This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-11-23 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Without doubt, Villeta's infractions - the shortages she incurred in her collections and the tampering of cash bond receipts - constitute grave misconduct and dishonesty, and even malversation of public funds. As the OCA noted, Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code penalizes any public officer who, being accountable for public funds, shall appropriate the funds. To justify conviction for malversation of public funds, the prosecution has only to prove that the accused receive public funds which he cannot account for or did not have in his possession and could not give a reasonable excuse for the disappearance of the funds.[11] | |||||
|
2008-03-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| A: Yes, sir.[20] Anent the last element, this Court has held that to justify conviction for malversation of public funds or property, the prosecution has only to prove that the accused received public funds or property, and that he could not account for them or did not have them in his possession and could not give a reasonable excuse for their disappearance.[21] An accountable public officer may be convicted of malversation even if there is no direct evidence of misappropriation, and the only evidence is that there is a shortage in his accounts which he has not been able to explain satisfactorily.[22] Here, the prosecution was able to muster direct evidence that petitioner had misappropriated the subject confiscated logs. Three prosecution witnesses, Rodolfo Estremos, Nelson Flores and Amrodin Sultan, all of whom were petitioner's subordinates, corroborated each other in declaring categorically that it was petitioner who ordered them to pick up the confiscated lumber and to deliver the same to his residence. | |||||