People v. Corpuz
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Generoso P. Corpus, as Supervising Accounting Clerk and Acting Supervising Cashier in the Office of the Provincial Treasurer of Nueva Vizcaya, was responsible for government accounts. Upon termination of his designation as Acting Supervising Cashier, a transfer of accountabilities revealed a shortage of P72,823.08. Despite demands, Corpus only paid P10,159.50, with further reductions due to disallowed cash items and salary deductions, leaving a final deficiency of P50,596.07. Procedural History: An information for malversation of P50,596.07 was filed against Corpus. The Sandiganbayan found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt, sentencing him to imprisonment, restitution, costs, perpetual special disqualification, and a fine. The Petition: Corpus sought reversal, claiming the shortage was malversed by others, specifically attributing a P50,000.00 portion to unliquidated withdrawals made by Paymaster Diosdado Pineda through four separate checks while Corpus was allegedly on official leave. He claimed he was pressured to post this amount in his cash book.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioner is guilty of malversation of public funds. Whether the petitioner's claim that the shortage was malversed by other persons is tenable. Whether the petitioner was on official leave during the dates the checks were issued and encashed.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Sandiganbayan, finding Generoso P. Corpus guilty beyond reasonable doubt of malversation of public funds. The Court denied the petition, upholding the conviction and sentence imposed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of guilt for malversation of public funds: The Court held that the petitioner failed to overcome the prima facie evidence of malversation established by his failure to produce the missing funds upon demand. The elements of malversation under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code were found to be present: Corpus was a public officer, he had custody and control of the funds by reason of his office, these were public funds for which he was accountable, and he appropriated, misappropriated, or through negligence, permitted others to take them. His attempt to shift blame was unconvincing. On the petitioner's claim that the shortage was malversed by other persons: The Court gave no credence to this claim. It noted that the petitioner's explanation regarding the P50,000.00 withdrawal was inconsistent with the evidence. Specifically, the delayed entry of one of the checks in his cash book was seen as a "subtle way of camouflaging the embezzlement." Furthermore, the prosecution witness Pineda testified that he duly liquidated the proceeds of the four checks and turned over the corresponding documents to the petitioner. On whether the petitioner was on official leave during the dates the checks were issued and encashed: The Court found this claim unsubstantiated and contradicted by evidence. The testimony of Diosdado Pineda and Acting Provincial Treasurer Perfecto Martinez indicated that Corpus was not on official leave on the dates in question. His Employee's Leave Card also did not support his claim of absence. Even if he were absent on one of the days, other checks issued and encashed on the same day were duly accounted for.
Main Doctrine
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 use. The elements of malversation are: (a) the offender is a public officer; (b) he has custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his office; (c) those funds or property are public funds or property for which he is accountable; and (d) he appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented or, through abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take them.