G.R. No.

164575  / December 6, 2006

ROBERT P. WA-ACON, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

CRIME CHARGED SANDIGANBAYAN SUPREME COURT

INFORMATION: Robert P. Wa-acon, a public officer, being a Special Collecting Officer, National Food Authority (NFA) and
stationed at Canonigo, Paco, Manila and as such was accountable and responsible of rice stocks and empty sacks for which he
received and entrusted to him, by reason of his official position, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with
grave abuse of confidence, misappropriate, misapply, embezzle and convert to his own personal use and benefit the aforesaid
stocks of rice and empty sacks with a total aggregate money value of P114,303.00, to the damage and prejudice of the
government in the aforementioned amount.

The Facts

Robert P. Wa-acon was a Special Collecting Officer of the National Food Authority (NFA) and was assigned at the Kadiwa
Center at Moriones, Tondo, Manila. One of his duties was to receive grains, consisting of rice and mongo, which shall
then be sold to the public on retail. The proceeds of the sale of the grains shall then be collected by the same accused.

Auditors from the Commission of Audit, composed of Dionisio A. Nillo, as team leader, Mercedes Punzalan, Audit Examiner II,
Herminia Gonzales, Audit Examiner II and Raquel Cruz, Clerk II, as members, conducted an examination of the
accountabilities of various Special Collecting Officers of the NFA, one of whom was accused Robert P. Wa-acon. .

In that office, the audit team asked the presence of accused Robert P. Wa-acon by virtue of a demand letter dated September
1981, demanding the latter to produce cash, cash items, stocks and empty sacks and other pertinent papers. As testified by
Prosecution witness Dionisio A. Nillo, accused Robert P. Wa-acon told the audit team that "he has no cash on hand at the
time pertaining to his accountability as Special Collecting Officer. Hence, it was indicated in the Cash Count Sheet that
there was no cash counted during the cash examination.

The Report of the Examination of the Cash and Accountabilities of accused Robert P. Wa-acon shows that the latter
incurred a cash shortage of One Hundred Fourteen Thousand Three Hundred Three Pesos (P114,303.00). I n the
Revised Summary of the Cash Examination of accused Robert P. Wa-acon, the cash shortage was changed to One Hundred Two
Thousand and One Hundred Ninety Nine Pesos and Twenty Centavos (P102,199.20) after deducting the cost of sixty (60) bags
of regular milled rice value of Six Thousand Nine Hundred (P6,900.00) and the monetary value of the empty sacks returned by
accused Robert P. Wa-acon, which is Five Thousand Two Hundred Three Pesos and Eighty Centavos (P5,203.80). However,
accused Robert P. Wa-acon made a refund of the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00). Therefore, the total shortage
amount[ed] to Ninety Two Thousand One Hundred Ninety Nine Pesos and Twenty Centavos (P92,199.20).

PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS

1. Petitioner denied that he misapplied and converted for his personal use the stocks of rice and empty sacks as
he had been faithfully remitting all the proceeds of the rice he sold to consumers.
2. Petitioner also contended that the shortage discovered by the Audit Team may be attributed to the discrepancy
in the actual weight of the rice actually delivered to him and that of the weight reflected in the receipts . In
other words, he claimed that the rice delivered to him weighed less than that for which he signed. Petitioner claimed
that he informed his superiors of such shortage verbally,but was unheeded.
 3. Petitioner further claimed that the only reason he signed for the sacks of rice, despite the shortage, was because he
was told that he would not be paid his salary if he would not sign, added to the fact that he was then hungry—all
of which prompted Wa-acon to sign the audit report of the Audit Team.
4. As to the missing empty sacks, petitioner argued that those were in the custody of the delivery man who had a
logbook where Special Collecting Officers sign as proof that the delivery man had taken the sacks.

The Sandiganbayan Ruling

GUILTY OF MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS

Citing the presumption under the last paragraph of Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code that "the failure of the public
officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds 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" and the inability of
accused Wa-acon to "rebut the presumption that he had put the rice stocks and the empty sacks to personal use," the
Sandiganbayan found him guilty of malversation of public funds under the Revised Penal Code.

ISSUE: Whether Wa-acon is guilty of the crime of malversation of public funds?

SUPREME COURT RULING

GUILTY OF MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS

Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code whereas provides:

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 x x x

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 uses (emphasis supplied).

The elements to constitute malversation under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code are as follows:

The elements common to all acts of malversation – under Article 217 are:

(a) that the offender be a public officer;

(b) that he had custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his office;

(c) these funds were public funds or property for which he was accountable; and

(d) that he appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented or through abandonment or negligence, permitted
another person to take them.

Accused petitioner has conceded that the first three (3) elements of the crime of malversation exist but asseverates
that the fourth element—that he appropriated, took, or misappropriated the public funds for which he was made
accountable by the Commission on Audit (COA) to his own personal use––was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Unfortunately, petitioner's postulation has no legal mooring. Article 217, as amended by Republic Act 1060, no longer
requires proof by the State that the accused actually appropriated, took, or misappropriated public funds or property.
A "presumption of law" is sanctioned by a statute prescribing that "a certain inference must be made whenever facts appear
which furnish the basis of the interference." This is to be set apart from a "presumption of fact" which is a "[conclusion] drawn
from particular circumstances, the connection between them and the sought for fact having received such a sanction in
experience as to have become recognized as justifying the assumption." When there is a presumption of law, the onus
probandi (burden of proof), generally imposed upon the State, is now shifted to the party against whom the interference is
made to adduce satisfactory evidence to rebut the presumption and hence, to demolish the prima facie case.

After the government auditors discovered the shortage and demanded an explanation, petitioner Wa-acon was not able to
make money readily available, immediately refund the shortage, or explain satisfactorily the cash deficit. These facts or
circumstances constitute prima facie evidence that he converted such funds to his personal use.

Unfortunately, petitioner's vaunted reliance on Madarang and Agullo does not provide legal relief as the facts in these cases
are not on all fours with his case. The accused parties in said cases were able to produce satisfactory evidence ample enough to
prove that the missing funds were not converted to their personal uses and thus, the legal presumption was effectively
negated..

In contrast, petitioner anchored his defenses solely on his own bare testimony unsubstantiated by other parol,
documentary, or object evidence to prop up such self-serving allegations. Without doubt, the rulings
in Madarang and Agullo cannot be considered precedents to the case at bar because the facts in said cases are not the
same or substantially similar to petitioner Wa-acon's situation.

WHEREFORE, We DENY the petition and the assailed April 22, 2004 Decision and the July 23, 2004 Resolution of the
Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 14375 are AFFIRMED IN TOTO.