View full case

BERNARDO U. MESINA v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

Bernardo Mesina, the accused in this case, was charged with malversation for allegedly misappropriating and embezzling funds amounting to P167,976.90. These funds were part of the patubig collection entrusted to him, which was intended for waterworks construction projects.

Several witnesses testified that the accused failed to remit the funds to the proper authorities and instead kept them in his vault. They also testified that a daily sum of collections and a cash amount withheld by the City Cashier were discovered and turned over to the auditing team. The auditing team audited a total cash amount of P89,965.72 against the accused. Sworn statements and affidavits were obtained from various individuals in preparation for the filing of criminal charges against the accused.

The accused presented his own testimony and claimed innocence. He admitted collecting the total amount from one of the witnesses but denied misappropriating the patubig collection. He explained that he kept the collection in his vault because his wife was rushed to the hospital due to a heart attack. He also asserted that the accusation against him was politically motivated.

The Regional Trial Court found the accused guilty of malversation and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of 12 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum to 20 years of reclusion temporal as maximum, as well as perpetual disqualification from holding public office and a fine of P167,876.90. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's decision with modification, reducing the imposed fine to P37,876.98.

The accused appealed to the Supreme Court, raising various issues related to the evidence and the conduct of the investigation. The petitioner argued for acquittal and exoneration, claiming that the evidence of good moral character was not applied by the Court of Appeals. Additionally, the petitioner pointed out that more than Php130,000.00 was found inside a vault.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the investigation conducted by the group of Mayor Malonzo, the Treasurer, the Administrator, the City Auditor, Chief of Divisions, and the audit proceedings are null and void due to the accused-appellant not being informed of his constitutional right to assistance of counsel and the failure to comply with the Manual of Instructions to Treasurers and Auditors and other Guidelines.

  2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not applying evidence of good moral character to acquit and exonerate the accused-appellant.

  3. Whether the petitioner's constitutional rights were violated during the investigation.

  4. Whether the investigation conducted was a custodial investigation.

  5. Did the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court commit an error by failing to decree in favor of the Government the return of the amounts criminally misappropriated by the accused?

  6. Did the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court disregard their mandate to include the civil liability or damages caused by the accused's wrongful act or omission in the judgment?

RULING:

  1. The appeal has no merit. The elements of the crime of malversation of public funds were duly established against the accused-appellant. The failure of the accused-appellant to have duly forthcoming the missing funds upon demand by a duly authorized officer raises the presumption that he had put such missing funds to personal use. The accused-appellant did not rebut this presumption and, therefore, was guilty of the misappropriation of the funds. The Court of Appeals did not err in not applying evidence of good moral character to acquit the accused-appellant.

  2. The petitioner's claim that his constitutional rights were violated during the investigation is disagreed upon by the court. The court states that the investigation conducted was not a custodial investigation but a general inquiry into the missing city funds. The petitioner was not in custody of the police or other law enforcement office at that time.

  3. The court determines that the investigation was not a custodial investigation as defined in People v. Marra. The investigation was still a general inquiry to ascertain the whereabouts of the missing patubig collection and involved various individuals responsible for the issue. Therefore, the failure to inform the petitioner of his Miranda rights did not render the whole investigation null and void.

  4. Yes, the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court committed an error by failing to decree in favor of the Government the return of the amounts criminally misappropriated by the accused. The Court emphasized that the imposition of a fine under each count of conviction was different from finding the accused civilly liable for restitution, which should have been included in the judgment.

  5. Yes, the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court disregarded their mandate to include the civil liability or damages caused by the accused's wrongful act or omission in the judgment. Section 2, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court explicitly requires the judgment to state the civil liability or damages caused by the accused's wrongful act or omission, unless the enforcement of the civil liability by a separate civil action has been reserved or waived.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The crime of malversation of public funds requires the following elements: (a) the offender is a public officer, (b) he had custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his office, (c) the funds or property were public funds or property for which he was accountable, and (d) 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.

  • Custodial investigation involves questioning initiated by law enforcement authorities after a person is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant manner.

  • Safeguards during custodial investigation begin to operate as soon as the investigation ceases to be a general inquiry and focuses on a particular suspect.

  • Courts should not omit reliefs that parties are entitled to by law or equity. Their judgments should fully determine the rights and obligations of the litigants to be true to the judicial office of administering justice and equity for all.

  • Courts should prescribe the proper penalties and determine the civil liability ex delicto of the accused in criminal cases. This is in accordance with the Constitution and the law. Failure to do so may render the prescription of penalties invalid and ineffectual.

  • The civil liability of a convicted individual may involve restitution, reparation of the damage caused, and indemnification for consequential damages.

  • The civil liability may be in the form of legal interest on the amount malversed, which will be calculated at a rate of 6% per annum from the finality of the decision until full payment.