**Case Digest: Jose T. Tubola, Jr. v.

Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines**

**G.R. No. 154042, April 11, 2011**

**Facts:**
- Jose T. Tubola, Jr. (petitioner) appeals the decision and resolution of the Sandiganbayan in
Criminal Case No. 12015, which found him guilty of Malversation of Public Funds under Article
217 of the Revised Penal Code.
- Petitioner was the cashier of the National Irrigation Administration (NIA)-Aganan, Sta. Barbara
River Irrigation System in Iloilo City.
- An audit examination revealed a shortage of P93,051.88 in petitioner's account.
- Petitioner was charged with malversation for misappropriating public funds entrusted to him.
- The prosecution's witness, Yvonne Gotera, testified to the shortage and the audit findings.
- Petitioner claimed that he delegated the task of collecting irrigation fees to Editha Valeria, who
directly remitted them to the bank, and he trusted her without verifying the collections.
- The Sandiganbayan convicted petitioner of malversation, sentencing him to suffer
imprisonment and perpetual disqualification from public office.

**Issue:**
Whether petitioner is guilty of malversation of public funds under Article 217 of the Revised
Penal Code.

**Ruling:**
- The Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan's decision, finding petitioner guilty of malversation.
- The elements of malversation were present: petitioner was a public officer, had custody of
public funds by virtue of his position, was accountable for the funds, and misappropriated them.
- Petitioner failed to rebut the presumption of misappropriation, as he did not adequately explain
the shortage or present corroborating evidence.
- The defense of delegation to Valeria was unsupported by evidence, and petitioner retained
control and custody of the funds.
- The claimed loans extended by petitioner were immaterial, as they were incurred before the
audit period and not properly documented.
- Even if the information alleged intentional malversation and the conviction was based on
negligence, it would still be valid as malversation encompasses both modes of commission.
- Petitioner's right to due process was not violated as the Sandiganbayan's clarificatory questions
did not indicate bias or prejudice, and petitioner did not object during the trial.

**Disposition:**
The petition was denied, and the decision of the Sandiganbayan was affirmed.