Davalos v. People
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 for the procurement of working tools for a "NALGO" project. He signed a Disbursement Voucher acknowledging receipt of the funds. Procedural History: The Provincial Treasurer sent demand letters on May 5, 1988, and May 26, 1988, requiring petitioner to liquidate the cash advance by May 16, 1988, and May 31, 1988, respectively. Petitioner failed to comply. In 1990, the Commission on Audit informed the Provincial Prosecutor of the unsettled cash advance. The Sandiganbayan subsequently convicted petitioner of malversation of public funds on June 30, 2000. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking to reverse the Sandiganbayan's decision. He argued that he could not be convicted of malversation, citing Governor Reyes' Memorandum No. 88-63 which he believed allowed him to offset the unliquidated cash advance from his terminal leave benefits. He also pointed out that he eventually paid the P18,000.00 on January 27, 1995, and claimed to have made a down payment for the tools, though the receipt was lost.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioner is guilty of malversation of public funds. Whether the petitioner's explanation and subsequent payment of the cash advance are sufficient to overcome the presumption of malversation.
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.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the petitioner is guilty of malversation of public funds: The Court held that the elements of malversation were present: petitioner was a public officer accountable for public funds, and he failed to have the P18,000.00 cash advance forthcoming upon demand. The failure to liquidate the cash advance despite repeated demands created a prima facie presumption of malversation under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code. The Court found that petitioner failed to present adequate evidence to rebut this presumption. His claims of making a down payment for tools and the loss of the receipt were unsubstantiated. The Court concluded that the only logical conclusion was that he misappropriated and personally benefited from the cash advance. On Whether the petitioner's explanation and subsequent payment of the cash advance are sufficient to overcome the presumption of malversation: The Court found petitioner's explanation unacceptable. Memorandum No. 88-63 merely stated that his application for commutation may be granted provided the amount is applied to his unliquidated advance, but it did not exempt him from the requirement of liquidation. His failure to liquidate and return the advance for almost seven years, despite demands, demonstrated a lack of satisfactory explanation. The Court also noted that the payment made on January 27, 1995, after almost seven years from the last demand, could not be considered a mitigating circumstance analogous to voluntary surrender. Therefore, his actions and explanations were insufficient to overcome the prima facie evidence of guilt.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed the conviction for malversation of public funds, holding that the petitioner, as a supply officer accountable for P18,000.00 cash advance, failed to overcome the prima facie presumption of malversation arising from his failure to liquidate the advance despite repeated demands. The Court found that the petitioner's reliance on a memorandum allowing offset from terminal leave benefits was insufficient to justify the non-liquidation, as it did not exempt him from the requirement of liquidation. Furthermore, the late restitution of the amount after almost seven years did not extinguish his criminal liability.