People v. Davalos
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Romeo L. Davalos, Sr., then Supply Officer of the Office of the Provincial Engineer of Marinduque, received a cash advance of P18,000.00 on January 14, 1988, for the procurement of working tools for a "NALGO" project, signing Disbursement Voucher No. 103-880-08. He received demand letters on May 5, 1988, and May 26, 1988, from the Provincial Treasurer requiring liquidation by May 16, 1988, and May 31, 1988, respectively, which demands were unheeded. In August 1990, the Provincial Treasurer informed the Provincial Prosecutor of the Commission on Audit's findings of an unsettled cash advance. Petitioner admitted receiving the advance but denied misappropriation, claiming the new administration under Governor Luisito Reyes scrapped the transaction, took his files, terminated his services, and that Governor Reyes' Memorandum No. 88-63 allowed him to offset the advance from his terminal leave benefits. He presented disapproved disbursement vouchers for his leave credits and benefits, asserting Governor Reyes was harassing him. Despite believing he was no longer obligated, he settled the account on January 27, 1995, evidenced by OR No. 198701814. He also claimed a P11,000.00 down payment for tools was lost, P5,500.00 was recovered from the seller, leaving him with P12,500.00. Governor Reyes' Memorandum No. 88-63 stipulated that commutation of leave could be approved provided it was first applied to his unliquidated cash advance. Procedural History: The Sandiganbayan, on June 30, 2000, found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of malversation of public funds and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day, perpetual special disqualification, a fine of P18,000.00, and costs. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari seeking the reversal of the Sandiganbayan's decision.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner is guilty of malversation of public funds. Whether petitioner's failure to liquidate the cash advance constitutes malversation. Whether Governor Reyes' Memorandum No. 88-63 exempts petitioner from liquidating the cash advance. Whether petitioner's subsequent settlement of the cash advance extinguishes his criminal liability.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Sandiganbayan, finding petitioner Romeo L. Davalos, Sr. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of malversation of public funds. The Court denied the petition for lack of merit. Dispositive Portion: "WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused ROMEO L. DAVALOS, SR. GUILTY of the crime of malversation of public funds defined and penalized under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code and, taking into account the existence of a mitigating circumstance, sentencing the said accused to: (a) suffer an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment 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; (b) suffer all the appropriate accessory penalties consequent thereto, including perpetual special disqualification; (c) pay a fine of Eighteen Thousand (P18,000) ; and (d) pay the costs."
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of guilt for malversation of public funds: The Court held that the elements of malversation were present. Petitioner was a public officer (Supply Officer) accountable for public funds. He received P18,000.00 as a cash advance and failed to produce the funds or liquidate the advance upon demand by the provincial treasurer. The Court emphasized that direct evidence of misappropriation is not necessary; the failure to account for the funds upon demand creates a prima facie presumption of malversation. Petitioner failed to present adequate evidence to rebut this presumption. His claims regarding the cancellation of the project and the Governor's memorandum were found insufficient to justify his failure to liquidate. On the issue of failure to liquidate constituting malversation: The Court reiterated that under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, 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, is prima facie evidence that he has put such missing fund or property to personal uses. Petitioner admitted receiving the cash advance and failing to liquidate it despite two demand letters. This failure, without a satisfactory explanation, directly leads to the presumption of malversation. On whether Governor Reyes' Memorandum No. 88-63 exempts petitioner from liquidation: The Court found petitioner's reliance on the memorandum to be misplaced. The memorandum merely stated that his application for commutation of leave may be granted provided the amount is first applied to his unliquidated cash advance. It did not exempt him from the obligation to submit a liquidation of the cash advance itself. Therefore, the memorandum did not excuse his failure to liquidate the P18,000.00. On whether subsequent settlement extinguishes criminal liability: The Court clarified that payment, indemnification, or reimbursement of misappropriated funds after the commission of the crime does not extinguish criminal liability. At most, it can affect civil liability and be considered a mitigating circumstance analogous to voluntary surrender. However, in this case, petitioner settled the account almost seven years after the last demand. This delay negated the possibility of it being considered a mitigating circumstance analogous to voluntary surrender, as it did not demonstrate a genuine intent to return the funds promptly upon realizing his obligation or upon demand. The Court concluded that the only logical inference from his prolonged failure to account for the funds was that he misappropriated them for personal benefit.
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 fund or property to personal uses. This presumption is rebuttable, but the accused must present adequate evidence to nullify any likelihood of personal use.