Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ROMEO L. DAVALOS v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 162489 2015-06-17	BERNARDO U. MESINA v. PEOPLE BERSAMIN, J.
Malversation is committed either intentionally or by negligence. The dolo or the culpa 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 still committed; hence, a conviction is proper.[12] All that is necessary for a conviction is sufficient proof that the accused accountable officer had received public funds or property, and did not have them in his possession when demand therefor was made without any satisfactory explanation of his failure to have them upon demand. For this purpose, direct evidence of the personal misappropriation by the accused is unnecessary as long as he cannot satisfactorily explain the inability to produce or any shortage in his accounts.[13] Accordingly, with the evidence adduced by the State being entirely incompatible with the petitioner’s claim of innocence, we uphold the CA’s affirmance of the conviction, for, indeed, the proof of his guilt was beyond reasonable doubt.
	GR No. 184908 2013-07-03	MAJOR JOEL G. CANTOS v. PEOPLE VILLARAMA, JR., J.
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.[20] 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.[21] To our mind, the evidence in this case is thoroughly inconsistent with petitioner's claim of innocence. Thus, we sustain the Sandiganbayan's finding that petitioner's guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
	GR No. 185960 2012-01-25	MARINO B. ICDANG v. SANDIGANBAYAN VILLARAMA, JR., J.
There is no dispute on the existence of the first three elements; petitioner admitted having received the cash advances for which he is accountable. As to the element of misappropriation, indeed petitioner failed to rebut the legal presumption that he had misappropriated the said public funds to his personal use, notwithstanding his unsubstantiated claim that he has in his possession liquidation documents. The SB therefore committed neither reversible error nor grave abuse of discretion in convicting the petitioner of malversation for failure to explain or account for his cash shortage by any liquidation or supporting documents. As this Court similarly ruled in one case[50]: In the crime of malversation, 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.
	GR Nos. 186659-710 2011-10-19	ZACARIA A. CANDAO v. PEOPLE VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Under the equipoise rule, where the evidence on an issue of fact is in equipoise or there is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates, the party having the burden of proof loses. The equipoise rule finds application if the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, for then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty, and does not suffice to produce a conviction.[26] Such is not the situation in this case because the prosecution was able to prove by adequate evidence that Disbursing Officer Haron failed to account for funds under his custody and control upon demand, specifically for the P21,045,570.64 illegally withdrawn from the said funds. In the crime of malversation, 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 in malversation cases.[27]