Enriquez vs People Agullo vs People

8/9/2019 Enriquez vs People Agullo vs People

1/34

Digest:

FACTS: ENRIQUEZ was Municipal Treasurer, while ESPINOSA was Administrative

Oicer and actin! Municipal "ashier # the Oice # the Municipal Treasurer # Pasi!

$Pasi! Treasur%&' The% were accused # malversati#n # pu(lic unds am#untin! t# P),

*+,+++'-*, which sh#rta!e was mainl% due t# a dish#n#red "hina .an/in! "hec/ N#')0)*00 dated Oct#(er +, *1+ in the am#unt # P),23+,1**'*0'4 Said chec/ was

dep#sited with the Que5#n "it% 6istrict Treasur% Oice as part # the c#llecti#ns # the

Pasi! Treasur%' The chec/ was dish#n#red'

On 6ecem(er ), *1+, a letter # demand was sent t# ENRIQUEZ (% the "#mmissi#n

#n Audit $"OA& t# restitute the value # the dish#n#red chec/' ENRIQUEZ denied

resp#nsi(ilit% #r the sh#rta!e and p#inted t# ESPINOSA as the #ne t# wh#m the letter

# demand sh#uld (e addressed as the cust#dian # said chec/'

The chec/ # P),23+,1**'*0 was pa%a(le t# the Municipal Treasurer # Pasi! and wasdrawn (% #ne 46' N#(le4' It (ears ENRIQUEZ7s ind#rsement at the (ac/ and was

acc#mpanied (% a statement # chec/s als# (earin! the initials # ENRIQUEZ' Several

da%s ater, the Que5#n "it% Treasur% in#rmed the Pasi! Treasur% # the dish#n#r #

"." "hec/ N#' )0)*00'

Ater investi!ati#n, the N.I, the drawer # su(8ect chec/ was a certain 46' N#(le4, with

the acc#unt $"." N#' 0023*)93& re!istered in the name # #ne :e#n#ra Re%es #

E6SA ;#me Impr#vement "enter, Inc' The% #und #ut that initials # ENRIQUEZ were

n#t written (% #ne and the same pers#n'

It appears that less than a m#nth (e#re the dish#n#r # the su(8ect chec/ #r #n

Septem(er 2), *1+, ESPINOSA hersel had !#ne t# the Que5#n "it% Treasur% t# ma/e

a dep#sit # chec/s and statement # chec/s' uested

her t# cr#ss9#ut the irst i!ure 4)4 #n the #icial receipt t# c#n#rm with the actual

am#unt # P=),0-'* dep#sited therein'

?hen arrai!ned, #n April 2), *110, ENRIQUEZ and ESPINOSA pleaded n#t !uilt% t#

the char!e' Ater trial, the Sandi!an(a%an rendered its 8ud!ement that the% were !uilt%

hence the appeal'

ISSUE: ?hether #r n#t ENRIQUEZ and ESPINOSA had incurred a sh#rta!e in their

acc#unts as Municipal Treasurer and Administrative Oicer@desi!nated as Actin!

"ashier'


2/34

;E:6 N#' Enri>ue5 and Espin#sa are ac>uitted (% the Supreme "#urt' The crime #

malversati#n #r which ENRIQUEZ and ESPINOSA had (een char!ed is deined under

Article 2*+ # the Revised Penal "#de'

The elements # malversati#n under the a(#ve penal pr#visi#n are

$a& That the #ender is a pu(lic #icer'

$(& That he has the cust#d% #r c#ntr#l # unds #r pr#pert% (% reas#n #

the duties # his #ice'

$c& That th#se unds #r pr#pert% are pu(lic unds #r pr#pert% #r which he

is acc#unta(le'

$d& That he appr#priated, t##/, misappr#priated #r c#nsented #r, thr#u!h

a(and#nment #r ne!li!ence, permitted an#ther pers#n t# ta/e them' B+C

Deril%, the irst tw# elements are present in this case' The indin!s # the Sandi!an(a%an

that ENRIQUEZ and ESPINOSA are pu(lic #icers wh# have the cust#d% #r c#ntr#l #

unds #r pr#pert% (% reas#n # the duties # their #ice are dul% supp#rted (% the

evidence' It is the last tw# elements, i.e., whether #r n#t the am#unt represented in the

dish#n#red chec/ c#nstituted pu(lic unds and whether ENRIQUEZ and@#r ESPINOSA

reall% misappr#priated said pu(lic unds, where the instant petiti#ns #cus

themselves' The Supreme "#urt is n#t c#nvinced due t# the #ll#win! reas#ns Ne#ld

First. There is n# evidence t# pr#ve that the Pasi! Treasur% incurred a cash sh#rta!e in

the am#unt # P),*+,+++'-*' As per rep#rt # the audit team, the alle!ed sh#rta!e was

c#mputed and (ased #n the value # the dish#n#red chec/' Evidence # sh#rta!e is

necessar% (e#re there c#uld (e an% ta/in!, appr#priati#n, c#nversi#n, #r l#ss # pu(lic

unds that w#uld am#unt t# malversati#n' It ma/es n# sense #r an% (#!us chec/ t# (e

pr#duced t# 4c#ver up4 an ineistent malversati#n'

Second. There is n# evidence that ENRIQUEZ #r ESPINOSA had received such an

am#unt which the% c#uld n# l#n!er pr#duce #r acc#unt #r at the time # the audit'

Third ' There is n# sh#win! that the su(8ect chec/ was received (% the Pasi! Treasur% in

an #icial capacit%F that there was a dut% t# receive #r c#llect the said am#untF and that

there was an #(li!ati#n t# acc#unt #r the same'

Fourth. The Sandi!an(a%an clearl% erred in inerrin! r#m the incident that transpired #n

Septem(er 2), *1+, wherein ESPINOSA dep#sited chec/s with the Que5#n "it%

Treasur%' ESPINOSA has eplained that she re>uested that the c#rrecti#n (e made

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/119239.html#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/119239.html#_ftn7


3/34

(ecause she disc#vered *= minutes ater she was issued the #icial receipt that the

chec/s and the acc#mpan%in! statements # chec/shad n#t (een end#rsed and si!ned

(% ENRIQUEZ' M#re#ver, the !eneral rule is that the law will n#t c#nsider evidence that

a pers#n has d#ne a certain act at a particular time as pr#(ative # a c#ntenti#n that he

has d#ne a similar act at an#ther time' This is the rule # res inter alios actaB #und in

Secti#n )-, Rule *)0 # the Rules # "#urt, as amended' Said incident c#uld n#t even

suicientl% esta(lish a plan #r scheme (etween ENRIQUEZ and ESPINOSA t# c#ver9up

a sh#rta!e that has never (een pr#ven'

In view # the #re!#in!, the presumpti#n is that ENRIQUEZ and ESPINOSA are

inn#cent, and the presumpti#n c#ntinues up t# the m#ment their !uilt is pr#ved (e%#nd

reas#na(le d#u(t' T# 8usti% their c#nvicti#n # the #ense char!ed, the evidence must

esta(lish their !uilt t# a m#ral certaint%' In the instant case, the pr##s #n rec#rd all

sh#rt # that re>uired criteri#n' "#nse>uentl%, the de!ree # m#ral certaint% re>uired t#

8usti% c#nvicti#n #r this particular #ense is s#rel% wantin! and petiti#ners7 ac>uittal

there# must (e ad8ud!ed'

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/119239.html#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/119239.html#_ftn18


4/34

6IGEST

uired the latter,

thr#u!h a letter # demand,B3C t# Hpr#duce immediatel% the missin! unds'J

In a letter B+C dated 2= Au!ust *13, petiti#ner c#mplied with the directive (%

eplainin! that the cash sh#rta!e was, in eect, due t# a H#rtuit#us eventJ where theam#unt c#uld have (een st#len@ta/en (% s#me(#d% #n the da% she suered a str#/e #n

22 Oct#(er *1=, near the c#rner # uan :una Street and Imelda Avenue, Tacl#(an

"it%'

Stri/in! d#wn the deense as Hincredible and without basis,” the Sandi!an(a%an

rendered its assailed decisi#n, c#nvictin! petiti#ner A!ull# # the crime # malversati#n

# pu(lic unds, rati#cinatin! principall% that “ no evidence has been presented linking

the loss of the government funds with the alleged sudden heart attack of the

accused (herein petitioner).”

ISSUE: Whether or not the accused utilized the public funds for personal use based on

pria facie e!idence.

"E#$: N#' Prosecution opted not to present a singe !itness t# (uttress its (id

#r c#nvicti#n and reied "ere# on t$e prima facie evidence of conversion or

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jul2001/132926.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jul2001/132926.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jul2001/132926.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jul2001/132926.htm#_edn7


5/34


6/34

T;IR6 6IDISION

+.). -o. /2/. 1a# /, 2000

F)A-CISC* E-)I3UE # C)U, petitioner, vs. PE*P5E *F T(E P(I5IPPI-ES,

and SA-DIA-A7A-, respondents.

+.). -o. /289. 1a# /, 2000

CA)1E-CITA . ESPI-*SA, petitioner, vs. T$e (*-*)A5E SA-DIA-A7A-,

and PE*P5E *F T(E P(I5IPPI-ES, respondents.

D E C I S I * -

*-AA)E7ES, J .:

The instant petiti#ns #r review #n certiorari see/ the reversal # the Sandi!an(a%an7s

decisi#n # ue5 $ENRIQUEZ& and "armencita G' Espin#sa $ESPINOSA& # the


7/34

crime # malversati#n # pu(lic unds, deined in Article 2*+$-& # the Revised Penal

"#de'

The essential antecedents as can (e !athered r#m the d#cumentar% and testim#nial

evidence are the #ll#win! Scle

ENRIQUEZ was Municipal Treasurer, while ESPINOSA was Administrative Oicer and

actin! Municipal "ashier # the Oice # the Municipal Treasurer # Pasi! $Pasi!

Treasur%&' .% virtue # :#cal G#vernment Audit Order N#' 90*9), an audit team

headed (% "armencita Antasuda as team leader c#nducted an audit eaminati#n # the

cash and acc#unts # the Pasi! Treasur% c#verin! the peri#d r#m Ma% -, *1+ t#

N#vem(er )0, *1+' The audit discl#sed, am#n! #ther thin!s, 4accused Enri>ue57s

acc#unts c#ntained a sh#rta!e am#untin! t#P),*+,+++'-*, which sh#rta!e was mainl%

due t# a dish#n#red "hina .an/in! "hec/ N#' )0)*00 dated Oct#(er +, *1+ in the

am#unt # P),23+,1**'*0'4 Said chec/ was dep#sited with the Que5#n "it% 6istrict

Treasur% Oice $Que5#n "it% Treasur%& as part # the c#llecti#ns # the Pasi! Treasur%'

The chec/ was dish#n#red #r the #ll#win! reas#ns $a& it was n#t received in pa%ment

# an% taF $(& it was n#t ac/n#wled!ed (% an #icial receiptF $c& the acc#unt a!ainst

which it was drawn was under !arnishmentF $d& the si!nat#r% therein was n#t auth#ri5ed

t# si!nF and $e& it was drawn a!ainst insuicient unds' Llaw

On 6ecem(er ), *1+, a letter # demand was sent t# ENRIQUEZ (% the "#mmissi#n

#n Audit $"OA& t# restitute the value # the dish#n#red chec/' In a repl% dated

6ecem(er =, *1+, ENRIQUEZ denied resp#nsi(ilit% #r the sh#rta!e and p#inted t#

ESPINOSA as the #ne t# wh#m the letter # demand sh#uld (e addressed as thecust#dian # said chec/

"hina .an/in! "hec/ N#' )0)*00 dated Oct#(er +, *1+ in the am#unt

# P),23+,1**'*0 was pa%a(le t# the Municipal Treasurer # Pasi! and was drawn (%

#ne 46' N#(le4' The chec/ (ears ENRIQUEZ7s ind#rsement at the (ac/ and was

acc#mpanied (% a statement # chec/s als# (earin! the initials # ENRIQUEZ' The

su(8ect chec/ was transmitted r#m the Pasi! Treasur% t# the Que5#n "it% Treasur% as

the #icial district treasur% #r municipal dep#sits' Acc#rdin! t# .enit# .uenvia8e, a

casual 8anit#r # the Pasi! Treasur%, #n Oct#(er *=, *1+, ENRIQUEZ instructed him t#

!et the (undled chec/s r#m his ta(le and t# deliver them t# the Que5#n "it% Treasur%';e c#uld n#t recall h#w man% chec/s were ta/en r#m the ta(le # the municipal

treasurer (ecause the% were alread% (undled' .enit# .uenvia8e was issued tw# #icial

receipts, #ne # which, O' R' N#' 2+1-=*, was in the am#unt # P),)0,++-'--, and

included the am#unt # the dish#n#red chec/'


8/34

Several da%s ater, the Que5#n "it% Treasur% in#rmed the Pasi! Treasur% # the

dish#n#r # "." "hec/ N#' )0)*00' The chec/ was dep#sited (% the Que5#n "it%

Treasur% under Acc#unt N#' 3 with the PN., "u(a# .ranch, #r credit t# the Pasi!

Treasur% (ut it was dish#n#red and returned #n Oct#(er 2*, *1+ #r the reas#ns

a(#ve9menti#ned'

The then Ma%#r Mari# Ra%mund# # Pasi! sent a letter9re>uest t# the N.I t# c#nduct an

investi!ati#n # the alle!ed sh#rta!e and Att%' ue5 appearin! in the su(8ect chec/ and the statement # chec/s,

t#!ether with standards # c#mparis#n c#nsistin! # several d#cuments' A c#mparativeeaminati#n (% the N.I Questi#ned 6#cument Epert # the specimens su(mitted

revealed that the >uesti#ned and standard sample specimen initials # ENRIQUEZ were

n#t written (% #ne and the same pers#n' Lsc

It appears that less than a m#nth (e#re the dish#n#r # the su(8ect chec/ #r #n

Septem(er 2), *1+, ESPINOSA hersel had !#ne t# the Que5#n "it% Treasur% t# ma/e

a dep#sit # chec/s and statement # chec/s' uested her t# cr#ss9#ut the irst i!ure 4)4 #n the#icial receipt t# c#n#rm with the actual am#unt # P=),0-'* dep#sited therein'

In an In#rmati#n dated


9/34

#icial p#siti#ns as such, c#nspirin! and c#nederatin! with each #ther

and ta/in! advanta!e # their #icial p#siti#ns with want#n disre!ard #

auditin! laws, rules and re!ulati#ns, did then and there willull%, unlawull%

and el#ni#usl% and with !rave a(use # c#nidence, misappr#priate,

misappl% and c#nvert t# their #wn pers#nal use and (eneit the am#unt #

T;REE MI::ION ONE ;UN6RE6 SEDENT EIG;T T;OUSAN6

SEDEN ;UN6RE6 SEDENT9SEDEN AN6 -*@*00 $P),*+,+++'-*&,

Philippine currenc%, r#m the said pu(lic unds received (% them in their

respective #icial p#siti#ns a#rementi#ned in the Oice # the Municipal

Treasurer # Pasi!, Metr# Manila , t# the dama!e and pre8udice # the

!#vernment'

"ONTRAR TO :A?'4B2C

?hen arrai!ned, #n April 2), *110, ENRIQUEZ and ESPINOSA pleaded n#t !uilt% t#

the char!e' Ater trial, the Sandi!an(a%an rendered its 8ud!ment, pr#mul!ated #n


10/34

ENRIQUEZ and ESPINOSA in c#nspirac% with each #ther misappr#priated pu(lic unds

in their cust#d% and s#u!ht t# c#ver up the sh#rta!es alread% eistin! in the municipal

treasur%7s c#llecti#ns (% dep#sitin! the su(8ect "hina .an/in! "#rp#rati#n chec/ in the

am#unt # P),*+,+++'-*' The Sandi!an(a%an, in its assailed decisi#n, rati#cinated

thus

4 '

ue5 and Espin#sa in their deense, it appears that

certain circumstances # param#unt imp#rtance have (een i!n#red #r

#verl##/ed (% the deense, c#nsiderin! the #re!#in! admitted acts #n

rec#rd, which are, that the instant pr#secuti#n is #r Malversati#n # Pu(lic

unds and that #nce a sh#rta!e in said unds had (een esta(lished, it is

the acc#unta(le #icer $#r #icers& wh# (ear$s& the #(li!ati#n t# su(mit a

satisact#r% eplanati#n as t# wh% he $#r the%& sh#uld n#t (e held

acc#unta(le there#r $Article 2*+, Revised Penal "#de&'

These circumstances have n#t (een th#r#u!hl% n#r dili!entl% delved int#

(% either # the accused, wh# were apparentl% m#re c#ncentrated in

p#intin! t# each #ther and shitin! the (lame #r the appearance and@#r

intr#ducti#n int# the municipal treasurer7s acc#unts # a chec/ in the

am#unt # P),23+,1**'*0 drawn a!ainst the "hina .an/in! "#rp#rati#n,

dated Oct#(er +, *1+ $Ehi(it E&' As testiied t# (% pr#secuti#n witness

Audit#r "armelita Antasuda, said chec/ was made t# #rm part # thec#llecti#ns # the municipal treasurer, s#metime in Oct#(er *1+, despite

the act that there was n# #icial receipt appearin! t# have (een issued

#r it and neither d#es it appear t# have (een issued in pa%ment # taes

#r #(li!ati#ns due t# the municipalit% # Pasi!' Aterwards, said chec/,

(earin! accused Enri>ue57 ind#rsement at the (ac/, was included in a

statement # chec/s $Ehi(it P& prepared in the Pasi! Municipal

Treasurer7s Oice #r transmittal t#, and dep#sit with, the Que5#n "it%

Treasurer7s Oice, the latter (ein! the #icial district treasur% #r municipal

dep#sits' Missc

The statement # the chec/s $Ehi(it P&, t#!ether with the chec/ in

>uesti#n $Ehi(it E&, and an#ther statement # chec/s $Ehi(it +9Espin#sa&

was admittedl% (r#u!ht (% .enit# .uenvia8e, a casual 8anit#r in the

municipal treasurer7s #ice, up#n the instructi#n # accused Enri>ue5 t#

the Que5#n "it% Treasurer7s Oice and received thereat #n Oct#(er *=,

*1+' .uenvia8e was issued tw# #icial receipts, #ne # which, O' R' N#'


11/34

2+1-=* $Ehi(it +9(9Enri>ue5&, was in the am#unt # P),)0,++-'--, which

included the dish#n#red chec/ $Ehi(it M9*, Pa!e 2 par' )&' The chec/

was dep#sited (% the Que5#n "it% Treasur% Oice under Acc#unt N#' 3

with the PN., "u(a#, .ranch, #r credit t# the Pasi! municipal treasur%

(ut it was dish#n#red and returned #n Oct#(er 2*, *1+ (ecause the

acc#unt was under !arnishment and the chec/ had an unauth#ri5ed

si!nat#r% $Ehi(it E92&' As #und (% the N.I, the drawer # the said chec/

was a certain 46' N#(le4, with the acc#unt $"." N#' 0023*)& (ein! in

the name # #ne :e#n#ra Re%es # E6SA ;#me Impr#vement "enter, Inc'

$Ehi(it M9*, pa!e ), par' =&'

;ence, as # Oct#(er *=, *1+, the municipal c#llecti#ns had a virus

atall% im(edded within it, a wa%ward private chec/ which cann#t lawull%

(e credited t# the municipal treasur% #r t# the acc#unta(ilit% # either #

the accused herein, as primar% and sec#ndar% acc#unta(le #icers'?#rse, #n Septem(er 2), *1+, accused Espin#sa had tried t# #ist a

similar scam (% pers#nall% (rin!in! t# the 6istrict Treasur% in Que5#n "it%

(undles # chec/s listed in three $)& statements # chec/s, dated

Septem(er *=, *1+ and si!ned (% accused Enri>ue5, t#talin!

P=),0-'* $Ehi(its 22, 229a and 229(9Espin#sa&' ?hile the t#tal

am#unt #n the addin! machine tapes when presented, wasP),=),0-'*,

as testiied t# (% Maria ue5 $Ehi(it P&, then it

can l#!icall% (e presumed that durin! the m#nths # Septem(er and

Oct#(er, *1+, (#th accused Enri>ue5 and Espin#sa were alread% aware

# an impendin! sh#rta!e in their acc#unta(ilities in the nei!h(#rh##d #

P)9milli#n and were attemptin! t# c#nceal #r c#ver9up this sh#rta!e

thr#u!h the same m#dus #perandi' Misspped

The audit eaminati#n which was c#nducted #n 6ecem(er *, *1+

$Ehi(it 6& c#vered the peri#d r#m Ma% -, *1+ t# N#vem(er )0, *1+'

The sh#rta!e # P),*+,+++'-* was arrived at as #ll#ws


12/34

4Acc#unta(ilit%

.e!innin! .alance, Ma%

-, *1+ P *+,-),000+'23

Add "#llecti#ns and

?ithdrawals *-,03='='*

T#tal P 20*,10,3='--

:ess 6is(ursements and

6ep#sits *1-,-)),2*-'*-

.alance # Acc#unta(ilit% P +,-+=,3=*')0

"ash and Dalid "ash Items -,213,+)'1

Sh#rta!e P ),*+,*++'-*

The sh#rta!e is acc#unted #r as #ll#ws

6isall#wed cash item "."

"hec/ )0)*00 P ),23+,1**'*0

Overrec#rdin! # withdrawals $ *00,0*'*0&

Underrec#rdin! # withdrawals *0,00*'*

Underremittance # c#llecti#ns *,-*0'==

Overremittance # c#llecti#ns $ =)1'00&

Overrec#rdin! # dep#sits *0'-0

Over##tin! # ependitures '=)

Over##tin! # c#llecti#ns $ '0-&

Under##tin! # c#llecti#ns $ '0


13/34

T#tal P ),*+,+++'-2

It w#uld appear pr#(a(le, there#re, that even as earl% as Ma% and pri#r t#

Oct#(er *=, *1+, the sh#rta!e had alread% eisted in the municipal

acc#unts, tracea(le t# and a!!ravated (% #ver9rec#rdin!@under9rec#rdin!

# withdrawals, under9remittance@#ver9remittance #r c#llecti#ns, #ver9

rec#rdin! # dep#sits, #ver9##tin! # ependitures, #ver9

##tin!@under##tin! # c#llecti#ns and, m#st imp#rtantl%, the dish#n#red

"." "hec/ #r P),23+,1**'*0 $Ehi(it E&' Since the t#tal acc#unta(ilit%

# P+,-+=,3=*')0, as #und (% the audit team less cash and valid cash

items am#unt t# P-,213,+)'1 still resulted in a sh#rta!e

# P),*+,+++'-2 then the #nl% l#!ical and plausi(le c#nclusi#n t# (e

arrived at is that c#llecti#ns were, indeed, sh#rt (etween Ma% -, *1+ and

N#vem(er )0, *1+ and, c#nse>uentl%, e#rts had t# (e eerted (%

accused Enri>ue5 and Espin#sa, even includin! res#rt t# etra9le!almeasures, t# c#nceal and@#r c#ver9up the missin! pu(lic unds' Naturall%,

such measures can #nl% (e res#rted t# and utili5ed (% the pers#nnel

therein wh# w#uld (e held resp#nsi(le #r an% sh#rta!e that w#uld

ultimatel% (e #und' The% are accused Enri>ue5, the primar% acc#unta(le

#icer, (ein! the municipal treasurer, and accused Espin#sa and the late

accused .elinda Tua#9Sant#s, wh#m he had desi!nated as "ashier and

Assistant "ashier as earl% as 6ecem(er ), *1- $Ehi(it "9*&, and wh#

per#rmed the duties appurtenant theret# despite the app#intment #

Imelda San A!ustin as "ashier #n ul% *, *1+ $Ehi(it *9Espin#sa&' As t#

wh% accused Enri>ue5 still all#wed accused Espin#sa, and the lateaccused Sant#s, wh#se actual app#intments were th#se # Administrative

Oicer I and Revenue "#llecti#n "ler/, respectivel% $Ehi(its " and A&, t#

c#ntinue dischar!in! the duties and uncti#ns # "ashier and Asst' "ashier

ater ul% *, *1+, #nl% he can eplain' The (urden, li/ewise, is #n him t#

eplain wh% he all#wed all three # them $San A!ustin, Espin#sa and

Sant#s& t# per#rm #ver9lappin! w#r/ and permitted a situati#n t# arise

where acc#unta(ilit% c#uld n#t (e pin9p#inted #r c#llecti#ns, cash9c#unts

and remittances'4 Spped

4As relected #n the rec#rd, accused Enri>ue5 and Espin#sa were

en!a!ed in mutual recriminati#ns, with the #rmer p#intin! t# the latter,

and the latter p#intin! t# the #rmer and Imelda San A!ustin, as the #nes

resp#nsi(le #r the irre!ular entr% and receipt # the dish#n#red "."

"hec/ #r P),2+,*3*'*0 $Ehi(it E& as part # the municipal c#llecti#ns,


14/34

with accused Enri>ue5 even den%in! his si!natures@initials #n the chec/

itsel and the statement # chec/ $Ehi(it P&, thr#u!h which said

dish#n#red chec/ was remitted t# the Que5#n "it% Treasurer7s Oice' .ut,

as ?e have previ#usl% p#inted #ut, #r purp#ses # the instant

pr#secuti#n, it is c#mpletel% and entirel% immaterial and irrelevant as t#

wh# received said "." chec/ and wh# remitted the same as part # the

municipal c#llecti#ns' ?hat sh#uld (e eplained is wh% n# #icial receipt

was issued there#r and wherein will (e seen the nature and purp#se #r

the issuance # the chec/ and wh% it had t# (e utili5ed #r c#verin! up

sh#rta!es alread% eistin! in the municipal treasur%7s c#llecti#ns'

There (ein! n# evidence #n rec#rd t# the c#ntrar%, then ?e can l#!icall%

presume that the dish#n#red chec/ $Ehi(it E& had (een utili5ed #r either

# these #(8ectives, t# wit $a& it was surreptiti#usl% encashed with the

municipal treasur% thr#u!h a revenue c#llecti#n cler/ #r s#me#neper#rmin! c#llecti#n tas/s, m#st pr#(a(l% accused Sant#s, and ater

which the chec/ was included in the 6ail% Statements # "#llecti#ns, #r $(&

it was (#rr#wed r#m the acc#unt h#lder, :e#n#ra Re%es, #r r#m #ne 6'

N#(le wh# was in p#ssessi#n there#, #r the speciic purp#se # c#verin!9

up missin! c#llecti#ns in the municipal treasur%' Either wa%, the

transacti#n was irre!ular and impr#per, as were #ther transacti#ns in said

#ice' As p#inted #ut (% Audit#r Antasuda in her Mem#randum #r the

"hairman, "OA, dated ul% *=, *1 $Ehi(it


15/34

#icer at the time the alle!ed sh#rta!e was incurredF 2' there was n# pr## that she tried

t# c#nceal #r c#ver9up the missin! pu(lic undsF )' there was n# pr## that she

c#llected, misappr#priated #r spent the missin! unds #r her #wn pers#nal (eneitF and

-' the pr#secuti#n ailed t# pr#ve her !uilt (e%#nd reas#na(le d#u(t' #spped

The ar!uments (#il d#wn t# whether #r n#t ENRIQUEZ and ESPINOSA had incurred a

sh#rta!e in their acc#unts as Municipal Treasurer and Administrative Oicer@desi!nated

as Actin! "ashier, respectivel%, which the% had attempted t# c#nceal thr#u!h a (ad

chec/' Spped8#

In $iaz !s. Sandi%anba&an,B=C this "#urt held

4Generall%, the actual indin!s # the Sandi!an(a%an are c#nclusive up#n

this "#urt (ut there are esta(lished ecepti#ns t# that rule, such

as, sans preclusi#n, when $*& the c#nclusi#n is a indin! !r#unded

entirel% #n speculati#n, surmise and c#n8ectureF $2& the inerence made is

maniestl% an err#r #r #unded #n a mista/eF $)& there is !rave a(use #

discreti#nF $-& the 8ud!ment is (ased #n misapprehensi#n # actsF and $=&

the indin!s # act are premised #n a want # evidence and@#r

c#ntradicted (% evidence #n rec#rd' In these instances, this "#urt is

(#und t# review the acts in #rder t# av#id a miscarria!e # 8ustice'4 B3C

?e c#uld d# n# less than t# re9eamine the evidence #n rec#rd c#nsiderin! that the

decisi#n # the Sandi!an(a%an, pertinent p#rti#ns # which we have >u#ted earlier,

appears t# (e !r#unded #n pr#(a(ilities and c#n8ecture' Mis#

Ater an assidu#us scrutin% # the pleadin!s and the evidence, testim#nial and

d#cumentar%, the "#urt is c#nvinced that the ac>uittal # ENRIQUEZ and ESPINOSA

must (e decreed'

The crime # malversati#n #r which ENRIQUEZ and ESPINOSA had (een char!ed is

deined under Article 2*+ # the Revised Penal "#de, its pertinent pr#visi#ns read

4ART' 2*+' 'al!ersation of public funds or propert& ( )resuption of

al!ersation. 9 An% pu(lic #icer wh#, (% reas#n # the duties # his #ice,is acc#unta(le #r pu(lic unds #r pr#pert%, shall appr#priate the same, #r

shall ta/e #r misappr#priate #r shall c#nsent, #r thr#u!h a(and#nment #r

ne!li!ence, shall permit an% #ther pers#n t# ta/e such pu(lic unds #r

pr#pert%, wh#ll% #r partiall%, #r shall #therwise (e !uilt% # the

misappr#priati#n #r malversati#n # such unds #r pr#pert%, '4

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/119239.html#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/119239.html#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/119239.html#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/119239.html#_ftn6


16/34

'

The ailure # the pu(lic #icer t# have dul% #rthc#min! such pu(lic unds

#r pr#pert%, up#n demand (% a dul% auth#ri5ed #icer, 4shall (e pria

facie evidence that he has put such missin! unds #r pr#pert% t# pers#nal

use'4

The elements # malversati#n under the a(#ve penal pr#visi#n are

$a& That the #ender is a pu(lic #icer'

$(& That he has the cust#d% #r c#ntr#l # unds #r pr#pert% (% reas#n #

the duties # his #ice'

$c& That th#se unds #r pr#pert% are pu(lic unds #r pr#pert% #r which he

is acc#unta(le'

$d& That he appr#priated, t##/, misappr#priated #r c#nsented #r, thr#u!h

a(and#nment #r ne!li!ence, permitted an#ther pers#n t# ta/e them' B+C

Deril%, the irst tw# elements are present in this case' The indin!s # the Sandi!an(a%an

that ENRIQUEZ and ESPINOSA are pu(lic #icers wh# have the cust#d% #r c#ntr#l #

unds #r pr#pert% (% reas#n # the duties # their #ice are dul% supp#rted (% the

evidence' It is the last tw# elements, i.e., whether #r n#t the am#unt represented in the

dish#n#red chec/ c#nstituted pu(lic unds and whether ENRIQUEZ and@#r ESPINOSA

reall% misappr#priated said pu(lic unds, where the instant petiti#ns #cus themselves'

?e are c#nstrained t# c#nclude that the pr#secuti#n, up#n wh#se (urden was laden the

tas/ # esta(lishin! pr## (e%#nd reas#na(le d#u(t that petiti#ners had c#mmitted the

#ense char!ed, ailed t# dischar!e this #(li!ati#n' The Sandi!an(a%an #und the

denials # the accused and their acts # shitin! the (lame and passin! the resp#nsi(ilit%

#r the dish#n#red chec/ t# each #ther as unaccepta(le and indicative # their !uilt'

;#wever, it must (e emphasi5ed that alth#u!h the evidence #r the deense ma% (e

characteri5ed as wea/, criminal c#nvicti#n must c#me r#m the stren!th # the

pr#secuti#n7s evidence and n#t r#m the wea/ness # the deense' BC ?e are n#t

c#nvinced that the evidence in this case has pr#ven (e%#nd reas#na(le d#u(t that theaccused are !uilt% # the crime char!ed #r reas#ns stated hereunder Ne#ld

First. There is n# evidence t# pr#ve that the Pasi! Treasur% incurred a cash sh#rta!e in

the am#unt # P),*+,+++'-*, which am#unt, incidentall%, is even less than the am#unt

# the dish#n#red chec/' As per rep#rt # the audit team, the alle!ed sh#rta!e was

c#mputed and (ased #n the value # the dish#n#red chec/' ?e repr#duce a!ain the



17/34

pertinent p#rti#n # the audit eaminati#n relied up#n (% the Sandi!an(a%an t# esta(lish

the sh#rta!e

4The sh#rta!e is acc#unted #r as #ll#ws

6isall#wed cash item "."

"hec/ )0)*00 P ),23+,1**'*0

Overrec#rdin! # withdrawals $ *00,0*'*0&

Underrec#rdin! # withdrawals *0,00*'*

Underremittance # c#llecti#ns *,-*0'==

Overremittance # c#llecti#ns $ =)1'00&

Overrec#rdin! # dep#sits *0'-0

Over##tin! # ependitures '=)

Over##tin! # c#llecti#ns $ '0-&

Under##tin! # c#llecti#ns $ '0

T#tal P),*+,+++'-24

B1C

As stated in the assailed decisi#n, it was #nl% the drawn chec/, (ased #n the audit

eaminati#n that (r#u!ht a(#ut the sh#rta!e' It was palpa(le err#r #r the

Sandi!an(a%an t# c#nclude that the chec/ which the audit team had pinp#inted as the

sh#rta!e due t# its dish#n#r was at the same time, intended and used (% ENRIQUEZ

and ESPINOSA t# 4c#ver up4 sh#rta!es in the unds alle!edl% in their cust#d%' The

sh#rta!e must (e clearl% esta(lished as a act, i.e., that #ver and a(#ve the unds #und

(% the audit#r in the actual p#ssessi#n # the acc#unta(le #icers, there is an additi#nal

am#unt # P),*+'+++'-2 which c#uld n# l#n!er (e pr#duced #r acc#unted #r at the

time # audit' Evidence # sh#rta!e is necessar% (e#re there c#uld (e an% ta/in!,appr#priati#n, c#nversi#n, #r l#ss # pu(lic unds that w#uld am#unt t# malversati#n' It

ma/es n# sense #r an% (#!us chec/ t# (e pr#duced t# 4c#ver up4 an ineistent

malversati#n'B*0C

Indeed, n# less than the s#le witness #r the pr#secuti#n, audit team leader, "armelita

Antasuda, wh# c#nducted the cash c#unt and cash eaminati#n # the Pasi! Treasur%,



18/34

testiied that (ased #n their audit eaminati#n, it was #nl% the su(8ect chec/ that (r#u!ht

a(#ut the sh#rta!e' ;er testim#n% #n this p#int !#es

Q N#w, %#ur eaminati#n c#vered the m#nths r#m Ma% t# N#vem(er,

*1+, were %#u a(le t# determine whether in Ma% there were alread%

missin! unds r#m the Treasur% # Pasi!

A In #ur eaminati#n we cann#t determine i there were missin! unds

pri#r t# #ur cut9# date'

Q In #ther w#rds r#m the m#nths # Ma%, une, ul%, Au!ust and

Septem(er, there was n#t sh#wn #r %#u were n#t a(le t# disc#ver whether

there had (een l#sses alread% durin! th#se m#nths

A N# sir'

Q In %#ur testim#n% last


19/34

USTI"E ES"AREA:

Q ?hile in the p#ssessi#n #

ATT' SAN";EZ

Q O the Treasurer # Pasi!, meanin! it did n#t enter the cash c#llecti#ns,

the encashment # the chec/s did n#t enter the treasurer # Pasi! w#uld

n#t the #(li!ati#n #r which that am#unt in chec/ was paid (e rec#rded as

still unpaid

A I w#uld li/e t# clear that' ?hen pa%ments are made in the Municipal

Treasurer # Pasi! thr#u!h chec/s it is aut#maticall% issued an #icial

receipt #r that pa%ment and the chec/ and' and the act that it is alread%

issued an #icial receipt it #ll#ws that the tapa%er had alread% paid the

am#unt # his ta'

USTI"E ES"AREA:

Q In this particular case, did %#u ind an% #icial receipt issued #r the

chec/

A N#ne, #ur ;#n#r' There has (een n# #icial receipt issued t# that

particular chec/'

Q In the name # the drawer 6ean N#(le %#u did n#t ind an% #icialreceipt

AF N# sir'

Q There was n# receipt #r Mr' N#(le in the rec#rd # the Treasur% #

Pasi!

A N#ne, #ur ;#n#r'

USTI"E ES"AREA:

#u ma% n#w pr#ceed'

ATT' SAN";EZ


20/34

Q N#w, i these cash c#llecti#ns were l#st where the #(8ect # whatever

manipulati#n that was d#ne acc#rdin! t# the char!e in this case #nl% cash

c#llecti#ns is n#t the (asis # %#ur statement in %#ur rec#mmendati#n

num(er * in Ehi(it


21/34

sh#uld (e eamined careull% and th#r#u!hl% 4t# the last detail,4 4with

a(s#lute certaint%4 in strict c#mpliance with the Manual # Instructi#ns'

'4

Apparentl%, the Sandi!an(a%an relied #n the statut#r% presumpti#n that the 4BCailure #

a pu(lic #icer t# have dul% #rthc#min! an% pu(lic unds with which he is char!ea(le,

up#n demand (% an% dul% auth#ri5ed #icer, shall (e pria facie evidence that he has

put such missin! unds #r pr#pert% t# pers#nal uses'4 It must (e emphasi5ed that

the pria facie presumpti#n arises #nl% i there is n# issue as t# the accurac%,

c#rrectness, and re!ularit% # the audit indin!s and i the act that unds are missin! is

indu(ita(l% esta(lished'B*=C In the instant case, audit team leader "armelita Antasuda

c#uld n#t even e>uiv#call% state whether it was cash #r chec/ that was l#st, i at all

there was an%, (el%in! the accurac% and c#rrectness # the team7s audit rep#rt'

Second. There is n# evidence that ENRIQUEZ #r ESPINOSA had received such an

am#unt which the% c#uld n# l#n!er pr#duce #r acc#unt #r at the time # the audit' The

Sandi!an(a%an merel% speculated that it was 4surreptiti#usl% encashed with the

municipal treasur% thr#u!h a revenue c#llecti#n cler/ #r s#me#ne per#rmin! c#llecti#n

tas/s4 #r 4it was (#rr#wed r#m the acc#unt h#lder #r the purp#se # c#verin!9up

missin! c#llecti#ns'4 In its #wn w#rds the su(8ect chec/ was a 4wa%ward private chec/

which cann#t lawull% (e credited t# the municipal treasur% #r t# the acc#unta(ilit% #

either # the accused herein, as primar% and sec#ndar% acc#unta(le #icers'4B*3C uested that the c#rrecti#n (e made (ecause she disc#vered *= minutes ater

she was issued the #icial receipt that the chec/s and the acc#mpan%in! statements #



22/34

chec/sB*+C had n#t (een end#rsed and si!ned (% ENRIQUEZ' M#re#ver, the !eneral rule

is that the law will n#t c#nsider evidence that a pers#n has d#ne a certain act at a

particular time as pr#(ative # a c#ntenti#n that he has d#ne a similar act at an#ther

time' This is the rule # res inter alios actaB*C #und in Secti#n )-, Rule *)0 # the Rules

# "#urt, as amended'B*1C Said incident c#uld n#t even suicientl% esta(lish a plan #r

scheme (etween ENRIQUEZ and ESPINOSA t# c#ver9up a sh#rta!e that has never

(een pr#ven' Oldmis#

In view # the #re!#in!, the presumpti#n is that ENRIQUEZ and ESPINOSA are

inn#cent, and the presumpti#n c#ntinues up t# the m#ment their !uilt is pr#ved (e%#nd

reas#na(le d#u(t' T# 8usti% their c#nvicti#n # the #ense char!ed, the evidence must

esta(lish their !uilt t# a m#ral certaint%' In the instant case, the pr##s #n rec#rd all

sh#rt # that re>uired criteri#n' "#nse>uentl%, the de!ree # m#ral certaint% re>uired t#

8usti% c#nvicti#n #r this particular #ense is s#rel% wantin! and petiti#ners7 ac>uittal

there# must (e ad8ud!ed'

T# repeat, the #nl% acts esta(lished (% the evidence a!ainst ENRIQUEZ is that he

instructed .enit# .uenvia8e t# deliver the (undled chec/s placed #n his des/ which

apparentl% included the (#!us chec/' ;is intials appearin! there#n were #und t# (e

#r!ed (% the N.I' On the #ther hand, the acts esta(lished a!ainst ESPINOSA

c#nsisted # what transpired at the Que5#n "it% Treasur% #n Septem(er 2), *1+' ?e

cann#t, h#wever, derive r#m these circumstances, with#ut m#re, a c#nclusi#n that

ENRIQUEZ and ESPINOSA p#c/eted an am#unt # m#re than ) milli#n pes#s r#m the

unds in their capacit% as acc#unta(le pu(lic #icers and, t# prevent disc#ver%, had

caused the issuance # the (#!us chec/ t# c#ver up the sh#rta!e' Ncm

There w#uld appear t# have (een lapses #r deiciencies in the #(servance # auditin!

rules and re!ulati#ns in the handlin! # the unds # the municipal treasur% e. % ' dela% in

dep#sits # c#llecti#ns, cash (alances eceedin! cash reserve limit, l##se c#ntr#ls and

n# c#ntr#l rec#rds, etc' as p#inted #ut (% the audit team, and >uesti#ns as t# h#w a

private chec/ was (undled t#!ether with le!itimate c#llecti#ns # the Pasi! Treasur% #r

transmittal t# the Que5#n "it% Treasur%, (ut the same d# n#t warrant a indin! #

criminal culpa(ilit%, which re>uires pr## (e%#nd reas#na(le d#u(t #n the part #

ENRIQUEZ and ESPINOSA' ;#wever, the "hairman # the "#mmissi#n #n Audit

sh#uld (e apprised # this decisi#n #r whatever acti#n he ma% deem appr#priate'

'(E)EF*)E, the decisi#n # the Sandi!an(a%an $Sec#nd 6ivisi#n& pr#mul!ated #n


23/34

"#urt is directed t# urnish the "hairman # the "#mmissi#n #n Audit c#pies # this

decisi#n' Ncmmis

S* *)DE)ED.

'elo, *+hairan, -itu%, and )an%aniban, ., c#ncur'

)urisia, ., a(r#ad9n# part'

SE"ON6 6IDISION

+.). -o. 2/26. ;u# 20, 200

E54@ 1*-T(S and *-E >@ DA7 o&

)EC5USI*- TE1P*)A5, AS 1AI1U1, with the access#r% penalties # the lawF t#

pa% a ine in the sum # P23,-0-'23 with#ut su(sidiar% impris#nment in case #

ins#lvenc%F t# suer the penalt% # Perpetual Special 6is>ualiicati#n and t# pa% the

c#sts'J $Emphasis #urs&

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jul2001/132926.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jul2001/132926.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jul2001/132926.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jul2001/132926.htm#_edn2


24/34

In an in#rmati#nB)C dated )0 Septem(er *1, herein petiti#ner was char!ed with

the crime # malversati#n # pu(lic unds, c#mmitted as #ll#ws

HThat #n #r a(#ut the peri#d Oct#(er 22, *1= t# ul% *-, *13, inclusive #r within said

dates in the Municipalit% # Pal#, Pr#vince # :e%te, Philippines, and within the

8urisdicti#n # the ;#n#ra(le "#urt, the a(#ve9named accused, (ein! then the

dis(ursin! #icer # then Ministr% # Pu(lic ?#r/s and ;i!hwa%s, Re!i#nal Oice N#'

DIII, "andahu!, Pal#, :e%te, char!ed with the #icial cust#d% # pu(lic unds thus paid,

c#llected and received (% her in her #icial capacit%, and (% reas#n # which duties she

is acc#unta(le there#, ta/in! advanta!e # her #icial p#siti#n, did then and there

wilull%, unlawull% and el#ni#usl% ta/e, c#nvert and misappr#priate #r her #wn

pers#nal use and (eneit the pu(lic unds she had in her p#ssessi#n in the am#unt #

Twent% Si Th#usand


25/34

H"#nsiderin! that all the d#cuments necessar% #r the deense # the accused are still t#

(e #r!ani5ed, Att%' Man5an# is !iven ten $*0& da%s r#m t#da% within which t# prepare a

pr#p#sal #r stipulati#ns # acts and, i that is n#t p#ssi(le, at least a c#mplete #utline #

his case t#!ether with the mar/in! # the d#cuments he wishes t# present which the

pr#secuti#n mi!ht n#t admit as t# the su(stance there# th#u!h the !enuineness # the

d#cuments presented mi!ht (e c#nceded'

H?ith the a(#ve, the pr#secuti#n ma% n#w rest its case and the presentati#n # the

evidence #r the deense ma% ta/e place #n April = and 3, and Ma% *+ and *, *110, at

00 #7 cl#c/ in the m#rnin! and 200 #7 cl#c/ in the atern##n'

HThe settin! #r t#m#rr#w is cancelled'

HSO OR6ERE6'J $Emphasis #urs&

As (#rne (% the rec#rds, the char!e # malversati#n a!ainst petiti#ner !erminated

r#m an audit c#nducted #n *- ul% *13 (% I!naci# Gere5, Auditin! Eaminer III, as a

result # which a P23,-0-'23 cash sh#rta!e was disc#vered #n petiti#ner7s

acc#unta(ilit%' On the same date, Gere5 in#rmed petiti#ner # said indin! # cash

sh#rta!e and re>uired the latter, thr#u!h a letter # demand, B3C t# Hpr#duce immediatel%

the missin! unds'J uired t# su(mit within +2 h#urs r#m

receipt a written eplanati#n # the cash sh#rta!e'

In a letter B+C dated 2= Au!ust *13, addressed t# the Resident Audit#r # the MP?;,

petiti#ner c#mplied with the directive (% eplainin! that the cash sh#rta!e was, in eect,

due t# a H#rtuit#us eventJ where the am#unt c#uld have (een st#len@ta/en (%

s#me(#d% #n the da% she suered a str#/e #n 22 Oct#(er *1=, near the c#rner #

uan :una Street and Imelda Avenue, Tacl#(an "it%'

In the c#urse # the pre9trial, petiti#ner A!ull# c#nceded the act # audit and

admittedBC the indin!s in the Rep#rt # "ash Eaminati#n and the acts set #rth in the

:etter # 6emand' In eect, she admitted the act # sh#rta!e in the am#unt stated in

the In#rmati#n' N#twithstandin!, petiti#ner A!ull#, at all sta!es # the criminal

indictment, persistentl% pr#essed her inn#cence # the char!e and cate!#ricall% denied

havin! malversed #r c#nverted the pu(lic unds in >uesti#n #r her #wn pers#nal use #r (eneit'B1C

?ith petiti#ner7s admissi#n # the act # cash sh#rta!e, the pr#secuti#n then rested

its case'B*0C


26/34

the 6epartment # Pu(lic ?#r/s and ;i!hwa%s $6P?;&, Re!i#n DIIIF and En!racia

"amp#san#9"ama#%, .aran!a% "aptain # ;ina(u%an, 6a!ame, :e%te'

6urin! trial, the deense #ered t# present the testim#n% # witness Auster# #r the

purp#se # pr#vin! that an am#unt e>ual t# P26,?22.09B**C was withheld r#m the salar%

and #ther c#mpensati#n # petiti#ner A!ull#'


27/34

HE$i%it 0G Aidavit # witness En!racia "ama#%F

HE$i%it :etter9Re>uest dated 0- Ma% *1 # accused t# the Re!i#nal

6irect#rF

HE$i%it 2 "ertiicati#n (% Maurici# Pacatan!F

HE$i%it Pr#test # accused a!ainst the app#intment # S%lvia de la R#saF

HE$i%it 4G :etter dated 2=


28/34

residence l#cated at *01 uan :una Street99 a(#ut hal a /il#meter awa% r#m the PN.'B*+C

In the m#rnin! # the #ll#win! da%, 22 Oct#(er *1=, petiti#ner up#n reali5in! that

it was then the third9wee/ pa%da% # the m#nth, and (urdened with the th#u!ht that she

ailed t# !ive the salar% # the permanent empl#%ees str#ve t# rep#rt #r w#r/ despite

her wea/ ph%sical c#nditi#n' Petiti#ner A!ull# testiied that she let her residence al#ne

and (r#u!ht with her the (a! c#ntainin! the m#ne% which she encashed the previ#us

da% r#m the PN.'B*C

Up#n leavin! the h#use with the m#ne% inside her (a!, she wal/ed the stretch #

uan :una Street and was a(le t# reach alm#st the c#rner # uan :una and Imelda

AvenueB*1C a distance # ar#und =0 meters awa% r#m her residence B20C when she was

stric/en with deep chest painB2*C and eperienced di55inessF her visi#n (lurred and Hthe

ri!ht part # $her& (#d% $(ecame& heav%J t# the p#int that she Hc#uld n#t m#ve an%m#re'J

At this p#int, she c#llapsed and l#st c#nsci#usness'B22C

In the atern##n # the same da%, she #und hersel in a h#spital (ed # St' Paul7s

;#spital l#cated a(#ut a (l#c/ awa% r#m petiti#ner7s residence' Up#n in>uir%, she was

in#rmed that a certain Metr# Tacl#(an Aide (% the name # Teresa :#ren5# came t# her

rescue when she ainted, assisted in rushin! her t# the h#spital, and in#rmed her amil%

a(#ut A!ull#7s dire c#nditi#n and the un#rtunate event that (eell her' B2)C Petiti#ner was

c#nined in St' Paul7s ;#spital #r #ver a wee/ r#m 22 Oct#(er *1= t# 0* N#vem(er

*1=B2-C 9 under the care # her attendin! ph%sician, 6r' uan A(and#, wh# issued the

c#rresp#ndin! Medical "ertiicate pre!nant with the #ll#win! indin!s

HL L L ;%pertensi#n c#mplicated with "ere(r# Dascular Accident $"DA&, Rt'

;emiparesis and Urinar% Inecti#n'

H"#nditi#n started apparentl% 20 hrs' (e#re admissi#n as m#derate headache and

di55iness, ass#ciated with (lurrin! # visi#n and nausea'


29/34

As t# petiti#ner7s medical hist#r% and ph%sical c#nditi#n ater her stro/e, the

Sandi!an(a%an, in its decisi#n, #(served r#m the rec#rds

HL L L In the past, the accused had li/ewise suered a str#/e and had under!#ne

medical treatment' A medical certiicate, mar/ed as Ehi(its H)J and H)9AJ, attest$s& t#

the act that she had a hist#r% # hi!h (l##d pressure and had (een under!#in!

treatment #r the said malad%' Since her sudden (rea/d#wn #n Oct#(er 22, *1=, the

ri!ht part # her (#d% (ecame paral%5ed and her speech has (een impaired' She was

advised (% her d#ct#r t# under!# ph%sical therap% and t# ta/e medicine re!ularl%' She

was advised n#t t# rep#rt #r w#r/ durin! such time that she was under recuperati#n'

Onl% #n


30/34

Stated #therwise, the evidence #r the pr#secuti#n, up#n which the Sandi!an(a%an

riveted its 8ud!ment # c#nvicti#n, was limited t# d#cuments t# wit, the Rep#rt # "ash

Eaminati#n and :etter # 6emand' As c#uld (e readil% !leaned r#m the assailed

decisi#n, the verdict ad8ud!in! herein petiti#ner !uilt% # the crime # malversati#n was

anch#red s#lel% #n the presumpti#n pr#vided under Article 2*+, para!raph - # the

Revised Penal "#de, which pria facie evidence, in turn, was r##ted l##sel% #n the

d#cumentar% evidence presented (% the pr#secuti#n, t# witF the Rep#rt # "ash

Eaminati#n and :etter # 6emandKpieces # evidence which the deense c#ncededl%

admitted, (ut which, t# #ur mind, d# n#t suice t# c#nvict the petiti#ner (e%#nd

reas#na(le d#u(t # the crime char!ed'

Thus, in a strin! # cate!#rical pr#n#uncements, this "#urt has c#nsistentl% and

emphaticall% ruled that the presuption of con!ersion incarnated in Article 2*+,

para!raph $-& # the Revised Penal "#de is K (% its ver% nature K re(utta(le' T# put it

dierentl%, the presumpti#n under the law is n#t c#nclusive (ut disputa%e%# satisfactory evidence t# the eect that the accused did n#t utili5e the pu(lic unds

#r pr#pert% #r his pers#nal use, !ain #r (eneit'

Acc#rdin!l%, i the accused is a(le t# present adequate evidence t$at can nullify

any likelihood t$at $e $ad put t$e &unds or propert# to persona use , then that

presumpti#n w#uld (e at an end and the pria facie case is eectivel% ne!ated' This

"#urt has repeatedl% said that when the a(sence # unds is not due to t$e persona

use t$ereo& %# t$e accused, the presumpti#n is c#mpletel% destr#%edF in act, the

presumpti#n is never deemed t# have eisted at all' B2C

Appl%in! the #re!#in! principle, the pr#secuti#n in the instant case up#n wh#se

(urden, as in Dia vs. !andiganbayan,B21C was laden the tas/ # esta(lishin! (% pr##

(e%#nd reas#na(le d#u(t that petiti#ner had c#mmitted the #ense char!ed, mainl%

relied #n the statut#r% presumpti#n a#resaid and &aied to present an# su%stantia

piece o& e=idence to indicate t$at petitioner $ad used t$e &unds &or persona gain.

?#rth n#tin! is that the Sandi!an(a%an, in its impu!ned decisi#n, admitted

that “ conversion or the placing of malversed government funds to personal uses

has, indeed, not been proven in the case at bar .B)0C” Perhaps reali5in! such !apin!

h#le, the Sandi!an(a%an n#netheless leaped int# the c#nclusi#n, al(eit err#ne#us, thatherein petiti#ner was 8ust the same !uilt% # malversati#n inv#/in! the prima acie

evidence stated in Article 2*+, para!raph $-& # the Revised Penal "#de'

On this sc#re, the rule # !eneral applicati#n is that the actual indin!s # the

Sandi!an(a%an are c#nclusive #n this c#urt' ;#wever, such rule admits # settled

ecepti#ns, am#n! #thers $*& the c#nclusi#n is a indin! !r#unded entirel% #n

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jul2001/132926.htm#_edn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jul2001/132926.htm#_edn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jul2001/132926.htm#_edn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jul2001/132926.htm#_edn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jul2001/132926.htm#_edn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jul2001/132926.htm#_edn30


31/34

speculati#n, surmise and c#n8ecturesF $2& the inerence made is maniestl% mista/enF $)&

there is !rave a(use # discreti#nF $-& the 8ud!ment is (ased #n misapprehensi#n #

actsF and $=& the indin!s # act # the Sandi!an(a%an are premised #n a want #

evidence and are c#ntradicted (% evidence #n rec#rd' B)*C

On this matter, the Sandi!an(a%an7s c#nclusi#n that Ht$ere is no e=idence t# sh#w

that the accused was then carr%in! the sum # P23,-0-'23 in her pers#n when she

alle!edl% c#llapsed at uan :una Street, Tacl#(an "it%,J is t# sa% the least, with#ut

actual (asis and n#t dul% supp#rted (% evidence' On the star/ c#ntrar%, the rec#rds

are etant, as petiti#ner A!ull#, in act, testiied #n the witness stand that she had the

m#ne% with her when she suered a str#/e and c#llapsed #n the streets # Tacl#(an

"it% #n 22 Oct#(er *1=' Rec#rds li/ewise reveal that the am#unt # P)2+')1, which is

the dierence (etween P23,-0-'23B)2C and P23,0+3'+,B))C represents the salar% # Mr'

Alc#(er, r', Administrative Oicer # the 6P?; in "andahu!, wh# made a teleph#ne

call t# petiti#ner #r the latter t# (rin! the sum # P)2+')1, t#!ether with the pa%r#ll'

In the case (e#re us, the Sandi!an(a%an und#u(tedl% disre!arded #r #verl##/ed

certain evidence # su(stance which, t# a lar!e etent, (ear c#nsidera(le wei!ht in the

ad8udicati#n # petiti#ner7s !uilt #r the airmati#n # her c#nstituti#nal ri!ht t# (e

presumed inn#cent until pr#ven #therwise'

Up#n th#r#u!h scrutin% # the evidence adduced (% (#th pr#secuti#n and deense,

we h#ld that petiti#ner A!ull# has satisact#ril% #verc#me and re(utted (% c#mpetent

pr##, the pria facie evidence # c#nversi#n s# as t# e#nerate her r#m the char!e #

malversati#n' T# this end, petiti#ner presented evidence that satisact#ril% pr#ve thatn#t a sin!le centav# # the missin! unds was used #r her #wn pers#nal (eneit #r !ain'

True en#u!h, the evidence adduced (% the deense reveals suicient circumstances

t# esta(lish the str#n!est de!ree # pr#(a(ilit% that the pu(lic unds su(8ect # the

criminal indictment #r malversati#n was l#st durin! that ateul da% # 22 Oct#(er *1=,

where petiti#ner A!ull# suered a str#/e #n the streets # Tacl#(an "it% as she was

then #n her wa% t# the MP?; Re!i#nal Oice'

In act, the rec#rds th#u!h insensate, clearl% reveal that the pr#secuti#n admitted

that petiti#ner suered a str#/e #n the streets # Tacl#(an #n 22 Oct#(er *1=' As t#the pr#secuti#n7s alle!ati#n that n# evidence eists re!ardin! l#ss # the pu(lic unds,

this p#stulati#n is (elied (% the rec#rds as petiti#ner hersel testiied #n the stand that

she had the m#ne% su(8ect # in>uir% when she c#llapsed and l#st c#nsci#usness as a

result # the str#/e'

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jul2001/132926.htm#_edn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jul2001/132926.htm#_edn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jul2001/132926.htm#_edn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jul2001/132926.htm#_edn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jul2001/132926.htm#_edn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jul2001/132926.htm#_edn33


32/34

T# us, this circumstance c#upled with the #ther peculiarities attendant in the

instant case and urther c#nsiderin! the palpa(le ailure # the pr#secuti#n t# adduce

#ther evidence t# clearl% esta(lish conversion “suffice to a/e the ind uneas& as

to A!ull#7s %uilt, notwithstandin% the pria facie e!idence established b& law

a%ainst herein petiti#ner, which b& no eans dispenses with the need of pro!in% %uilt

be&ond reasonable doubt.0 B)-C Ater all, mere a(sence # unds is n#t suicient pr## #

c#nversi#n' Neither is the mere ailure # the accused t# turn #ver the unds at an%

!iven time suicient t# ma/e even a pria facie case' "#nversi#n must (e airmativel%

pr#ved, either (% direct evidence #r (% the pr#ducti#n # acts r#m which c#nversi#n

necessaril% #ll#ws'B)=C

Trul%, these serve as str#n! c#nsiderati#ns that seri#usl% impair the (asis up#n

which is #unded the le!al presumpti#n # pers#nal misappr#priati#n # m#ne% #r

pr#pert% # acc#unta(le #icers wh# ail t# have #rthc#min!, such m#ne% #r pr#pert%

when s# demanded (% a dul% auth#ri5ed #icial'

B)3C

Deril%, a indin! # priafacie evidence # acc#unta(ilit% d#es n#t shatter the presumptive inn#cence the

accused en8#%s (ecause, (e#re pria facie evidence arises, Hcertain acts Bhave still t#

(eC pr#vedJF the trial c#urt cann#t depend al#ne #n such an evidence, (ecause

precisel%, it is merel% prima acie' It must still satis% that the accused is !uilt%K(e%#nd

reas#na(le d#u(tK# the #ense char!ed' Neither can it rel% #n the wea/ deense the

latter ma% adduce'B)+C

N#ta(l%, the Sandi!an(a%an, in c#nvictin! petiti#ner, #(vi#usl% relied m#re #n the

laws and deiciencies in the evidence presented (% the deense, n#t #n the stren!th

and merit # the pr#secuti#n7s evidence'B)C

This c#urse # acti#n is impermissi(le #r theevidence # the pr#secuti#n clearl% cann#t sustain a c#nvicti#n Hin an unpre8udiced

mind'JB)1C

All t#ld, this "#urt, thr#u!h the sch#larl% ponencia # Mr' ustice Isa!ani "ru5

in "eople vs. De #uman,B-0C in/ed in vivid pr#se the premium acc#rded t# the ri!ht #

an accused t# (e presumed inn#cent until the c#ntrar% is pr#ved, t# wit

HThe c#nstituti#nal presumpti#n # inn#cence is n#t an empt% platitude meant #nl% t#

em(ellish the .ill # Ri!hts' Its purp#se is t# (alance the scales in what w#uld

#therwise (e an uneven c#ntest (etween the l#ne individual pitted a!ainst the Pe#ple # the Philippines and all the res#urces at their c#mmand' Its ine#ra(le mandate is that,

#r all the auth#rit% and inluence # the pr#secuti#n, the accused must (e ac>uitted and

set ree i his !uilt cann#t (e pr#ved (e%#nd the whisper # d#u(t'J

;ence, in li!ht # the satisact#r% eplanati#n pr#ered (% the deense and in view

# the imp#tenc% # the pr#secuti#n7s evidence, petiti#ner7s c#nstituti#nal ri!ht t# (e

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jul2001/132926.htm#_edn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jul2001/132926.htm#_edn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jul2001/132926.htm#_edn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jul2001/132926.htm#_edn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jul2001/132926.htm#_edn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jul2001/132926.htm#_edn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jul2001/132926.htm#_edn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jul2001/132926.htm#_edn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jul2001/132926.htm#_edn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jul2001/132926.htm#_edn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jul2001/132926.htm#_edn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jul2001/132926.htm#_edn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jul2001/132926.htm#_edn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jul2001/132926.htm#_edn40


33/34

presumed inn#cent necessaril% thrives' "#r#llaril%, the pria facie evidence #

c#nversi#n in the instant case, withers, s# t# spea/, li/e a petriied twi! wilted in the

sc#rchin! heat # the n##nda% sun'

'(E)EF*)E, premises c#nsidered, the instant petiti#n is

!ranted' ACC*)DI-57, the decisi#n # resp#ndent Sandi!an(a%an dated *3 March

*112 and its Res#luti#n dated * March *11, are

here(% )E


34/34

Enriquez vs People Agullo vs People

Documents

Transcript of Enriquez vs People Agullo vs People