OSCAR VALLE Y CARREON, PETITIONER, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

Petitioner Oscar Valle y Carreon, then OIC Municipal Treasurer of
Talisay, Province of Batangas, stands charged within the Sandiganbayan with the
crime of Malversation of Public Funds, as defined and penalized under Article
217 of the Revised Penal Code, in an information^[1] which
reads:

“That on or about the 12th day of November 1986 in the Municipality
of Talisay, Province of Batangas, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the said accused being then the Municipal Treasurer of
the aforesaid municipality, and as such, he is accountable for public funds or
property, incur cash account shortage as of November 12, 1986 on General Fund,
Infrastructure Fund, Special Education Fund and Trust Fund, which were
disallowed credits to accountability representing missing vouchers, to wit:

1) General Fund                                                       P
6,151.50

2) Infrastructure Fund                                               P 472.50

3) Special Education Fund                                       P10,078.00

4) Trust Fund                                               P 3,000.00

in the total amount of Nineteen Thousand
Seven Hundred Two Pesos (P19,702.00), but the said missing vouchers remained
unliquidated and/or no accounting thereof having
been rendered by the accused up to this date, despite prior written
demand, in violation of existing government accounting and auditing rules and
regulations.”

Upon arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty to the crime
charged against him.

After trial on the merits, the Sandiganbayan (Second Division)
rendered its decision on March 6, 1991^[2]
convicting herein petitioner of the crime charged, the dispositive portion of
which reads:

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Oscar Valle
y Carreon 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 further applying the
benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, hereby sentences him to suffer an
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 P19,702.00
equal to the amount malversed;
to indemnify the Republic of the Philippines in the same amount of P19,702.00,
and to pay the costs of this action.

SO ORDERED.”^[3]

Petitioner contends that his guilt for the crime of Malversation
of Public Funds has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt, hence, this appeal
by way of a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

We find no merit in the petition.

It is undisputed that
petitioner failed to present twelve (12) vouchers corresponding to the alleged
disbursement in the amount of P19,702.00. A verbal demand^[4] was
made upon him by the assigned Auditor, Lucila Rosales, to produce said vouchers
but the petitioner replied that they were in the Office of the Municipal Mayor
of Talisay, Batangas for signature.^[5] On
cross-checking with the Mayor, the latter denied the allegation of Valle,
claiming that there are no vouchers in his office for his signature.^[6]

In fact, petitioner admitted doing nothing after he was audited
on November 12, 1986 and despite the demand
letter sent to him.^[7]

Edgardo Mendoza, bookkeeper of the Municipal Treasurer’s Office
of Talisay, Batangas whose duty was to record all vouchers of the Municipality
in the Journal of Cash Disbursements,^[8]
testified that the twelve (12) alleged missing vouchers were never presented to
him by Valle hence, the same were not recorded in the Journal of Cash
Disbursement. It was only after the
audit examination by the COA and upon the instructions of Auditor Lucila
Rosales that he entered the alleged twelve (12) missing vouchers in the Journal
of Cash Disbursements based on the entries in petitioner’s cashbook, with a
note however that “no vouchers” were actually presented in support thereof.^[9]
This was further corroborated by the testimony of Auditor Lucile Rosales that
when the audit examination was conducted, the alleged twelve (12) missing
vouchers were not recorded in the Journal of Cash Disbursement.^[10]

There is no dispute therefore, that the questioned transactions
totaling P19,702.00 were not supported by vouchers.

As aptly found by the respondent court:

“In the case at bar, accused’s alleged disbursements of public
funds which are under his custody and for which he is responsible were patently
made without compliance of the aforesaid basic requirements to ensure their
legality and propriety. Notably missing
are the requisite RIVs, bidding and canvass papers, purchase orders, sales
invoices/delivery receipts, certificates of inspection and disbursement of
vouchers.

Thus, the loss and/or disappearance of public funds under the
custody of the accused amounting to P19,702.00 not having been satisfactorily
explained, notwithstanding the testimonies of the defense witness, and it
further appearing that the disbursements allegedly made by him were in gross
violation of pertinent laws and regulations, then accused’s liability for the
missing funds must be adjudged under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code x x
x.”

Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code reads:

“ART. 217 Malversation of public funds or property – Presumption of
Malversation. – 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, or shall
otherwise be guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or
property shall suffer:

x x x  x x x   x x
x

In all cases, persons guilty
of malversation shall also suffer the penalty of perpetual special
disqualification and a fine equal to the amount of the funds malversed or equal
to the total value of the property embezzled.

The failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public
funds or property with which he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly
authorized officer, shall be prima facie evidence that he has put such missing
funds or property to personal uses.”

Petitioner has failed to rebut the prima facie presumption
that he has put the missing funds to personal use. What we have is only his denial without any corroborating
evidence to support the same. His denial, however, is belied by the evidence on record.

In the crime of malversation, all that is necessary for
conviction is proof that the accountable officer had received public funds and
that he did not have them in his possession when demand therefore was made.^[11]
There is even no need of direct evidence of personal misappropriation as long
as there is a shortage in his account and petitioner cannot satisfactorily
explain the same.^[12]

On the matter whether petitioner is entitled to the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender, We agree with the court a quo that
he is entitled to the same since there is nothing in the records to show that
petitioner had been arrested prior to his posting of a cash bail bond.

The penalty imposed by the lower court needs slight
modification. The penalty for
malversation of public funds or property under Article 217 of the Revised Penal
Code, when the amount involved is more than
P12,000 but is less than P22,000 is reclusion temporal in its medium and
maximum period.^[13]
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the imposable penalty is TEN (10)
YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor as minimum to FOURTEEN (14)
YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS AND ONE (1) DAY of reclusion temporal as
maximum.

WHEREFORE, there being no reversible error in the judgment
appealed herefrom, the same is hereby AFFIRMED but MODIFIED as to the penalty
imposed upon petitioner. Applying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, petitioner is ordered to suffer the penalty of TEN
(10) YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor as minimum to FOURTEEN (14)
YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS AND ONE (1) DAY of reclusion temporal, as
maximum; perpetual special disqualification; to pay a fine of P19, 702.00 equal
to the amount malversed; to indemnify the Republic of the Philippines the
amount of P19,702.00, and to pay the costs.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin,
Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, and Melo, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Records, pp. 1-2.

^[2]
Penned by Justice Romeo M. Escareal, concurred by Justice Jose S. Balajadia and
Justice Nathanael M. Gorospe.

^[3]
Rollo, pp. 26-50.

^[4]
T.S.N., September 26, 1989, p. 16.

^[5]
Ibid.

^[6]
Id, at p. 17.

^[7]
T.S.N., January 25, 1990, pp. 12-13.

^[8]
T.S.N., September 26, 1989, p. 29.

^[9]
T.S.N., March 14, 1990, pp. 13-14.

^[10]
T.S.N., September 26, 1989, p. 14.

^[11]
Leonardo N. Estepa vs. Sandiganbayan, and the People of the Philippines,
G.R. No. 59670, 182 SCRA 269, (1990).

^[12]
Ibid.

^[13]
Article 217, No. 4, as amended by Republic Act No. 1060.