RAUL S. TELLO VS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 165781, June 5, 2009
Criminal Case: Malversation of Public Funds
Criminal Case: Malversation of Public Funds
Facts:
Raul S. Tello was a Telegraph Operator and Telegraphic Transfer-in-Charge of the Bureau of Telecommunications. Lordino Tomampos Saligumba, Commission on Audit Auditor II assigned at the office of the Provincial Auditor of Agusan del Sur, received an order directing him and Dionisio Virtudazo to conduct an audit examination of petitioner’s accounts. Saligumba and Virtudazo conducted an audit where it was initially determined that petitioner had a shortage in the total amount of P6,152.90. When the auditors questioned petitioner on the official receipts of the bank to confirm the remittance advices, petitioner informed them that they were sent to the regional office of the Bureau of Telecommunications. Saligumba wrote the unit auditor of the Philippine National Bank (PNB), San Francisco, Agusan del Sur branch, requesting for confirmation of petitioner’s remittances and a list of validated remittances from 1 January to 9 December 1986. In a letter dated 10 December 1986, PNB’s branch auditor informed Saligumba that petitioner did not make any remittance to the bank from 31 July 1985 to 30 October 1986. Saligumba secured copies of the official receipts and compared them with the remittance advices submitted by petitioner and found that the bank’s official receipts did not correspond with petitioner’s remittance advices. The auditors found that the total shortage incurred by petitioner amounted to P204,607.70. Petitioner failed to submit his explanation and to produce or restitute the missing funds. He was charged before the Sandiganbayan with malversation of public funds under Article 217 of the RPC.
Issue: Is petitioner guilty of malversation?
Ruling:
YES. The elements of malversation of public funds under Article 217 of the RPC are:
1. that the offender is a public officer; 2. that he had the custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his office; 3. that those funds or property were public funds or property for which he was accountable; and 4. that he appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented or, through abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take them.
In this case, all the elements of the crime are present. Petitioner is a public officer. He took his Oath of Office as Acting Operator-in-Charge on 13 January 1982. Regional Office Order No. 35 dated 27 September 1984 designated petitioner as Telegraphic Transfer-in-Charge aside from his regular duties as Acting Operator-in-Charge of Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur. He was appointed Telegraph Operator effective 1 March 1986.
As Telegraph Operator and Telegraphic Transfer-in-Charge, petitioner was in charge of the collections which he was supposed to remit to the PNB. The funds are public funds for which petitioner was accountable. It was also established that petitioner misappropriated the money. He failed to remit his cash collections and falsified the entries in the cashbooks to make it appear that he remitted the money to PNB. Petitioner failed to explain the discrepancies and shortage in his accounts and he failed to restitute the missing amount upon demand. It was also established that petitioner stopped reporting to work starting 8 December 1986.
Petitioner did not present any testimonial evidence for his defense. Instead, he merely manifested that he only incurred a shortage of P6,152.90, the initial shortage found by the auditors.
The last paragraph of Article 217 of the RPC states: “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.”
In this case, petitioner failed to rebut the presumption of malversation. He did not present testimonial evidence to defend himself. He practically admitted the shortage except that he manifested, contrary to the evidence presented by the prosecution, that only the amount of P6,152.90 was missing. He did not report to his office when the audit examination started. We sustain the Sandiganbayan’s finding that petitioner’s guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Raul S. Tello was a Telegraph Operator and Telegraphic Transfer-in-Charge of the Bureau of Telecommunications. Lordino Tomampos Saligumba, Commission on Audit Auditor II assigned at the office of the Provincial Auditor of Agusan del Sur, received an order directing him and Dionisio Virtudazo to conduct an audit examination of petitioner’s accounts. Saligumba and Virtudazo conducted an audit where it was initially determined that petitioner had a shortage in the total amount of P6,152.90. When the auditors questioned petitioner on the official receipts of the bank to confirm the remittance advices, petitioner informed them that they were sent to the regional office of the Bureau of Telecommunications. Saligumba wrote the unit auditor of the Philippine National Bank (PNB), San Francisco, Agusan del Sur branch, requesting for confirmation of petitioner’s remittances and a list of validated remittances from 1 January to 9 December 1986. In a letter dated 10 December 1986, PNB’s branch auditor informed Saligumba that petitioner did not make any remittance to the bank from 31 July 1985 to 30 October 1986. Saligumba secured copies of the official receipts and compared them with the remittance advices submitted by petitioner and found that the bank’s official receipts did not correspond with petitioner’s remittance advices. The auditors found that the total shortage incurred by petitioner amounted to P204,607.70. Petitioner failed to submit his explanation and to produce or restitute the missing funds. He was charged before the Sandiganbayan with malversation of public funds under Article 217 of the RPC.
Issue: Is petitioner guilty of malversation?
Ruling:
YES. The elements of malversation of public funds under Article 217 of the RPC are:
1. that the offender is a public officer; 2. that he had the custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his office; 3. that those funds or property were public funds or property for which he was accountable; and 4. that he appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented or, through abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take them.
In this case, all the elements of the crime are present. Petitioner is a public officer. He took his Oath of Office as Acting Operator-in-Charge on 13 January 1982. Regional Office Order No. 35 dated 27 September 1984 designated petitioner as Telegraphic Transfer-in-Charge aside from his regular duties as Acting Operator-in-Charge of Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur. He was appointed Telegraph Operator effective 1 March 1986.
As Telegraph Operator and Telegraphic Transfer-in-Charge, petitioner was in charge of the collections which he was supposed to remit to the PNB. The funds are public funds for which petitioner was accountable. It was also established that petitioner misappropriated the money. He failed to remit his cash collections and falsified the entries in the cashbooks to make it appear that he remitted the money to PNB. Petitioner failed to explain the discrepancies and shortage in his accounts and he failed to restitute the missing amount upon demand. It was also established that petitioner stopped reporting to work starting 8 December 1986.
Petitioner did not present any testimonial evidence for his defense. Instead, he merely manifested that he only incurred a shortage of P6,152.90, the initial shortage found by the auditors.
The last paragraph of Article 217 of the RPC states: “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.”
In this case, petitioner failed to rebut the presumption of malversation. He did not present testimonial evidence to defend himself. He practically admitted the shortage except that he manifested, contrary to the evidence presented by the prosecution, that only the amount of P6,152.90 was missing. He did not report to his office when the audit examination started. We sustain the Sandiganbayan’s finding that petitioner’s guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.