Malone-Cervantes, Madel LLB 1 Viada Legal Writing Mon. 5-6pm, Tues.

6-7pm July 4, 2011

Arturo de Guzman, petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines and The Sandiganbayan, respondents.

FACTS: Arturo De Guzman, petitioner is a Travelling Collector --- a public and an accountable officer for that matter, working at the Department of Finance.From the period of May 22, 1978 to June 7, 1978 he collected a total amount of P204,319.32 from various agencies (Veterinary Inspection Board, Public Health Laboratory, North Cemetery, among other) but only remitted to the Cash Division Department P127,797.95, resulting in a shortage of P76,521.37. When Maximo Pielago, an auditing examiner, conducted a preliminary audit the discrepancy was found. Mr. Pielago then send a demand letter to Mr. De Guzman to produce his accountabilities, the latter assured him that he had no more existing accountabilities since he ceased to make collections due to his pending promotion. However, findings turned out to be the opposite. For failure of the petitioner to account and explain the shortage amounting toP76,521.37, a case was filed and subsequently convictedhim of Malversation of Public Funds. Mr. De Guzman assails the decision of the Sandiganbayan and filed an appeal to the Supreme Court. LEGAL ISSUE: Though petitioner impugnsthe decision of the Sandiganbayan, those issues were primarily procedural in nature. The legal issue that needs to be resolved is whether or not petitioner is liable for malversation of public funds. HOLDING: Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Sandiganbayan convicting petitioner of the crime of Malversation of Public Funds pursuant to Art. 217 of the Revised Penal Code that the failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property with which he is chargeable, upon demand by any public officer, shall be prima facieevidence that he has put such missing funds to personal use. The court opines that, in Malversation, all that is necessary to prove is that the defendant received in his possession public funds, that he could not account for them and did not have them in possession and that he could not give a reasonable excuse for the disappearance of the same. An accountable public officer may be convicted of Malversation even if there is no direct evidence of misappropriation and the only evidence is that there is a shortage in his accounts, which he has not been able to explain satisfactorily.