Dear Atty. Nico,
I was charged with the crime of malversation of public funds. I worked as a disbursing officer for a public elementary school in Los Baños, Laguna where I was tasked to withdraw or encash the checks from LandBank, designated as salaries of the said school’s personnel. The same would eventually be converted into a demand draft as a precautionary measure. However, there were instances when the principal would approve the absence of a demand draft due to unavailability of funds. A security detail was always assigned to accompany me during my trips.
Unfortunately, I got involved in a robbery incident. I tried to fend off the robbers but to no avail. They got away with the amount of P500,000.
Could I be really held criminally liable for the said charge?
Ron
□□□□
Dear Ron,
The crime of malversation of public funds in your case is lacking.
In the case of Ocampo III vs People, the Supreme Court explained that “malversation may be committed through the appropriation of public funds or property; by unlawfully taking or misappropriating such assets; by acquiescing, or through negligence or abandonment, thereby allowing another individual to take said public funds or property; or by being otherwise guilty in the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property.”
In the case of Valenzuela vs People, the elements of Malversation of Public Funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code were enumerated as follows:
1) That the officer is a public officer;
2) That he/she had the custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his office;
3) That those funds or property were public funds or property for which he/she was accountable; and
4) That he/she appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented or, through abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take them.
In this regard, case law instructs that to prosecute this crime, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt, through direct or circumstantial evidence, that the public officer appropriated, misappropriated, or consented to, or neglected to prevent another from taking public property or funds in his custody. Without such evidence, the public officer cannot be held criminally liable.
Applying the same in your situation, it cannot be said that the loss of public funds was due to your abandonment or negligence. As stated, you were held at gunpoint; hence, the necessary element of voluntariness for a conviction is clearly missing.
Atty. Nico A. Antonio