Malversation of public funds

Those subordinates of the vice president, who are deemed as accountable officers or special disbursing officers, and who turned over the millions they withdrew to another person, like the security officer, should be made aware that there are serious legal consequences of their acts. If you are the disbursing officer, you cannot delegate the disbursement to another.

The Philippine Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act 1060, provides that 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 negligence, shall permit any other any other person to take such public funds or property wholly or partially, or shall otherwise be guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property. The penalty depends on the amount malversed, ranging from six years imprisonment to reclusion perpetua.

The same law provides: "The failure of a public officer or to have duly forthcoming any public funds or properly 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 use.” It is also provided: "In all cases, persons guilty of malversation shall also suffer the penalty of perpetual special disqualification and a fine equal to the amount of the funds malversed or equal to the total value of the property embezzled." Those who are in government should always keep in mind that with much power comes great responsibility.

In the case of People vs. Rex Fusingan (GR No 253975, September 27, 2021), The Supreme Court held: "The elements of malversation are as follows: (a) the offender is a public officer, (b) he has the custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his office, (c) the funds or property involved are public funds to which he is accountable, (d) he has appropriated or has consented to or through abandonment or negligence, permitted the taking by another person of such funds or property". It is thus clear that the head of office or the accountable officer may be found guilty of malversation by negligence.

In the case of Juan A. Rueda, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan (GR No 129064, November 29, 2000, en banc, Pardo, J), the Supreme Court ruled: "The felony involves breach of trust and whether it is committed through dolo or culpa the law makes it punishable and prescribes a uniform and penalty therefor. Even when the information charges willful malversation, conviction for malversation through negligence may still be adjudged if the evidence ultimately proves that mode of the commission of the offense.”

In the case of Tito Sarion vs. People (GR No 243039, March 18, 2021), the High Court held: "Malversation may be committed intentionally (dolo) or by means of negligence (culpa). The crime is committed by means of dolo when the act is accompanied by criminal intent as when the offender misappropriated or converted public funds of property to one's personal use. Malversation may also be committed by means of culpa or by such negligence or indifference to duty or to consequences as, in law, is equivalent to criminal intent, as when the offender knowingly allowed another or others to make use of or misappropriate public funds or property.

Accountable officers should behave and be very careful or else they shall find themselves in very hot water.