COELI
CASE NO. 61 COELI
ARTICLE 217
LEANO v. DOMINGO
FACTS:
 Petitioner Nenita Leano was designated Acting Cashier I of the Bureau of Quarantine for the
duration of the absence of the regular cashier, Mrs. Adelaida Sanchez. The Cashier's Office
was allegedly robbed of its cash amounting to P12,500.00 representing the year-end bonus
of several employees. The unknown suspects got inside the Cashier's Office thru the teller's
window and opened the steel cabinet.
 She filed with COA a request for relief from accountability. The COA thru its Chairman
Domingo, denied petitioner's request on the finding that she was negligent in the handling of
her cash accountability. She failed to use the safe for keeping her accountabilities. Instead
she used a steel cabinet leaving the key inside a small box placed near said steel cabinet.
Also, she allowed other persons to have access to the cash box with pay envelopes and
releasing the same.
 She argued that since the combination of the one and only safe previously used by the
former cashier was not entrusted to her, she had no other recourse but to use the official
steel cabinet
ISSUE: Whether or not COA acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's request
for relief from accountability of the P12,500.00 lost in the robbery.
RULING: NO.
It was evident that petitioner fell short of the demands inherent in her position. As aptly argued
by the Solicitor General, an exercise of proper diligence expected of her position would have
compelled petitioner to request an immediate change of the combination of the safe. However,
the record is bare of any showing that petitioner had, at least, exerted any effort to have the
combination changed.
In addition, it was found that the use of the steel cabinet was not a wise and prudent decision.
The steel cabinet, even when locked, at times could be pulled open, thus it can be surmised that
even without the use of a key, the robbery could be committed once the culprits succeed in
entering the room. Moreover, the original key of the steel cabinet was left inside a small wooden
box placed near the steel cabinet; it is therefore highly possible that the said steel cabinet was
opened with the use of its original key.
MAIN POINT: Every person accountable for government funds shall be liable for all losses
resulting from the unlawful or improper deposit, use or application thereof and for all loss
attributable to negligence in keeping of the same. Sec. 105 (2) of P.D. 1445
CASE NO. 62
ARTICLE 217
ENRIQUEZ v. PEOPLE & SANDIGANBAYAN
FACTS:
 ENRIQUEZ was Municipal Treasurer, while ESPINOSA was Administrative Officer of Pasig
Treasury. By virtue of a Local Gov’t Audit Order, an audit examination was conducted to the
cash and accounts of the Pasig Treasury. The audit disclosed that accused Enriquez’s
accounts contained a shortage amounting to P3,178,777.41, which shortage was due to a
dishonored China Banking Check. Said check was deposited with the Quezon City Treasury
as part of the collections of the Pasig Treasury. The check was dishonored for the following
reasons:
o it was not received in payment of any tax;
o it was not acknowledged by an official receipt;
o the account against which it was drawn was under garnishment;
o the signatory therein was not authorized to sign; and
o it was drawn against insufficient funds.
 A letter of demand was sent to ENRIQUEZ by COA to restitute the value of the dishonored
check. ENRIQUEZ denied responsibility for the shortage and pointed to ESPINOSA as the one
to whom the letter of demand should be addressed as the custodian of said check. They
blamed each other.
ISSUE: Whether or not ENRIQUEZ and ESPINOSA had incurred a shortage which they had
attempted to conceal through a bad check.
RULING: NO.
The prosecution failed to establish proof BRD. There was no evidence to prove that the Pasig
Treasury incurred a cash shortage in the amount of P3,178,777.41, which amount, incidentally, is
even less than the amount of the dishonored check.
Evidence of shortage is necessary before there could be any taking, appropriation,
conversion, or loss of public funds that would amount to malversation. It makes no sense
for any bogus check to be produced to "cover up" an inexistent malversation.
Considering the gravity of the offense of Malversation of Public Funds, just as government
treasurers are held to strict accountability as regards funds entrusted to them in a fiduciary
capacity, so also should examining COA auditors act with greater care and caution in the audit of
the accounts of such accountable officers to avoid the perpetration of any injustice. Accounts
should be examined carefully and thoroughly "to the last detail," "with absolute certainty".
MAIN POINT: IN BOLD