This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-12-09 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Malversation may be committed by appropriating public funds or property; by taking or misappropriating the same; by consenting, or through abandonment or negligence, by permitting any other person to take such public funds or property; or by being otherwise guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property.[29] For a prosecution of the crime to prosper, concurrence of the following elements must be satisfactorily proved: (a) the offender is a public officer, (b) he has custody or control of the funds or property by reason of the duties of his office, (c) the funds or property are public funds or property for which he is accountable, and, most importantly, (d) he has appropriated, taken, misappropriated or consented, or, through abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take them.[30] Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code pertinently provides as follows:ARTICLE 217. 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, shall suffer: | |||||
|
2014-07-23 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code states that "conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it."[54] It does not need to be proven by direct evidence and may be inferred from the conduct before, during, and after the commission of the crime indicative of a joint purpose, concerted action, and concurrence of sentiments as in conspiracy. In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.[55] | |||||
|
2012-02-08 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The accountability for public funds or property of municipal mayors and treasurers was well-discussed in the case of People of the Philippines v. Teofilo G. Pantaleon, Jr.,[22] as follows: The funds for which malversation the appellants stand charged were sourced from the development fund of the municipality. They were funds belonging to the municipality, for use by the municipality, and were under the collective custody of the municipality's officials who had to act together to disburse the funds for their intended municipal use. The funds were therefore public funds for which the appellants as mayor and municipal treasurer were accountable. | |||||