THE REVISED PENAL CODE: CRIMINAL LAW II CASES AND DOCTRINES, Arellano University School of Law aiza ebina/2014

Article 217
Malversation
PEOPLE v. BERNAS
C.A., 53 O.G. 1106

FACTS: The defendant municipal treasurer requisitioned from the Office of the Provincial Treasurer of Romblon for 200 sacks of Naric rice. As the rice was late
in coming and the people were clamoring for the same, the defendant personally went to Romblon to follow up his requisition, but was able to obtain only 85
small sacks of the local variety. The sale of these sacks of rice to the public was brisk but before the same were sold, the 200 big sacks of Naric rice previously
requisitioned arrived. The defendant then had a big quantity of Naric rice in stock in addition to the remaining local rice still undisposed. Theharvest season in
Romblon was close at hand which impending event would inevitably cause the prices to go considerably down. Apprehensive of the possibility of being left
with an unusually large stock of rice unsold, the defendant wired the Provincial Treasurer, offering to return the 200 big sacks of Naric rice; the latter, however,
advised the defendant to get in touch with other municipal treasurers in Sibuyan Islands and to try to dispose the surplus stocks to them.

To effect a swifter disposal of the large stock of rice, defendant in a trip to the provincial capital, requested authority from his superiors to sell the rice on
credit; the latter, however, warned him that such practice was not sanctioned by existing regulations and to do so would be defendants own risk. At that time,
he had no safe place to keep the rice, and there was an impending typhoon. Faced with no better alternative, the defendant decided to sell the rice on credit
to the municipal employees whose wages and salaries he himself had to disburse. This measure was adopted as it was easy for him to collect whatever
accounts were receivable from said vendees on credit.

He admits that the sale of the rice on credit was done not in accordance with existing rules and regulations, but he seeks exculpation from criminal liability in
that he did so under extreme necessity and in good faith.

ISSUE: Whether or not the accused is guilty of malversation

HELD: No. The defendant cannot be reasonably accused of having consented, or through abandonment or negligence, permitted other persons to take public
funds or property in his custody simply because in selling the rice on credit, he disposed of the cereal for valuable consideration as above explained. This fact
negatives negligence or criminal abandonment. But assuming, arguendo, that his conduct is elling the rice on credit before the advent of the typhoon
constitutes negligence, the Court opines that to render such element a basis for conviction under this article, the negligence involved must be positively and
clearly shown to be inexcusable, approximating malice or fraud. If there was any negligence exhibited by the defendant in the instant case, the Court believes
that the same is excusable and attaches no criminal liability whatsoever. Nonetheless, as the sales on credit were admittedly made in violation of existing
regulations, said transactions are deemed to have been undertaken at the defendants own risk and personal responsibility and he may be held civilly
accountable for the unpaid accounts of the municipal government of San Fernando, Romblon.

RATIO: Consenting or permitting through abandonment or negligence, any other person to take public funds or property is an act of malversation
punishable under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code. But in malversation, the negligence of the accountable public officer must be positively and clearly
shown to be inexcusable, approximating malice or fraud.

---
THE REVISED PENAL CODE: CRIMINAL LAW II CASES AND DOCTRINES, Arellano University School of Law aiza ebina/2014


Article 217
Malversation
Article 222
Officers Included in the Preceding Provisions
PEOPLE v. DELA SERNA
C.A., 40 O.G., Supp. 12, 159

FACTS: The accused was charged with malversation of public funds for having misappropriated funds entrusted to his case, for custody, in his capacity as public
officer of the Red Cross. He contends that Red Cross funds are not public in character.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Red Cross funds are considered public funds

HELD: Yes. Although Red Cross funds, etc. are not strictly public funds, it is the intention of the law to make such funds partake of some of the characteristics of
public funds, in that they are trust funds placed in the custody of accountable public officers for the purpose for which they are contributed by the public. So,
funds of the Red Cross, although not strictly public funds, become impressed with that character when they are entrusted to a public officer for his official
custody. Malversation may be committed upon property placed in the custody of public officers by reason of their office even if such property belongs to a
private individual.

RATIO: Government funds include not only revenue funds but also trust funds. The provisions of Article 217 apply to administrator or depository of funds or
property attached, seized, or deposited by public authority even if such property belongs to a private individual. (Article 222). Such phrase denotes the
express intention of the Revised Penal Code to make accountable public officers guilty of malversation not only of national, provincial, or municipal funds,
revenues or property, but also of other funds or property, even if they belong to private individuals, as long as such funds or property are placed in their
custody.

---












THE REVISED PENAL CODE: CRIMINAL LAW II CASES AND DOCTRINES, Arellano University School of Law aiza ebina/2014

Article 217
Malversation
PEOPLE v. CONSIGNA
G.R. No. L-18087, August 31, 1965

FACTS: Consigna, then Property Clerk of the Division Superintendent of Schools for the province of Surigao del Norte, and Prospero E. Borja, warehouseman of
the NAMARCO, were charged with the crime of malversation. Instead of shipping corrugated sheets to the municipality of Hinatuan, which were purchased for
the repair and improvement of the Elementary Schools of the barrios of Malixi, Tidman, San Juan and Baculin, they took away the corrugated sheets from the
Bodega of the said NAMARCO with a total value of P4,773.00 which they appropriated and converted to their personal use and benefit and in spite of repeated
demands by the Municipal Mayor of Hinatuan, the said accused failed and refused to produce the corrugated sheets in question to the damage and prejudice
of the said barrio schools. The trial court rendered judgment of acquittal for absolute lack of evidence. The court also ordered that both accused be
immediately reinstated to their positions, but only the accused Consigna shall be paid his full salary during the period of his suspension from his employment.

The provincial fiscal of Surigao moved for a reconsideration of the portion of the above decision ordering the reinstatement of Consigna and the payment of
the salary during his suspension therefrom. The court thereafter eliminated the part of its decision which directed the payment of Consigna's salary during the
period of his suspension, but left undisturbed the part which ordered the latter's reinstatement. Hence, this appeal.

ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court, besides acquitting Consigna had the authority to order his reinstatement

HELD: Yes. The ruling that upon acquitting one charged with malversation of public funds, the court has no authority to order payment of his salaries
corresponding to the period of his suspension because his right to the same was not involved in the case - does not apply to defendant's right in case of
acquittal to reinstatement to the position he was occupying at the time of his suspension, because, as we have said heretofore, this matter would seem to
be involved in the case of malversation albeit as a mere incident because conviction of the offense charged results necessarily in a denial of such right to
reinstatement in view of the penalty of disqualification provided by law.

RATIO: According to Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, a party found guilty of malversation of public funds shall be punished with imprisonment and the
additional penalty of special perpetual disqualification. It is clearly inferable from this that his conviction necessarily results in his dismissal from the public
office he occupied at the time he committed the offense. On the other hand, the preventive suspension of Consigna followed his indictment for the crime of
malversation, and this was later followed by an order for his dismissal as a result of the administrative investigation to which he was subjected even while
the criminal case for malversation was pending in court. It must be observed, in this connection, that although this administrative investigation was started
after the filing of the criminal case, Consigna's administrative superiors went ahead with said investigation which ended with an order for his dismissal
instead of waiting for the result of the criminal case.

---




THE REVISED PENAL CODE: CRIMINAL LAW II CASES AND DOCTRINES, Arellano University School of Law aiza ebina/2014

Article 217
Malversation
DELFIN v. CA
G.R. No. L-21022, February 27, 1965

FACTS: David Delfin, being then the Sales Supervisor of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office, Iloilo Branch, a public accountable officer, was charged with
malversation of public funds. He had received under his custody P21,122.40, representing the total value of 677 booklets of PCS tickets for the December 2,
1958 and December 21, 1958 draws. He is duty bound to account and produce the said amount to the proper authorities upon demand, but said accused
accounted and produced only the amount of P1,064.11, thereby leaving a balance of P20,058.29, which he misappropriated and converted to his own personal
use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of the PCSO. He pleaded not guilty and moved for the dismissal of the information. The court denied the motion
stating that the prosecution had established a prima facie case.

Thereupon, he filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for prohibition and mandamus with preliminary prohibitory injunction, to compel the trial court to
dismiss the case and desist from further proceeding with the trial of the same. After hearing the parties, the CA denied the petition. Petitioner contends that
the PCSO is a private office, that its employees are not "public officers" and its funds not "public funds". Thus, he argues that the elements of "public officer"
and "public funds" in the crime of malversation are wanting in his case, so that the trial court gravely abused its discretion in denying his motion to dismiss.

ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court acted in GAD in denying his motion to dismiss

HELD: Supposing petitioner's theory to be correct, that Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office's employees are not public officers and its funds not public funds,
still, the trial court cannot be said to have gravely abused its discretion in not dismissing the information. Even without the elements of "public officer" and
"public funds", the information can suffice for conviction of a lesser offense, namely, estafa. This Court has ruled that a person charged under an information
for malversation of public funds can be convicted of estafa, if the funds are in fact private funds, the reason being that estafa is included as a lesser, cognate
offense in relation to malversation.

---












THE REVISED PENAL CODE: CRIMINAL LAW II CASES AND DOCTRINES, Arellano University School of Law aiza ebina/2014

Article 217
Malversation
US v. VELASQUEZ
G.R. No. L-10935, 32 Phil. 157, February 1, 1916

FACTS: The accused, a clerk and an officer of the Government in the Province of Rizal, is convicted of the crime of misappropriation of public funds, and was
sentenced by the Court in addition to the penalty imposed by the trial court, to indemnify the Province of Rizal, to which the money misappropriated belongs
in the sum of P597, the amount misappropriated by him. He contends that he is not liable for he is just a mere clerk and not a bonded officer. Although he
does not seriously dispute his accountability for the public funds received by him in custody by virtue of his office, he argues that because he could not
disburse such public funds without any order from superior authority, and therefore, he only had a qualified charge of the properties that come into his
possession, thus the crime committed by him was theft, not malversation.

ISSUE: Whether or not the accused is liable for malversation

HELD: Yes. That the person accused is a mere clerk and not a bonded officer is of no legal consequence. The vital fact is that he is an employee of, or in some
way connected with, the government and that, in the course of his employment, he receives money or property belonging to the government for which he is
bound to account. It is the nature of the duties, not the relatively important name given to the office, which is the control ling factor in determining whether or
not the accused is an accountable public officer. The vital fact is not so much the manner in which appellant could lawfully perform his duties in relation to said
funds as the fact that he received money belonging to the Government for which he was bound to account. It is, hence, the nature of his duties, and not his
performance of those duties, that determines the character of his offense.

RATIO: The phrase in the law who by reason of the duties of his office, is accountable for public funds or property should be taken note of. It is the
nature of the duties of the public officer, not the name of the office, which is controlling.

---













THE REVISED PENAL CODE: CRIMINAL LAW II CASES AND DOCTRINES, Arellano University School of Law aiza ebina/2014

Article 217
Malversation
PEOPLE v. TOLENTINO
G.R. No. L-47077, 69 Phil. 715, June 14, 1940

FACTS: Zoilo Tolentino, then Provincial Treasurer of Surigao, was charged with the crime of malversation of public funds. Convicted of that offense, he was
sentenced to suffer the indeterminate sentence of twelve years to eighteen years imprisonment. He went to Manila on November 19, 1937, bringing with him
the amount of 92,000 pesos. But, instead of depositing it to the National Bank, as he used to do, he took the money to Ilocos Norte to visit his wife. He later on
admitted that he lost the money while in Manila. However, he was not able to prove this so the authorities suspected that he misappropriated the money for
his personal benefit. He, however, argues that since he was not called upon by any superior authority for him to present the said amount, there was no
evidence to convict him of malversation. He contends that before a trial or conviction for malversation shall take place, apart from the missing public funds or
property of which he is chargeable, there must be prior notification by a duly authorized officer to deliver or surrender the same.

ISSUE: Whether or not there must be prior notification by a duly authorized officer to deliver missing public funds to establish evidence against malversation

HELD: No. The last paragraph of Article 217 provides only for a rule of procedural law, a rule of evidence and no more. It is not necessary nor a prerequisite for
a trial and conviction for malversation.

RATIO: 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.

---