Miguel D. Escobar, et al. vs.

People of the Philippines
Facts to prove Malversation through Negligence Crime: Malversation
Title: Revised Penal Code Title VII – Crimes Committed by Public Officers
G.R. NO. 205576, November 20, 2017

LEONEN, J.:

DOCTRINE:

Citing the case of Cruz vs. Sandiganbayan an exceptional circumstance exist which would negate
the application of Arias vs. Sandiganbayan were the public officer should be on guard when
examining checks and vouchers coupled with some degree of circumspection before signing it
and not simply relying on the recommendations of his subordinates.  

FACTS:

An audit was made by the Commission on Audit (COA) in Sarangani Province. It was discovered
that the Province’s grant of financial assistance had irregularities and violates COA Circular No.
96-003. The audit team submitted their findings to then Governor Escobar and other public
officers who are accountable to such government funds. Upon investigation, the financial
assistance to a certain market vendors association in the province was illegally appropriated and
the documents falsified due to the verification of the said association denying that they received
such financial assistance for the rehabilitation of their public market. Furthermore, the payee in
the disbursement vouchers and the checks issued were of different persons and all of which are
fictitious names and cannot be located. Due to this findings an information was filed before the
Sandiganbayan against the petitioners. On their defense, particularly Governor Escobar, Cagang
and Telesforo allege that they should not be held liable for malversation because they are not
accountable public officer which have in their custody the said public fund. In its assailed
decision, the Sandiganbayan find that Escobar, et al. are guilty of malversation through
negligence and finding them accountable because their signature is required to disburse funds
from the treasury of Sarangani Province. Hence, this present petition.

ISSUE: 

Whether or not the petitioners are liable for malversation through negligence.

RULING:

  The petitioners Escobar, Telesforo and Cagang are criminally liable for malversation because as
accountable public officers they did not exercise due diligence in the performance of their duties
and allowed the misappropriation of public funds. Citing the case of Cruz vs. Sandiganbayan an
exceptional circumstance exist which would negate the application of Arias vs. Sandiganbayan
were the public officer should be on guard when examining checks and vouchers coupled with
some degree of circumspection before signing it and not simply relying on the recommendations
of his subordinates 

In this case, the disbursement vouchers and the checks have different payees which should have
prompted the petitioners to prod on the matter and examine the documents before attaching his
signature thereat and relying heavily on the recommendations of his subordinates.

Hence, the petitioners, Escobar, Telesforo and Cagang are criminally liable for malversation
through negligence.