Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

VICENTE R. MADARANG v. SANDIGANBAYAN

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR Nos. 163957-58 2009-04-07	MUNIB S. ESTINO v. PEOPLE VELASCO JR., J.
While demand is not an element of the crime of malversation,[26] it is a requisite for the application of the presumption. Without this presumption, the accused may still be proved guilty under Art. 217 based on direct evidence of malversation. In this case, the prosecution failed to do so. There is no proof that Pescadera misappropriated the amount for his personal use.
	GR No. 171812 2008-12-24	REMIA F. BONCALON v. OMBUDSMAN QUISUMBING, J.
She further avers that for liability to attach, notice and demand must be made upon her to afford her due process, but to the contrary, the state auditor informed her only on October 1, 1998 or more than ten months after the audit, and after she had gone on an approved leave of absence wherein she was cleared of money and property accountability and paid the money value of said leave. Invoking Madarang v. Sandiganbayan,[13] she finally contends that mere absence of funds is not sufficient proof of conversion, nor is her mere failure to turn over the funds at any given time sufficient to make a prima facie case, for conversion must be affirmatively proved, either by direct evidence or by the production of facts from which conversion necessarily follows.
	GR NO. 164575 2006-12-06	ROBERT P. WA-ACON v. PEOPLE VELASCO, JR., J.
[11] G.R. No. 112314, March 28, 2001, 355 SCRA 525.
	GR NOS. 160929-31 2005-08-16	RENE P. PONDEVIDA v. SANDIGANBAYAN CALLEJO, SR., J.
The prosecution is burdened to prove beyond reasonable doubt, either by direct or circumstantial evidence, that the public officer appropriated, misappropriated or consented or through abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take public property or public funds under his custody. Absent such evidence, the public officer cannot be held criminally liable for malversation.[27] Mere absence of funds is not sufficient proof of conversion; neither is the mere failure of the public officer to turn over the funds at any given time sufficient to make even the prima facie case. In fine, conversion must be proved.[28] However, an accountable officer may be convicted of malversation even in the absence of direct proof of misappropriation so long as there is evidence of shortage in his account which he is unable to explain.[29]