Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
- versus -
x-----------------------------------------------x
STATEMENT OF FACTS
In order that this honorable court may be enlightened and guided in the
judicious disposition of the above-entitled case, cited hereunder the material,
relevant and pertinent facts of the case to wit:
2. The complainants in this case are Lulu Palmes and Shiela Marcela, State
Auditors II of the Commission on Audit who were assigned to and
conducted the cash examination against accused, Vicente Queleste y
Marabara, the Municipal Treasurer of the Municipality of Zarraga.
3. To prove its case, the prosecution presented Lulu Palmes and Shiela
Marcela, COA State Auditors II. Both have testified that they went to
the office of Mr. Vicente Queleste, the Municipal Treasurer of Zarraga,
in the morning of January 20, 2017 from 9:00 AM to 12:00 NN, as
proved by the Request for Authority to Travel and Office Order No. 2017-
003 dated January 13, 2017, requesting to conduct cash examination
on the cash and accountabilities of Mr. Vicente Queleste.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1. Whether or not all the elements of the crime have been proven beyond
reasonable doubt.
2. Whether or not the conduct of cash examination was proper, regular,
complete and in compliance with Revised Cash Examination Manual.
3. Whether or not the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime charged.
DISCUSSION
All the elements of the crime of malvesation have not been proven
beyond reasonable doubt.
The elements essential for the conviction of an accused under the above penal
provision are:
There can hardly be no dispute about the presence of the first three elements.
The accused is a public officer occupying the position of a Municipal Treasurer
at the Zarraga Municipal Hall. In that capacity, he receives money or property
belonging to the local government for which he is bound to account. It is the
last element, i.e., whether or not the accused really has misappropriated
public funds, where the case focuses itself on.
In malversation of public funds, the prosecution is burdened to prove beyond
reasonable doubt, either by direct or circumstantial evidence, that the public
officer appropriated, misappropriated or consented, or through abandonment
or negligence, permitted another person to take public property or public
funds under his custody. Absent such evidence, the public officer cannot be
held criminally liable for malversation. Mere absence of funds is not sufficient
proof of conversion; neither is the mere failure of the public officer to turn
over the funds at any given time sufficient to make even the prima facie case.
In fine, conversion must be proved. (Legrama vs Sandiganbayan and People,
G.R. No. 178626, June 13, 2012)
In this case, the COA Auditors were never able to prove that there was
conversion on the part of the accused as regards the alleged shortage which
they determined based on a cash examination conducted against the accused.
Thus, in a string of categorical pronouncements, this Court has consistently
and emphatically ruled that the presumption of conversion incarnated in
Article 217, paragraph (4) of the Revised Penal Code is by its very nature
rebuttable. To put it differently, the presumption under the law is not
conclusive but disputable by satisfactory evidence to the effect that the
accused did not utilize the public funds or property for his personal use, gain
or benefit.
Accordingly, if the accused can present adequate evidence that can nullify any
likelihood that he had put the funds or property to personal use, then that
presumption would be at an end and the prima facie case is effectively
negated. The Court has repeatedly said that when the absence of funds is not
due to the personal use thereof by the accused, the presumption is completely
destroyed; in fact, the presumption is never deemed to have existed at all.
The cash examination was not conducted properly, regularly,
completely and in compliance with Revised Cash Examination Manual.
The landmark case of Tinga v. People (G.R. No. 57650, 160 SCRA 483) has
laid down the doctrinal standards to follow in convicting an accused charged
with malversation.
Upon the attendant facts and circumstances, it has to be held that the
presumption juris tantum in Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code reading:
applies only if and when there was thorough, complete, regular, proper and
comprehensive audit examination to accountabilities of the accountable officer
to be able to determine whether there are missing funds that cannot be
explained upon demand for explanation or if there were shortage upon the
conduct of the said examination. In the same case the Court reiterated, “ [t]he
prima facie presumption under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code arises if
there is no issue as to the accuracy, correctness and regularity of the audit
findings and if the fact that funds are missing is indubitably established," has
no application in the instant case in the light of the haphazard examination of
the cash accountability of petitioner in violation of the Manual of Instructions
of Treasurers and Auditors and the credible explanation of petitioner that the
"missing" funds would have been "discovered" if only the auditor took into
consideration the contents of the two vaults in Sindangan and Tampilisan and
the fact that her collection in Dipolog City were deposited with the NFA
Cashier. In the instant case, there was no compliance with the Revised Cash
Examination Manual of COA in the conduct of cash examination. No proper
notice or demand was made to the accused that a cash examination will be
conducted on the same date and he is demanded to produce his cash and
accountable forms.
Thus, it can only be deduced that without comprehensive and thorough cash
examination to the accountables of the accused, no prima facie presumption
of criminal liability could arise from his failure to explain the alleged shortage
of his accounts during the conduct of cash examination as the same was not
yet remitted to him during that time. Had the auditors waited for the remitting
of the same by the other collecting officers at the end of the day, the alleged
shortage would have been balanced, which will exonerate the liability of the
accused from this charge.
Also, in the same Tinga case, the Court specifically established the following:
Considering the gravity of the offense of Malversation of
Public Funds, accounts should be examined carefully and
thoroughly to the last detail, with absolute certainty in strict
compliance with the Manual of Instructions. Imperative it is
likewise that sufficient time be given examined officers to
reconstruct their accounts and refute the charge that they had put
government funds to their personal uses. Access to records must
be afforded them within reasonable time after audit when
disbursements are still fresh in their minds and not years after
when relevant official records may no longer be available and the
passage of time has blurred human memory (Tinga v. People, G.R.
No. 57650, 160 SCRA 483 [1988]). The audit examination
conducted by Auditor Eway failed to establish that the funds were
indeed missing since she did not follow standard auditing
procedures by not including in her examination the funds
petitioner kept in the vaults located in Tampilisan and Sindangan.
On Page 17, Item G, of the Revised Cash Examination Manual, the same
provides that the Auditor should examine simultaneously all funds in the
custody of the Accountable Officer and conduct cash count of all cash of the
AO in the office and its immediate vicinity. It means that there should be a
simultaneous cash count of all accountable officers of the office or agency
during the conduct of cash examinations. In the case at bar, only the accused
was subjected to the cash examination, contrary to the requirement of the
Manual. As testified to by the defense witness Mrs. Luisa Maria De Jesus, she
was not, together with her other 2 collecting officers, conducted with the cash
examination as was conducted to the accused at the time.
In the same Manual, Item M.1, it provides that the auditor is required to
conduct examinations thoroughly and completely in every case to the last
detail, including verificiation/reconciliation of accountable forms received and
issued and the various records of collections and disbursements as well as
entries in the Cashbook/CRR/CDR/CkDR or its equivalent. No such thorough
examination was conducted based on the testimonies of the complainants Ms
Lulu Palmes and Ms Shiela Marcela.
Also, in the same Manual, on Page 29, it requires that in case of Cash
Shortage, the Auditor must DEMAND at once from the AO the immediate
production of the missing funds the moment the amount of shortage is
definitely established and the demand must be in writing and acknowledged
as received by the AO. The same must be specific and must be given within
72 hours from his/her receipt of the letter of demand. No such proof or writing
was made part of the record. As enunciated in Tinga, “Accounts should be
examined carefully and thoroughly "to the last detail," "with absolute
certainty" in strict compliance with the Manual of Instructions. Special note
should be taken of the fact that disallowances for lack of pre-audit are not
necessarily tantamount to malversation in law. Imperative it is likewise that
sufficient time be given examined officers to reconstruct their accounts and
refute the charge that they had put government funds to their personal uses.
Access to records must be afforded them within a reasonable time after audit
when disbursements are still fresh in their minds and not years after when
relevant official records may no longer be found.”
PRAYER
Defendants likewise prays for such other and further relief as this honorable
court may deem just and equitable in the premises.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Iloilo City, Philippines, March 23, 2018.
Received by:___________
Date: ___________