View full case

MAJOR JOEL G. CANTOS v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

Major Joel G. Cantos, the petitioner, appealed the decision of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. SB-07-A/R-0008, which affirmed the judgment of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 47, that found him guilty of the crime of Malversation of Public Funds. The crime was alleged to have been committed on or about December 21, 2000, in Manila.

Major Eligio T. Balao, Jr., a witness for the prosecution, testified that on the said date, he reported for duty as Disbursing Officer at the 22nd Finance Service Unit (FSU), Presidential Security Group (PSG), Malacañang Park, Manila. He did not notice any unusual incident in the office. Major Cantos, his commanding officer, informed him that the money he was handling, the Special Duty Allowance for December, and other operating expenses amounting to approximately P3 Million were missing from his custody. Major Cantos asked Major Balao to get a screwdriver, which he used to unscrew a safety vault. Major Balao later discovered that all personnel of the 22nd FSU were subjected to fingerprinting.

Major Cantos, in his defense, testified that he received a check representing the Special Allowance of PSG personnel that he encashed and placed in a steel cabinet in his office, along with other funds entrusted to him. He claimed to be the only one with keys to his office but acknowledged that all personnel had unrestricted access to his office during office hours. Major Cantos stated that on December 21, 2000, he discovered the money missing from the steel cabinet, and with the help of Major Balao, attempted to make it appear that the money was lost in the safety vault. He eventually reported the incident to his superior and an investigation was conducted.

The RTC found Major Cantos guilty of Malversation of Public Funds and sentenced him to imprisonment, ordered him to reimburse the amount, and pay a fine.

ISSUES:

  1. Did the Sandiganbayan err in finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of malversation of public funds?

  2. Is the mere absence of funds sufficient proof of misappropriation which would warrant petitioner's conviction?

  3. Whether the elements of malversation of public funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code are present in the present case.

  4. Whether the presumption in Article 217, that the failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property with which he is chargeable is prima facie evidence of misappropriation, has been overcome by the petitioner.

RULING:

  1. The Sandiganbayan did not commit a reversible error in its decision convicting petitioner of malversation of public funds. The court 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. There is no need for direct evidence of personal misappropriation as long as there is a shortage in the officer's account which he has not been able to explain satisfactorily. The Sandiganbayan found petitioner liable for malversation through misappropriation because he failed to dispute the presumption against him. The court also noted that petitioner's claim that the money was taken by robbery or theft has not been supported by sufficient evidence.

  2. Yes, all the elements of malversation of public funds are present in the present case. The petitioner is a public officer who had custody or control of funds or property by reason of his office. The funds or property in question were public funds for which he was accountable. Lastly, he appropriated, took, misappropriated, or consented or through abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take the funds.

  3. No, the petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of misappropriation. He failed to adequately explain the missing funds in his account and to restitute the amount upon demand. The petitioner's claim that the money was taken by robbery or theft was not supported by evidence. Furthermore, the petitioner's explanation that there is a possibility that the money was taken by another person is contradicted by the fact that there was no sign of forced entry into the steel cabinet where the funds were stored. Thus, the petitioner's unsatisfactory explanation does not overcome the presumption that he put the missing funds to personal use.

PRINCIPLES:

  • In the crime of malversation of public funds, 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.

  • There is no need for direct evidence of personal misappropriation in malversation cases as long as there is a shortage in the officer's account which he has not been able to explain satisfactorily.

  • The presumption of misappropriation in malversation cases may be overcome by presenting sufficient evidence to support a different theory, such as robbery or theft.

  • The elements of malversation of public funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code are: (1) the offender is a public officer, (2) he had the custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his office, (3) those funds or property were public funds or property for which he was accountable, and (4) he appropriated, took, misappropriated, or consented or, through abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take them.

  • 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 use. However, this presumption is rebuttable, and if the accused can present adequate evidence to nullify the likelihood that he put the funds or property to personal use, then the presumption would be at an end.