Tubola vs Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines

Petitioner Jose Tubola Jr. is a cashier of the NIA in Iloilo City. Upon audit examination on
November 8, 1982 conducted by State Auditing Examiners Yvonne Gotera and Theresa Cajita, a
shortage of 93, 051.88 was found. By Gotera’s account, petitioner had an account balance of
30,162.46 prior to June 25, 1982; that from June 25 to November 8, 1982, the date petitioner’s
account was audited, his cash collections totaled 347, 995.64; that his remittances from June 25
to November 8, 1982 totaled 285, 105.41; and that the total collections less total remittances
amounted to 93,051.88 as of November 8, 1982. Vales/chits or promissory notes or receivables
signed by NIA employees with a total amount of 79, 044.51 was also found in petitioner’s
drawer.

A letter of demand dated November 23, 1982 was sent to petitioner regarding the
shortage. Petitioner refused to receive it and was then charged of committing malversation of
public funds before the Sandiganbayan to which he pleaded not guilty.

Petitioner averred that his task of keeping collected irrigation fees was temporarily
assigned to Editha Valeria upon instruction of Regional Director Manuel Hicao. Further, that no
accounting of the collected fees was done since Valeria directly remitted them to the bank after
he signed the statement of collection without the reading the contents thereof and that the
vales and chits were loans extended prior to the audit period.

By Decision of December 7, 2000, the Sandiganbayan convicted petitioner of the crime

charged. His motion for reconsideration having been denied hence he lodged an appeal.

According to petitioner, he being the superior of Valeria, he had to rely on her honesty
and competence in the performance of her duties. He cites Arias vs Sandiganbayan, which
ruled that a head of office is not required to examine every single detail of any transaction from
its inception until it is finally approved, to deem it no longer necessary for him to examine all
the details each time a remittance of the fees was made. He further posits that the
Sandiganbayan was unsure whether he was guilty of malversation intentionally or through
negligence. Finally, he points out that his right to due process was violated due to the alleged
active participation of the Justices of the Sandiganbayan to prove the case against him.

The People, through the Special Prosecutor, draws attention to the failure of petitioner
to present Valeria to shed light on her actual duties or to present the certification from then
Regional Director Manuel Hicao, who allegedly ordered Valeria to take over from petitioner the
duty of collecting irrigation fees. Petitioner’s self-serving testimony failed to controvert the
legal presumption of misappropriation. The People goes on to contend that petitioner may still
be convicted of malversation by negligence even if the Information alleged the commission of
intentional malversation since the “dolo or culpa present in the offense is only a modality in the
perpetration of the felony.” In respect to the supposed violation of petitioner’s right to due
process, the People underscores that it is the duty of a trial judge to examine a witness “to
secure a full and clear understanding of the facts or to test to his satisfaction the credibility of
the witness…”

As stated in Article 127 of the Revised Penal Code, malversation is the failure of a public
officer to have a duly forthcoming any public fund 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 funds or property to personal uses.

All the elements are present in the case at bar. Petitioner was a public officer – he
occupied the position of cashier at the NIA. By reason of his position, he was tasked to regularly
handle irrigation fees, which are indubitably public funds pertaining to the NIA, and to remit
them to the depositary bank. Notwithstanding petitioner’s allegation that Valeria had actually
taken over his function of collecting the irrigation fees, the collections were still, in fact by his
admission, turned over to him and that his signature was required before remitting the
irrigation fees to the depositary bank reinforcing the fact that he had complete control and
custody thereof.

As for petitioner’s explanation that the unaccounted fees were extended as loans to
employees as evidenced by the vales/chits found in his drawer which involved a total of 79,
044.51 also fails. If this claim were true, petitioner could have at least promptly collected them,
and/or offered the testimonies of the employees obligors to prove good faith on his part.

Aside then from the lack of a superior-subordinate relationship with Valeria, the factual
milieu in the present case and in Arias are entirely different. Arias involved the culpability of a
final approving authority on the basis of criminal conspiracy, whereas the present case involves
petitioner’s culpability on the basis of his being the accountable public officer.

On petitioner’s assertion that the Sandiganbayan erred in concluding that he committed

malversation through inexcusable negligence when the Information alleges intentional
malversation, the Court rules as in Cabello vs Sandiganbayan that “even if the mode charged
differs from the mode proved, the same offense of malversation is involved and conviction
thereof is proper.”

Finally, as to his claim of violation of his right to due process vis-à-vis the Sandiganbayan
Justices’ active participation during the trial also fails for he has not specified any instance of
supposed bias of the Justices, or cited what questions adversely affected him.