RAUL S. TELLO, vs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Facts:

Raul S. Tello was a Telegraph Operator and Telegraphic Transfer-in-Charge of the Bureau of Telecommunications in Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur. On !ecem"er #$%&, 'ordino Tomampos Saligum"a, Commission on Audit Auditor (( assigned at the office of the Provincial Auditor of Agusan del Sur, received an order directing him and !ionisio )irtuda*o +)irtuda*o, to conduct an audit e-amination of petitioner.s accounts. The/ found out that the petitioner had a shortage in the total amount of P&,# 0.$1. 2hen the auditors 3uestioned petitioner on the official receipts of the "an4 to confirm the remittance advices, petitioner informed them that the/ were sent to the regional office of the Bureau of Telecommunications. Saligum"a wrote petitioner a letter dated ## !ecem"er #$%& outlining the results of the e-amination and demanding the immediate production and restitution of the missing amounts. 5owever, petitioner failed to su"mit his e-planation and to produce or restitute the missing funds. Petitioner also failed to show in his office starting % !ecem"er #$%&. Petitioner was charged "efore the Sandigan"a/an with malversation of pu"lic funds under Article 0#6 of the Revised Penal Code +RPC,, thus7 Issues: #. 2hether petitioner is guilt/ "e/ond reasona"le dou"t of the crime of malversation of pu"lic funds under Article 0#6 of the RPC8 0. 2hether Saligum"a has authorit/ to conduct the audit e-amination8 and 9. 2hether petitioner was denied his constitutional right to a speed/ disposition of his case.

Rulling: The petition has no merit. Malversation of Public Funds Article 0#6 of the RPC states7 Art. 0#6. Malversation of public funds or property. Presumption of malversation. - An/ pu"lic officer who, "/ reason of the duties of his office, is accounta"le for pu"lic funds or propert/, shall appropriate the same, or shall ta4e or misappropriate or shall consent, or through a"andonment or negligence, shall permit an/ other person to ta4e such pu"lic funds or propert/, wholl/ or partiall/, or shall otherwise "e guilt/ of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or propert/, shall suffer7 #. The penalt/ of prision correccional in its medium and ma-imum periods, if the amount involved in the misappropriation or malversation does not e-ceed two hundred pesos. 0. The penalt/ of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if the amount involved is more than two hundred pesos "ut does not e-ceed si- thousand pesos.

9. The penalt/ of prision mayor in its ma-imum period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period, if the amount involved is more than si- thousand pesos "ut is less than twelve thousand pesos. :. The penalt/ of reclusion temporal in its medium and ma-imum periods, if the amount involved is more than twelve thousand pesos "ut is less than twent/-two thousand pesos. (f the amount e-ceeds the latter, the penalt/ shall "e reclusion temporal in its ma-imum period to reclusion perpetua. (n all cases, persons guilt/ of malversation shall also suffer the penalt/ of perpetual special dis3ualification and a fine e3ual to the amount of the funds malversed or e3ual to the total value of the propert/ em"e**led. The failure of a pu"lic officer to have dul/ forthcoming an/ pu"lic funds or propert/ with which he is chargea"le, upon demand "/ an/ dul/ authori*ed officer, shall "e prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or propert/ to personal uses. The elements of malversation of pu"lic funds under Article 0#6 of the RPC are7 #. That the offender is a pu"lic officer8 0. That he had the custod/ or control of funds or propert/ "/ reason of the duties of his office8 9. That those funds or propert/ were pu"lic funds or propert/ for which he was accounta"le8 and :. That he appropriated, too4, misappropriated or consented or, through a"andonment or negligence, permitted another person to ta4e them. (n this case, all the elements of the crime are present. Petitioner is a pu"lic officer. 5e too4 his Oath of Office as Acting Operator-in-Charge on #9 ;anuar/ #$%0. Regional Office Order <o. 9 dated 06 Septem"er #$%: designated petitioner as Telegraphic Transfer-inCharge aside from his regular duties as Acting Operator-in-Charge of Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur. 5e was appointed Telegraph Operator effective # =arch #$%&. $ As Telegraph Operator and Telegraphic Transfer-in-Charge, petitioner was in charge of the collections which he was supposed to remit to the P<B. The funds are pu"lic funds for which petitioner was accounta"le. (t was also esta"lished that petitioner misappropriated the mone/. 5e failed to remit his cash collections and falsified the entries in the cash"oo4s to ma4e it appear that he remitted the mone/ to P<B. Petitioner failed to e-plain the discrepancies and shortage in his accounts and he failed to restitute the missing amount upon demand. (t was also esta"lished that petitioner stopped reporting to wor4 starting % !ecem"er #$%&. Petitioner did not present an/ testimonial evidence for his defense. (nstead, he merel/ manifested that he onl/ incurred a shortage of P&,# 0.$1, the initial shortage found "/ the auditors. The last paragraph of Article 0#6 of the RPC states7 >The failure of a pu"lic officer to have dul/ forthcoming an/ pu"lic funds or propert/ with which he is chargea"le, upon demand "/ an/ dul/ authori*ed officer, shall "e prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or propert/ to personal uses.> (n this case, petitioner failed to re"ut the presumption of malversation. 5e did not present testimonial evidence to defend himself. 5e practicall/ admitted the shortage e-cept that he manifested, contrar/ to

the evidence presented "/ the prosecution, that onl/ the amount of P&,# 0.$1 was missing. 5e did not report to his office when the audit e-amination started. 2e sustain the Sandigan"a/an.s finding that petitioner.s guilt has "een proven "e/ond reasona"le dou"t. Authority of the Provincial Auditors Office to Conduct Audit Examinations Petitioner alleges that Saligum"a, who was an e-aminer of the Provincial Auditor.s Office, has no authorit/ to conduct the audit e-amination. 2e do not agree. Petitioner is assigned as Telegraph Operator and Telegraphic Transfer-in-Charge of the =unicipalit/ of Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur which is within the ?urisdiction of the Provincial Auditor.s Office. Presidential !ecree <o. #:: #1 +P! #:: , created not onl/ a central "ut also regional auditing offices. Section 6+0, of P! #:: states7 The Commission shall 4eep and maintain such regional offices as ma/ "e re3uired "/ the e-igencies of the service in accordance with the (ntegrated Reorgani*ation Plan for the national government, or as ma/ "e provided "/ law, which shall serve as the immediate representatives of the Commission in the regions under the direct control and supervision of the Chairman. The authorit/ of the Provincial Auditor.s Office emanates from the central office as its representative. Violation of Petitioners Right to !eedy "is!osition of Cases Petitioner raised for the first time in his motion for reconsideration "efore the Sandigan"a/an that his right to a speed/ disposition of his case had "een violated. Petitioner pointed out that his case was su"mitted for decision on 0& Octo"er #$$: "ut was onl/ decided "/ the Sandigan"a/an on #$ =arch 011:. 2e disagree. Section #&, Article ((( of the Constitution provides7 >All persons shall have the right to a speed/ disposition of their cases "efore all ?udicial, 3uasi- ?udicial or administrative "odies.> (n ascertaining whether the right to speed/ disposition of cases has "een violated, the following factors must "e considered7 +#, the length of dela/8 +0, the reasons for the dela/8 +9, the assertion or failure to assert such right "/ the accused8 and +:, the pre?udice caused "/ the dela/. The right to a speed/ disposition of cases is considered violated onl/ when the proceedings are attended "/ ve-atious, capricious, and oppressive dela/s. A mere mathematical rec4oning of the time involved is not sufficient.#9 (n the application of the constitutional guarantee of the right to a speed/ disposition of cases, particular regard must also "e ta4en of the facts and circumstances peculiar to each case. #: (n Bernat v. Sandiganbayan, the Court denied petitioner.s claim of denial of his right to a speed/ disposition of cases considering that the petitioner in that case chose to remain silent for eight /ears "efore complaining of the dela/ in the disposition of his case. The Court ruled that petitioner failed to seasona"l/ assert his right and he merel/ sat and waited from the time his case was su"mitted for resolution. (n this case, petitioner similarl/ failed to assert his right to a speed/ disposition of his case. 5e did not ta4e an/ step to accelerate the disposition of his case. 5e onl/ invo4ed his right to a speed/ disposition of cases after the Sandigan"a/an promulgated its decision convicting him for malversation of pu"lic funds. Petitioner.s silence ma/ "e considered as a waiver of his right. #& WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. 2e AFFIRM the #$ =arch 011: !ecision and the # Septem"er 011: Resolution of the Sandigan"a/an in Criminal Case <o. # 11&.