TO convict a public officer of malversation of public funds, it is not enough to show only that public funds are missing; it must likewise be proven that the defendant used the money for his benefit.
This was the pronouncement made by the Sandiganbayan in reversing the 2018 decision of the San Juan, Southern Leyte Regional Trial Court (RTC) that convicted former Anahawan District Hospital cashier Vevencia Castil of malversation of public funds over alleged shortages in her collections.
The accused was facing a sentence of two to seven years imprisonment, perpetual disqualification from employment in government, and a fine of P968,615.71.
Castil filed her Appellant’s Brief at the Sandiganbayan only on January 27, 2025 after her counsel made the error of challenging the RTC ruling before the Court of Appeals.
The anti-graft court’s Fourth Division, however, opted to set aside the violation of procedures in the belated filing of the appeal, noting that the accused stands to lose her right to liberty.
Based on the case records, Castil was held liable and charged in court for failure to account for P968,615.71 out of the total collections amounting to P1,148,531.10.
The prosecution presented the testimony of its lone witness, state auditor Justiniana Garma, who said that a demand letter was sent to the defendant to produce the missing funds and official receipts, together with an explanation about the shortage in her collections.
During cross-examination, however, Garma admitted that it was another auditor, Celedonia Cabrera, who conducted the cash and account examinations.
Castil, in her appeal, argued that the computation of her supposed cash shortage was “grossly inaccurate.”
Likewise, she pointed out that the account examination was only done in 1998 but included transactions dating back more than five years during which many intervening events had already happened, including a typhoon that destroyed many office records and the retirement or resignation of hospital personnel who did not turn over receipts of procurements of supplies, equipment, and other expenses.
Moreover, she said there were cash advances made by hospital employees that went unrecorded and already forgotten due to the lack of audit in the previous five years.
In overturning the decision of the RTC, the Sandiganbayan noted that as a cashier, the limit of Castil’s authority was to withdraw funds for the salaries of hospital personnel but she had no responsibility over the procurement of supplies or equipment.
Furthermore, it noted that there was evidence that the “vales” or cash advances were recorded but most were lost due to a calamity, supporting the defendant’s assertion of good faith.
The testimony of the lone prosecution witness was also given little evidentiary weight since it was insufficient to establish the elements of the malversation to the required degree of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
“The prosecution failed to present any evidence showing that accused-appellant Castil was negligent in supervising the funds under her custody or that she permitted their misuse. Without such proof, the charge of malversation, even under the theory of negligence, must necessarily fail,” the Sandiganbayan said.
