Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 191 views

    Dumagat v. Sandiganbayan

    Uploaded by

    Daniela Sandra Agoot
    The petitioner, a special disbursing officer for the National Food Authority, was charged with malversation of public funds after an audit found a shortage in her accounts. The Sandiganbayan found her guilty, relying on the prima facie presumption under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code. However, the Supreme Court reversed this finding, holding that the presumption did not apply in this case because the audit was not complete and the petitioner provided credible explanations for the missing funds. Considering the petitioner's duties at multiple stations far from the audit location and the hasty nature of the audit, her guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Dumagat v. Sandiganbayan

    Uploaded by

    Daniela Sandra Agoot
    191 views2 pages
    The petitioner, a special disbursing officer for the National Food Authority, was charged with malversation of public funds after an audit found a shortage in her accounts. The Sandiganbayan found her guilty, relying on the prima facie presumption under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code. However, the Supreme Court reversed this finding, holding that the presumption did not apply in this case because the audit was not complete and the petitioner provided credible explanations for the missing funds. Considering the petitioner's duties at multiple stations far from the audit location and the hasty nature of the audit, her guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

    Original Description:

    criminal law

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner, a special disbursing officer for the National Food Authority, was charged with malversation of public funds after an audit found a shortage in her accounts. The Sandiganbayan found her guilty, relying on the prima facie presumption under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code. However, the Supreme Court reversed this finding, holding that the presumption did not apply in this case because the audit was not complete and the petitioner provided credible explanations for the missing funds. Considering the petitioner's duties at multiple stations far from the audit location and the hasty nature of the audit, her guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    191 views2 pages

    Dumagat v. Sandiganbayan

    Uploaded by

    Daniela Sandra Agoot
    The petitioner, a special disbursing officer for the National Food Authority, was charged with malversation of public funds after an audit found a shortage in her accounts. The Sandiganbayan found her guilty, relying on the prima facie presumption under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code. However, the Supreme Court reversed this finding, holding that the presumption did not apply in this case because the audit was not complete and the petitioner provided credible explanations for the missing funds. Considering the petitioner's duties at multiple stations far from the audit location and the hasty nature of the audit, her guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Dumagat v.

    Sandiganbayan

    FACTS:

     Petitioner Concepcion Dumagat was the Special Disbursing Officer of


    the National Food Authority (NFA) of Zamboanga del Norte from 1982
    to 1988. She was officially assigned at Sindangan, Zamboanga del
    Norte, although her official functions extend to the different stations of
    NFA, located at various points of Zamboanga del Norte, including the
    City of Dipolog, Tampilisan, Labason and others.
     Sometime in May 1988, State Auditor I, Liliosa P. Eway, conducted a
    spot audit examination of petitioner's cash and accounts in Dipolog
    City covering the period from May 31, 1986 to May 18, 1988. Petitioner
    having been found to have incurred a shortage of P98,122.51, a formal
    letter of demand was sent requiring her to produce the missing funds.
     On June 6, 1988 petitioner tendered P5,000.00, followed by P50,000.00
    on June 7, 1988 and finally the remaining balance of P43,127.24 on
    June 30, 1988 to cover for the amount of shortage. Despite completing
    the amount of shortage, Dumagat was charged with Malversation of
    Public Funds.
     The Sandiganbayan found accused guilty as charged and anchored the
    decision in the last paragraph of Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code,
    which provides:
    "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 evidence that he has
    put such missing funds or property to personal uses."
     The Sandiganbayan pointed out that the accused’s signing of the audit
    report as "'true and correct report of the examination' without any
    reservation and her failure to put in writing her request to be given
    more time to examine and reconcile her records is considered as a
    prima facie evidence of her guilt.
     Hence, the appeal.

    ISSUE:
    WON the prima facie presumption under Art. 217 of the RPC arises in the
    present case?

    HELD:
    NO. Petitioner's signing of the audit report can not be considered prima
    facie evidence of her guilt. Following this Court's ruling in Tinga,
    supra, petitioner's signature thereon only meant an acknowledgement that
    a demand was made, but not to the statement of her accountability as the
    examination was not complete.[15]
    On the other hand, her failure to immediately account for the alleged
    shortage is understandable considering the fact that petitioner was in-
    charge of eight NFA stations, which are 86 km. to 160 km. away from
    Dipolog. This Court observed that the entreaties and explanations made by
    petitioner that Auditor Eway accompany her to the different NFA stations
    to support her claims on the existence of the money deposited therein fell
    on deaf ears.
    Thus, the ruling in Tinga that "[t]he prima facie presumption under Article
    217 of the Revised Penal Code arises if there is no issue as to the accuracy,
    correctness and regularity of the audit findings and if the fact that funds are
    missing is indubitably established,"[16] has no application in the instant case
    in the light of the haphazard examination of the cash accountability of
    petitioner in violation of the Manual of Instructions to Treasurers and
    Auditors and the credible explanation of petitioner that the "missing" funds
    would have been "discovered" if only the auditor took into consideration
    the contents of the two vaults in Sindangan and Tampilisan and the fact
    that her collection in Dipolog City were deposited with the NFA Cashier.
    Considering the foregoing, We find that the guilt of the petitioner has not
    been proved beyond reasonable doubt, and hence should be acquitted of
    the crime charged.

    You might also like