THE Sandiganbayan Third Division has denied the appeal of a former acting chief of the Law Enforcement Section of Land Transportation Office (LTO) Region 10 seeking a reversal of his conviction on one count of malversation of public property for failure to account for equipment under his custody.
In a 27-page resolution dated March 18, 2025, the court affirmed the 2019 decision of the Misamis Oriental Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 41 that sentenced Andrew Tupag to imprisonment of four months to four years, fine of P15,043, perpetual disqualification from holding another government post, and repayment of P15,043 representing the value of the property he failed to return.
Associate Justice Bernelito R. Fernandez penned the ruling, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Karl B. Miranda and Ronald B. Moreno.
The case stemmed from a finding of the Commission on Audit in 2012 that various equipment of the Law Enforcement Section of LTO Region 10 could not be accounted for.
Tupag was held liable for failure to return or account for a Sony Cybershot camera that was assigned to him for documenting vehicular accidents.
During the trial, he said he turned over the missing camera to the supply officer of LTO Region 10 after he was assigned a Nikon D-90. However, he admitted that he had no proof of having returned the Sony camera, saying he failed to get the acknowledgment receipt and forgot about it.
When presented by the prosecution, however, the supply officer denied receiving any Sony camera from Tupag.
In upholding the guilty ruling, the Sandiganbayan said to secure a conviction for malversation, the prosecution only needs to prove that the defendant received public funds or property but was unable to account for them, failed to have them in his possession, or was unable to offer a reasonable explanation for their disappearance.
“Although accused-appellant Tupag Jr. insisted that he no longer had custody of the said camera because he claimed to have already returned the same to Lourdes Magnaya, the then Supply Officer, no evidence, either documentary or testimonial, was presented by the accused-appellant,” the Sandiganbayan pointed out.
