Cited Laws
TL;DR — Ruling
WHEREFORE, this Court finds the accused, Lacepi T. Magnanao, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Malversation of Public Funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code and, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, sentences him to an indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years, four (4) months, and one (1) day of prision mayor to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal and to pay a fine in the amount of P42,540.
WHEREFORE, this Court finds the accused, Lacepi T. Magnanao, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Malversation of Public Funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code and, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, sentences him to an indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years, four (4) months, and one (1) day of prision mayor to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal and to pay a fine in the amount of P42,540.19 and is further sentenced to suffer perpetual special disqualification to hold public office. [6] Petitioner appealed to the Sandiganbayan but the special criminal court adopted the findings of the trial court and affirmed the RTC decision with modification, ordering petitioner to pay the city government of Davao P42,540.19 as civil indemnity. Thus, this petition. Petitioner contends that there was no sufficient evidence to sustain his conviction for malversation of public funds. Was petitioner's guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt? It was. Malversation of public funds is defined and penalized under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code: 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 take or misappropriate or shall consent, or through abandonment or neglect, shall permit any other person to take such public funds or property, wholly or partially, or shall otherwise be guilty of misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property.... xxx xxx xxx 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 e vidence that he has put such funds or property to personal use. The crime has the following elements: (1) the offender is a public officer; (2) he has custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his office; (3) the funds or property are public funds or public property for which he was accountable and (4) he appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented, or through abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take them. [7] All these elements were proven. It was not disputed that petitioner, as local treasury operation officer of Davao City, was a public officer. Part of his duties was to accept payments for real property taxes. In this connection, the city treasurer [8] of Davao City testified that petitioner received a manager's check for P45,540.19 from SFC as payment for real estate taxes for which he issued an official receipt. This was corroborated by SFC's representative. [9] Petitioner himself admitted receiving the check and issuing the receipt. Thus, by reason of the duties of his office, he had in his custody public funds in the amount of P45,540.19 for which he was accountable. Petitioner further admitted that, of the P45,540.19 which he received from SFC, he remitted only P3,0