper official forms or procedures in doling out funds belonging to the
government and more importantly she exceeded her cash disbursement ceiling for
the disbursement of funds amounting to P150,000.00.

Her defense witness Mateo while pointing out that the missing
cash advances including the P1,000,000.00 were not duly supported by check or
cash voucher, failed or omitted
to explain why they were posted in the cash books of the accused, in her own
handwriting if she really did not receive them (Decision, Criminal Case No.
2559, pp. 49-52; Rollo, pp. 62-65).

Conversely, the audit examination made was based on petitioner’s
own cash books and all the checks and vouchers were duly checked and
verified.  In fact the People’s witness
declared that (a) the numbers of vouchers representing cash advances or
replenishments to the petitioner are all reflected in the schedules attached to
the audit report; (b) all vouchers recorded in the registers were obtained by
the team and duly accounted for; (c) the vouchers were not only checked but the
audit team saw to it that their supporting papers were complete; and (d) the
audit team followed COA standard procedures in conducting their
examination.  As found by respondent
court, the evidence presented by the prosecution in its totality is
overwhelming and conclusive (Decision, Criminal Case No. 2559; p. 52; Rollo, p. 65).

Verily, the elements of the crime imputed to the petitioner in
the information were duly established not only by the testimony of the
prosecution’s only witness but also by the documentary evidence offered.

Under the foregoing circumstances, it is evident that the defense
has not successfully rebutted the prima facie presumption of malversation.  The
evidence of the prosecution is overwhelming and has not been overcome by the
petitioner.  The presumed innocence of
the accused must yield to the positive finding that she malversed
the sum of P1,207,835.19 to the prejudice of the public whose confidence she
has breached.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the petition is DENIED and the
assailed decision of the Sandiganbayan is AFFIRMED in
all respects.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Melencio-Herrera,
Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Padilla, Bidin, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, and Nocon, JJ., concur.

Feliciano and Bellosillo, JJ., on leave.

*** Penned by Associate Justice
Romeo M. Escareal and concurred in by Associate
Justices Regino Hermosisima,
Jr. and Augusto M. Amores.