THIRD DIVISION That on or about October 1, 1996 and for sometime prior or subsequent

thereto, in the Municipality of San Antonio, Province of Zambales, Philippines

G.R. No. 178626               June 13, 2012 and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable tribunal, the above named
accused ROMEO D. LONZANIDA, being then Municipal Mayor of San
Antonio, Zambales, in connivance and conspiracy with co-accused CECILIA
CECILIA U. LEGRAMA, Petitioner,
U. LEGRAMA, being then Municipal Treasurer of San Antonio, Zambales,
vs.
who, as such, is accountable for public funds received and/or entrusted to
SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
her by reason of her office, both, while in the performance of their respective
official functions, taking advantage of their official positions, and committing
DECISION the offense in relation to their respective functions, did then and there,
wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously and with grave abuse of confidence, take,
PERALTA, J.: misappropriate and convert to their personal use and benefit, the amount of
₱1,152,900.758 from such public funds, to the damage of the government, in
This is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the Decision 1 dated January the aforesaid amount.
30, 2007 of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 25204 finding petitioner
guilty of the crime of Malversation of Public Funds, and the Resolution 2 dated CONTRARY TO LAW.
May 30, 2007 denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
Both petitioner and Lonzanida voluntarily surrendered and posted their
The factual and procedural antecedents are as follows: respective cash bonds.

On September 5, 1996, the Office of the Provincial Auditor of the Upon arraignment, petitioner and Lonzanida pleaded not guilty to the offense
Commission on Audit (COA) for the Province of Zambales issued PAO Office charged; hence, trial on the merits ensued.
No. 96-093 directing an Audit Team composed of State Auditor 1 Virginia D.
Bulalacao, State Auditor 1 Teresita Cayabyab and Auditing Examiner II To establish its case, the prosecution presented the testimony of the Audit
Lourdes Castillo, to conduct an examination of the cash and account of Team leader, Virginia D. Bulalacao. On the other hand, the defense
petitioner Cecilia Legrama, the Municipal Treasurer of the Municipality of San presented both the testimonies of petitioner and Lonzanida. After the parties
Antonio, Zambales. have submitted their respective pleadings and evidence, the Sandiganbayan
rendered a Decision9 acquitting Lonzanida. However, the tribunal concluded
After the audit, the COA prepared a Special Cash Examination Report on the that petitioner malversed the total amount of ₱1,131,595.05 and found her
Cash and Accounts of Ms. Cecilia U. Legrama4 dated October 1, 1996. The guilty of the crime of Malversation of Public Funds and sentenced her
report contained the findings that petitioner’s cash accountability was short of accordingly the dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
₱289,022.75 and that there was an unaccounted Internal Revenue Allotment
(IRA) in the amount of ₱863,878.00, thereby showing a total shortage in the WHEREFORE, premises considered, for failure of the prosecution to prove
amount of ₱1,152,900.75. Included in the shortage is the amount of his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, accused ROMEO D. LONZANIDA, is
₱709,462.80, representing the total amount of various sales invoices, chits, hereby acquitted of the instant crime charged.
vales, and disbursement vouchers,5 which were disallowed in the audit for
lack of supporting documents. From the total amount of the shortage,
The Hold Departure Order issued against him is hereby ordered lifted. The
petitioner was able to restitute the initial amount of ₱60,000.00, 6
cash bond which he posted to obtain his provisional liberty is hereby ordered
returned to him subject to the usual auditing and accounting procedures.
Consequently, petitioner and Romeo D. Lonzanida (Lonzanida), the
Municipal Mayor of San Antonio, Zambales at the time the audit was
Accused CECILIA U. LEGRAMA is hereby declared guilty beyond
conducted, were charged in an Information 7 dated December 15, 1998 with
reasonable doubt of the crime of Malversation of Public Funds.
the crime of Malversation of Public Funds. The accusatory portion of which
reads:
The amount involved in the instant case is more than Php22,000.00. Hence,
pursuant to the provisions of Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, the
penalty to be imposed is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN ERRED AND GRAVELY
reclusion perpetua. ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED
CECILIA U. LEGRAMA BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE
Considering the absence of any aggravating circumstance and the presence CRIME OF MALVERSATION IN NOT FINDING THAT SHE
of two mitigating circumstances, viz., accused Legrama’s voluntary surrender SUCCEEDED TO OVERTHROW THE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE
and partial restitution of the amount involved in the instant case, and being OF CONVERSION/MISAPPROPRIATION UNDER ARTICLE 217
entitled to the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, she is hereby OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE AND IN REJECTING HER
sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of 4 years, 2 months and 1 day EXPLANATION AS REGARDS THE VOUCHERS AND "VALE." 14
of prision correccional, as minimum, to 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor,
as maximum. Petitioner argues that the Sandiganbayan failed to consider the testimonial
and documentary exhibits presented to support her claim that she did not
Further, she is ordered to pay the amount of Php299,204.65, representing appropriate or misappropriate for her use and benefit the subject fund nor did
the balance of her incurred shortage after deducting therein the restituted she allow her co-accused to use the said fund without the proper
amount of Php832,390.40 and the Php200.00 covered by an Official Receipt acknowledgment such as receipts, vales or sign chits. Petitioner maintains
dated August 18, 1996 issued in the name of the Municipality of San Antonio that she has satisfactorily explained the shortage on the basis of the
(Exhibit "22"). She is also ordered to pay a fine equal to the amount documentary evidence submitted.
malversed which is Php1,131,595.05 and likewise suffer the penalty of
perpetual special disqualification and to pay costs. As for her failure to make the necessary liquidation of the amount involved,
petitioner posits that this is not attributable to her, considering that before she
SO ORDERED.10 could make the proper liquidation, she was already relieved from duty and
was prevented by the COA team from entering her office.
In convicting petitioner of the crime charged against her, the Sandiganbayan
concluded that the prosecution established all the elements of the crime of On its part, respondent maintains that petitioner’s failure to account for the
malversation of public funds. Although petitioner was able to restitute the shortage after she was demanded to do so is prima facie proof that she
total amount of ₱832,390.40, 11 petitioner failed to properly explain or justify converted the missing funds to her personal use. It insists that the
the shortage in her accountability. However, the same conclusion against prosecution has sufficiently adduced evidence showing that all the elements
petitioner’s co-accused was not arrived at by the court, considering that there of the crime of Malversation of public funds are present in the instant case
was no evidence presented to prove that he conspired with the petitioner in and that it was proper for the Sandiganbayan to convict her of the crime
committing the crime charged. charged.

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, 12 but it was denied in the The petition is bereft of merit.
Resolution13 dated May 30, 2007.
Malversation of public funds is defined and penalized in Article 217 of the
Hence, the petition assigning the following errors: Revised Penal Code, which reads:

I. Art. 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
THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN ERRED AND GRAVELY
take or misappropriate or shall consent, or through abandonment or
ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED
negligence, shall permit any other person to take such public funds or
CECILIA U. LEGRAMA BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE
property, wholly or partially, or shall, otherwise, be guilty of the
CRIME OF MALVERSATION AND IN DIRECTING THE ACCUSED
misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property, shall suffer:
TO PAY THE AMOUNT OF PHP299,204.65 AND A FINE EQUAL
TO THE AMOUNT MALVERSED WHICH IS PHP1,131,595.05.

II.
 1. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum More importantly, in malversation of public funds, the prosecution is
periods, if the amount involved in the misappropriation or burdened to prove beyond reasonable doubt, either by direct or
malversation does not exceed 200 pesos. circumstantial evidence, that the public officer appropriated, misappropriated
or consented, or through abandonment or negligence, permitted another
2. The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods, person to take public property or public funds under his custody. Absent such
if the amount involved is more than 200 pesos but does not exceed evidence, the public officer cannot be held criminally liable for malversation.
6,000 pesos. 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
3. The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion
proved. However, an accountable officer may be convicted of malversation
temporal in its minimum period, if the amount involved is more than
even in the absence of direct proof of misappropriation so long as there is
6,000 pesos but is less than 12,000 pesos.
evidence of shortage in his account which he is unable to explain. 16
4. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium and maximum
Under Article 217, a presumption was installed that upon demand by any
periods, if the amount involved is more than 12,000 pesos but is less
duly authorized officer, the failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming
than 22,000 pesos. If the amount exceeds the latter, the penalty shall
any public funds or property – with which said officer is accountable – should
be reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua.
be prima facie evidence that he had put such missing funds or properties to
personal use. When these circumstances are present, a "presumption of law"
In all cases, persons guilty of malversation shall also suffer the penalty of arises that there was malversation of public funds or properties as decreed
perpetual special disqualification and a fine equal to the amount of the funds by Article 217.17 To be sure, this presumption is disputable and rebuttable by
malversed or equal to the total value of the property embezzled. evidence showing that the public officer had fully accounted for the alleged
cash shortage.
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 In the case at bar, after the government auditors discovered the shortage
officer, shall be prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or and informed petitioner of the same,18 petitioner failed to properly explain or
property to personal use. justify the shortage that was subject to her accountability. Petitioner denied
that she put the amount involved to personal use and presented various
Malversation may be committed by appropriating public funds or property; by sales invoice, chits, vale forms, and disbursement voucher to prove her
taking or misappropriating the same; by consenting, or through abandonment claim.19 Petitioner even went further by testifying that the total amount of
or negligence, by permitting any other person to take such public funds or ₱681,000.00 appearing in a disbursement voucher 20 were cash advances
property; or by being otherwise guilty of the misappropriation or malversation given to the mayor during the height of the Mt. Pinatubo eruption. However,
of such funds or property.15 The essential elements common to all acts of the date when the eruption occurred was way before the period subject of the
malversation under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code are: audit. As aptly found by the court a quo:

(a) That the offender be a public officer; This Court takes judicial notice that the Mt. Pinatubo erupted in June 1991,
and has not erupted again up to the present.1âwphi1 As stated earlier, the
(b) That he had the custody or control of funds or property by reason COA audit conducted on the account of accused Legrama covers the
of the duties of his office; financial transactions of the municipality from June 24, 1996 to September 4,
1996. Therefore, the said cash advances, which accused Legrama confirmed
(c) That those funds or property were public funds or property for were given to accused Lonzanida "during the height of the Mt. Pinatubo
which he was accountable; and eruption," which occurred five years before the subject audit, are not
expenses of the municipality during the period of audit covered in the instant
case. As it is, it has been disallowed by the COA for lack of necessary
(d) That he appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented, or
supporting papers. Even if the said disbursement voucher had been
through abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to
completely accomplished, and granting that all the necessary supporting
take them.
documents had been attached thereto, it would nonetheless be disallowed As for the appropriate penalty, since the amount involved is more than
because it covers a transaction which is not subject of the audit. 21 ₱22,000.00, pursuant to the provisions of Article 217 of the Revised Penal
Code, the penalty to be imposed is reclusion temporal in its maximum period
xxxx to reclusion perpetua.

In her defense, accused Legrama testified that except for the expenses she However, as aptly concluded by the Sandiganbayan, petitioner enjoys the
incurred for her official travels, she did not put the amount involved in the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and restitution. Although
instant case to personal use. As proof of her claim, she produced and restitution is akin to voluntary surrender,26 as provided for in paragraph 727 of
painstakingly identified in open court each and every sales invoice, chit, vale Article 13, in relation to paragraph 1028 of the same Article of the Revised
and the disbursement voucher which are likewise the evidence of the Penal Code, restitution should be treated as a separate mitigating
prosecution marked as Exhibits "B-3" to "B-3NN" (Exhibits "1" to "1-NN") and circumstance in favor of the accused when the two circumstances are
in addition, presented various sales invoice, chit and vale form marked as present in a case, which is similar to instances where voluntary surrender
Exhibits "3" to "72," all in the total amount of Php1,169,099.22, an amount and plea of guilty are both present even though the two mitigating
more than what is involved in the instant indictment. 22 circumstances are treated in the same paragraph 7, Article 13 of the Revised
Penal Code.29 Considering that restitution is also tantamount to an admission
of guilt on the part of the accused, it was proper for the Sandiganbayan to
To reiterate, the subject of the audit from which the instant case stemmed
have considered it as a separate mitigating circumstance in favor of
from are financial transactions of the municipality from June 24, 1996 to
petitioner.
September 4, 1996. Therefore, official receipts, chits or vales, even if they
are in the name of the municipality, but nonetheless issued to it for
transactions as far back as the year 1991 are immaterial to the instant case. Taking into consideration the absence of any aggravating circumstance and
It is sad and even deplorable that accused Legrama, in an attempt to the presence of two mitigating circumstance, i.e., petitioner’s voluntary
extricate herself from liability, tried to deceive this Court in this manner. surrender and partial restitution of the amount malversed, 30 the prescribed
Having obtained a degree in Bachelor of Science Major in Accounting and penalty is reduced to prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion
being the municipal treasurer for eight (8) years, accused Legrama is temporal in its medium period, which has a range of ten (10) years and one
presumed to be aware that she knowingly attempted to deceive this Court. 23 (1) day to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months. In accordance with
paragraph 1, Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code 31 and considering that
there are no other mitigating circumstance present, the maximum term
Undoubtedly, all the elements of the crime are present in the case at bar.
should now be the medium period of prision mayor maximum to reclusion
First, it is undisputed that petitioner was the municipal treasurer at the time
temporal medium, which is reclusion temporal minimum and applying the
material to this case. Second, it is the inherent function of petitioner, being
Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum term should be anywhere within
the municipal treasurer, to take custody of and exercise proper management
the period of prision correccional maximum to prision mayor medium. Hence,
of the local government’s funds. Third, the parties have stipulated during the
the penalty imposed needs modification. Accordingly, petitioner is sentenced
pre-trial of the case that petitioner received the subject amount as public
to suffer the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years, two (2) months and one
funds24 and that petitioner is accountable for the same. 25 Fourth, petitioner
(1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to twelve (12) years, five (5)
failed to rebut the prima facie presumption that she has put such missing
months and eleven (11) days of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
funds to her personal use.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED. The Decision

Verily, in the crime of malversation of public funds, all that is necessary for
dated January 30, 2007 and the Resolution dated May 30, 2007 of the
conviction is proof that the accountable officer had received the public funds
Sandiganbayan are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioner is hereby
and that he failed to account for the said funds upon demand without offering
sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years, two (2)
sufficient explanation why there was a shortage. In fine, petitioner’s failure to
months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum term, to twelve
present competent and credible evidence that would exculpate her and rebut
(12) years, five (5) months and eleven (11) days of reclusion temporal, as
the prima facie presumption of malversation clearly warranted a verdict of
maximum term.
conviction.

SO ORDERED.
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA*
Associate Justice