TELLO vs. PEOPLE FACTS: Tello was a Telegraph Operator and Telegraphic Transfer-in-Charge of the Bureau of Telecommunications.

The Commission on Audit conducted an audit and questioned petitioner on the official receipts of the bank to confirm the remittance advices. Petitioner informed them that the were sent to the regional office of the Bureau of Telecommunications. !aligumba" an auditor" secured copies of the official receipts and compared them with the remittance advices submitted b petitioner and found that the P#B$s official receipts did not correspond with petitioner$s remittance advices and that the total shortage incurred b petitioner amounted to P%&'"(&).)&. !aligumba demand the immediate production and restitution of the missing amounts. *owever" petitioner failed to submit his e+planation and to produce or restitute the missing funds. Petitioner also failed to show in his office. Petitioner was charged before the !andiganba an with malversation of public funds but he alleged that as an acting telecom operator" he was not an accountable officer. *owever" the !andiganba an found petitioner guilt be ond reasonable doubt of malversation of public funds. ISSUE: ,hether petitioner is guilt be ond reasonable doubt of the crime of malversation of public funds HELD: The elements of malversation of public funds under Article %-) of the .PC are/ -. that the offender is a public officer0 reason for

%. that he had the custod or control of funds or propert b of the duties of his office0 1. that those funds or propert which he was accountable0 and were public funds or propert

'.

that he appropriated" took" misappropriated or consented or" through abandonment or negligence" permitted another person to take them.

2n this case" all the elements of the crime are present. Petitioner is a public officer. *e was appointed Telegraph Operator As Telegraph Operator and Telegraphic Transfer-in-Charge" petitioner was in charge of the collections which he was supposed to remit to the P#B. The funds are public funds for which petitioner was accountable. 2t was also established that petitioner misappropriated the mone . *e failed to remit his cash collections and falsified the entries in the cashbooks to make it appear that he remitted the mone to P#B. Petitioner failed to e+plain the discrepancies and shortage in his accounts and he failed to restitute the missing amount upon demand. 2t was also established that petitioner stopped reporting to work The last paragraph of Article %-) of the .PC states/ 3The failure of a public officer to have dul forthcoming an public funds or propert with which he is chargeable" upon demand b an dul authori4ed officer" shall be prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or propert to personal uses.5 2n this case" petitioner failed to rebut the presumption of malversation. *e did not present testimonial evidence to defend himself. *e practicall admitted the shortage e+cept that he manifested" contrar to the evidence presented b the prosecution" that onl the amount of P("-6%.7& was missing. *e did not report to his office when the audit e+amination started. ,e sustain the !andiganba an$s finding that petitioner$s guilt has been proven be ond reasonable doubt. Petition denied.