Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Unaccounted collection
P3,276.21
FELICIANO V. AGBANLOG, petitioner, ————
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND SANDIGANBAYAN, respondents. Total
P21,940.70
Michael P. Moralde for petitioner.
A written demand to explain the shortage and to
pay the amount thereof was neither answered nor
acted upon by the accountable officer.
Consequently, a Report was made by Examining
QUIASON, J.:
Auditors Marcelina P. Reyes, Asuncion G.
Tamondong and Margarita B. Eugenio to the
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Provincial Auditor of Quirino, manifesting their
Rules of Court and Section 7 of P.D. No. 1606 as amended, of the findings and recommending the institution of
decision of the Sandiganbayan (First Division) promulgated on June 28, administrative and/or criminal charges against
1992, which found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Acting Municipal Treasurer Feliciano Agbanlog.
Malversation of Public Funds, penalized under paragraph 4, Article 217,
of the Revised Penal Code, and sentencing him to suffer, in the absence
At the outset, the Auditors found the accused
of mitigating and aggravating circumstances "the indeterminate penalty
Agbanlog short in the amount of P32,950.34,
of, from ELEVEN (11) years and one (1) DAY of Prision Mayor, as
broken down in this manner:
minimum to SIXTEEN (16) YEARS, FIVE (5) MONTHS and ELEVEN (11)
DAYS of Reclusion Temporal, as maximum, with the accessory penalties
of the law; to pay a fine in the amount of P21,940.70; to suffer the Accountability:
penalty of perpetual special disqualification and to pay the costs." Balance shown by your
cash book on May 31, 1986
certified correct by you
The Sandiganbayan made the following findings of facts :
and verified by us P85,186.40
2
Re :Shortage of P3,276.21 Assuming arguendo that inflation has in effect made more severe the
penalty for malversing P21,000.00, the remedy cannot come from this
As to the shortage in the amount of P3,276.21 representing the Court but from the Congress. The Court can intervene and strike down
unaccounted collections of petitioner for the month of April and May a penalty as cruel, degrading or inhuman only when it has become so
1986, petitioner claims that the said amount was never turned over to flagrantly oppressive and so wholly disproportionate to the nature of
him. If this was true, he should not have signed the documents marked the offense as to shock the moral senses. (People v. Dionisio, 22 SCRA
Exhibits "H" to "M", "A-1", "Y-7", "5-1", "K-1", "L-1" and "M-1", all 1299 [1968]; People v. Estoista, 93 Phil. 647 [1953]; U.S. v. Borromeo, 23
acknowledging receipt of the cash collections of the various collectors. Phil. 279 [1912]) Considering that malversation of public funds by a
public officer is a betrayal of the public trust, We are not prepared to
say that the penalty imposed on petitioner is so disproportionate to the
In all the foregoing cases of shortage, petitioner admits having prepared
crime committed as to shock the moral sense.
and collected the amounts stated in the vouchers (Exhs. "E", "F", "G")
and having signed the collectors' daily statement of collection, which
evidence his receipt of the amounts stated therein (Exhs. "H" to "M"). WHEREFORE, the petition for review is DISMISSED and the decision
With such admissions, how can petitioner now attribute the shortage of appealed from is AFFIRMED in toto, with costs against petitioner.
his accountable funds to his predecessor?
SO ORDERED.
It is also difficult to comprehend how an earlier audit of petitioner's
accountability or an audit made upon assumption of office of the
Municipal Treasurer could possible explain the shortages unearthed by
the government auditor and assist him in his defense.
c) That those funds or property were public funds or property for which
he was accountable;.
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, is a prima facie evidence that he has put such funds
or property to personal use. (Art. 217, last paragraph, Revised Penal
Code as amended by R.A. 1060).
He argues that considering the value of the peso in 1932 when the
Revised Penal Code was enacted and the value of peso today, the
penalty for malversation of P21,000.00 should only be an imprisonment
of one or two years. (Rollo, pp. 10-11)