Torres v People; GR 175074; August 31, 2011; Peralta, J.

FACTS:

Petitioner Jesus Torres, Principal of Viga Rural Development High School, was charged with Malversation of Public Funds. He was responsible of 196, 654 pesos salaries of the employees of the said school which he misappropriated gravely abusing the confidence given to him. The prosecution provided as evidence that petitioner directed Edmundo Lazado to prepare the salaries which the petitioner encashed but never returned to the school to deliver the money to Lozado. RTC found him guilty. Petitioner filed for Notice of Appeal then filed a Manifestation for filing to the wrong tribunal, the Sandiganbayan instead to the CA. The OSG prayed that the appeal be dismissed.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioner is guilty even though it was a malversation due to negligence.

RULING:

Yes.

An accountable public officer, within the purview of Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, is one who has custody or control of public funds or property by reason of the duties of his office. The nature of the duties of the public officer or employee, the fact that as part of his duties he received public money for which he is bound to account and failed to account for it, is the factor which determines whether or not malversation is committed by the accused public officer or employee. Hence, a school principal of a public high school, such as petitioner, may be held guilty of malversation if he or she is entrusted with public funds and misappropriates the same.

The accused claims that his constitutional rights to be informed of accusations against him was violated since the Information contains that he committed intentional malversation instead of malversation through negligence. This lack merit.

Malversation may be committed either through a positive act of misappropriation of public funds or property, or passively through negligence. To sustain a charge of malversation, there must either be criminal intent or criminal negligence, and while the prevailing facts of a case may not show that deceit attended the commission of the offense, it will not preclude the reception of evidence to prove the existence of negligence because both are equally punishable under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code.

More in point, the felony involves breach of public trust, and whether it is committed through deceit or negligence, the law makes it punishable and prescribes a uniform penalty therefor. Even when the Information charges willful malversation, conviction for malversation through negligence may still be adjudged if the evidence ultimately proves the mode of commission of the offense. Explicitly stated —

. . . [E]ven on the putative assumption that the evidence against petitioner yielded a case of malversation by negligence, but the information was for intentional malversation, under the circumstances of this case, his conviction under the first mode of misappropriation would still be in order. Malversation is committed either intentionally or by negligence. The dolo or the culpa present in the offense is only a modality in the perpetration of the felony. Even if the mode charged differs from mode proved, the same offense of malversation is involved and conviction thereof is proper.