MAJOR JOEL G. CANTOS vs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

GR. No. 184908 || July 3, 2013

FACTS: An information was filed against Major Joel G. Santos accusing him of
Malversation of Public Funds under Article 217 who is accountable for public funds
received and/or entrusted to him by reason of his office as a commanding officer and
misappropriated to his personal use and benefit the amount of ₱3,270,000.00 to the
damage and prejudice of the Government.

In his defense, Major Cantos testified that his duty was to supervise the disbursement of
funds for the PSG personnel and to perform other finance duties. He narrated that
although there was a safety vault in his office, he opted to place the money inside the
steel cabinet because he was allegedly previously informed by his predecessor, Major
Conrado Mendoza, that the safety vault was defective. When he arrived at the office, he
saw that the money was still there.

On the following day, he reported for work and proceeded with his task of signing
vouchers and documents. He inspected the steel cabinet and discovered that the duffel
bag which contained the money was missing. He immediately called Capt. Balao to his
office and asked if the latter saw someone enter the room.

When they discovered that the money was missing, Capt. Balao suggested that they
should make it appear that the money was lost in the safety vault. Thus, Capt. Balao
went out of the office and returned with a pair of pliers and a screwdriver and went
directly to the vault to unscrew it. At this point, Major Cantos told him not to continue
anymore as he will just inform Gen. Diaz about the missing funds. Major Cantos was able
to contact Gen. Diaz through his mobile phone and was advised to just wait for Col.
Espinelli. When Col. Espinelli arrived at the office, Col. Espinelli conducted an
investigation of the incident.

RTC convicted Major Santos stating that although there was no direct proof that Major
Cantos appropriated the money for his own benefit, Article 217 of the Revised Penal
Code provides 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 duly authorized
officer, shall be prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or property to
personal uses. The RTC concluded that Major Cantos failed to rebut this presumption.

Sandiganbayan sustained the ruling of the RTC. It held that in the crime of malversation,
all that is necessary for conviction is proof that the accountable officer had received
public funds and that he did not have them in his possession when demand therefor was
made.

PETITIONER’S MAIN CONTENTION: argues that mere absence of funds is not

sufficient proof of misappropriation which would warrant his conviction. He stresses that
the prosecution failed to prove that he appropriated, took, or misappropriated, or that he
consented or, through abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take the
public funds.

ISSUE: Whether or not Major Santos is liable for Malversation of public funds under
Article 217 of the RPC although there was no direct proof that he appropriated the
money for his own benefit.
RULING: YES. Art. 217 provides for Malversation of public funds or property. –
Presumption of malversation. – Any public officer who, by reason of the duties of his
office, is accountable for public funds or property, shall appropriate the same, or shall
take or misappropriate or shall consent, or through abandonment or negligence, shall
permit any other person to take such public funds or property, wholly or partially, or shall
otherwise be guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property.

The elements of malversation of public funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal
Code are:

1. that the offender is a public officer;

2. that he had the custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties
of his office;

3. that those funds or property were public funds or property for which he was
accountable; and

4. that he appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented or, through

abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take them.

All of the elements are present in the foregoing. Petitioner was a public officer occupying
the position of Commanding Officer of the 22nd FSU of the AFP Finance Center, PSG. By
reason of his position, he was tasked to supervise the disbursement of the Special Duty
Allowances and other Maintenance Operating Funds of the PSG personnel, which are
indubitably public funds for which he was accountable. Petitioner in fact admitted in his
testimony that he had complete control and custody of these funds. As to the element of
misappropriation, indeed petitioner failed to rebut the legal presumption that he had
misappropriated the fees to his personal use.

In convicting petitioner, the Sandiganbayan cites the presumption in Article 217 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended, which states 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 duly authorized officer, is prima facie evidence that he has put such missing fund
or property to personal uses. Accordingly, if petitioner is able to present adequate
evidence that can nullify any likelihood that he put the funds or property to personal use,
then that presumption would be at an end and the prima facie case is effectively
negated.

In this case, however, petitioner failed to overcome this prima facie evidence of guilt. He
failed to explain the missing funds in his account and to restitute the amount upon
demand. His claim that the money was taken by robbery or theft is self-serving and has
not been supported by evidence. In fact, petitioner even tried to unscrew the safety vault
to make it appear that the money was forcibly taken.

Malversation is committed either intentionally or by negligence. The dolo or the culpa

present in the offense is only a modality in the perpetration of the felony. Even if the
mode charged differs from the mode proved, the same offense of malversation is
involved and conviction thereof is proper. All that is necessary for conviction is sufficient
proof that the accountable officer had received public funds, that he did not have them
in his possession when demand therefor was made, and that he could not satisfactorily
explain his failure to do so. Direct evidence of personal misappropriation by the accused
is hardly necessary as long as the accused cannot explain satisfactorily the shortage in
his accounts.