1/28/2015

AgullovsSandiganbayan:132926:July20,2001:J.Buena:SecondDivision

SECONDDIVISION

[G.R.No.132926.July20,2001]

ELVIRA AGULLO, petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES,respondents.
DECISION
BUENA,J.:

Charged with, tried and convicted in Criminal Case No. 13579 for malversation of public funds,
hereinpetitionerElviraAgullo,erstwhileDisbursingOfficerofthethenMinistryofPublicWorksand
Highways (MPWH), Regional Office No. VIII, Candahug, Palo, Leyte, now comes before the High
CourttoassailtheDecision[1]oftheSandiganbayanpromulgatedon16March1992,anditsResolution
dated 11 March 1998, denying petitioners motion for reconsideration[2] but reducing the penalty
imposedonpetitionerasfollows:
WHEREFORE,theCourtfindstheaccusedElviraS.Agulloguiltybeyondreasonabledoubtofthe
crimeofMalversationofPublicFunds,definedandpenalizedunderArticle217,paragraph4ofthe
RevisedPenalCode.[Therebeingneithermitigatingnoraggravatingcircumstances,noevidencehaving
beenadducedrespectingpartialorfullrestitutionoftheamountmalversed,]Consideringtheabsenceof
anyaggravatingcircumstancesandherfullrestitutionbysalarydeduction,theaccusedElviraS.
Agulloshouldbe,assheis,herebysentencedtotheindeterminatepenaltyof,fromTEN(10)YEARS
andONE(1)DAYofPRISIONMAYOR,asMINIMUMto[EIGHTEEN(18)YEARS,EIGHT(8)
MONTHSANDONE(1)DAYOFRECLUSIONTEMPORAL]SEVENTEEN(17)YEARS,FOUR
(4)MONTHSandONE(1)DAYofRECLUSIONTEMPORAL,ASMAXIMUM,withthe
accessorypenaltiesofthelawtopayafineinthesumofP26,404.26withoutsubsidiaryimprisonmentin
caseofinsolvencytosufferthepenaltyofPerpetualSpecialDisqualificationandtopaythecosts.
(Emphasisours)
In an information[3] dated 30 September 1988, herein petitioner was charged with the crime of
malversationofpublicfunds,committedasfollows:
ThatonorabouttheperiodOctober22,1985toJuly14,1986,inclusiveorwithinsaiddatesinthe
MunicipalityofPalo,ProvinceofLeyte,Philippines,andwithinthejurisdictionoftheHonorableCourt,
theabovenamedaccused,beingthenthedisbursingofficerofthenMinistryofPublicWorksand
Highways,RegionalOfficeNo.VIII,Candahug,Palo,Leyte,chargedwiththeofficialcustodyofpublic
fundsthuspaid,collectedandreceivedbyherinherofficialcapacity,andbyreasonofwhichdutiesshe
isaccountablethereof,takingadvantageofherofficialposition,didthenandtherewilfully,unlawfully
andfeloniouslytake,convertandmisappropriateforherownpersonaluseandbenefitthepublicfunds
shehadinherpossessionintheamountofTwentySixThousandFourHundredFourPesosand26/100
(P26,404.26),belongingtothegovernmentoftheRepublicofthePhilippines,tothedamageand
prejudiceofthelatterintheaforestatedamount.
Contrarytolaw.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jul2001/132926.htm

1/9

1/28/2015

AgullovsSandiganbayan:132926:July20,2001:J.Buena:SecondDivision

Upon arraignment, herein petitioner Agullo, assisted by counsel de officio Antonio Manzano,
pleadednotguilty[4]tothecharge,afterwhichtheSandiganbayanconductedapretrialon11February
1990andissuedthefollowingPreTrialOrder:[5]
Whenthiscasewascalledforpretrial,theaccusedpersonallyandthroughhercounselAtty.Antonio
ManzanooftheCLAOreadilyenteredintostipulationsinsofarasherofficialpositioningovernment
aswellasthefactofauditofheraccountsareconcerned,includingtherewiththeadmissionthat,inall
respectstheCashProductionNoticeandtheExaminationofherCashandAccountswhichthe
governmentmarkedasExhibitAwasfaithfulreproductionoftheoriginal,andinsofarasthecontents
thereofareconcerned,arecorrect.Theaccusedlikewiseadmittedthatshehadreceivedaletterof
demand,saidletterdatedJuly14,1986markedasexhibitB.Withthistheaccusedstatedthather
defensewaspremisedonherhavingsufferedastrokeonOctober22,1985asaresultofwhichthe
amountsubjectoftheshortagefoundinheraudithadbeenlost.
Theaccusedalsoindicatedthatnotonlyhadsheimmediatelyrepliedtotheletterbyvarious
communicationsbyherorinherbehalfprotestingthewitholdingofvariousamountsdueherbywayof
salariesonthepremisethatthelossoftheamountsubjectmatteroftheInformationwasnotchargeable
toherasapersonalliability.TheaccusedhaslikewiseinformedtheCourtthatpriortotheincidenton
October22,1985,shehadbeenauditedonMay27,1985and,aftertheincident,onDecember23,
1985althoughsheconcedesshewasalsoauditedonJuly14,1986.
Consideringthatallthedocumentsnecessaryforthedefenseoftheaccusedarestilltobeorganized,
Atty.Manzanoisgiventen(10)daysfromtodaywithinwhichtoprepareaproposalforstipulationsof
factsand,ifthatisnotpossible,atleastacompleteoutlineofhiscasetogetherwiththemarkingofthe
documentshewishestopresentwhichtheprosecutionmightnotadmitastothesubstancethereofthough
thegenuinenessofthedocumentspresentedmightbeconceded.
Withtheabove,theprosecutionmaynowrestitscaseandthepresentationoftheevidenceforthe
defensemaytakeplaceonApril5and6,andMay17and18,1990,at8:00oclockinthemorningand
2:00oclockintheafternoon.
Thesettingfortomorrowiscancelled.
SOORDERED.(Emphasisours)
As borne by the records, the charge of malversation against petitioner germinated from an audit
conductedon14July1986byIgnacioGerez,AuditingExaminerIII,asaresultofwhichaP26,404.26
cashshortagewasdiscoveredonpetitionersaccountability.Onthesamedate,Gerezinformedpetitioner
of said finding of cash shortage and required the latter, through a letter of demand,[6] to produce
immediatelythemissingfunds.Further,petitionerwasrequiredtosubmitwithin72hoursfromreceipta
writtenexplanationofthecashshortage.
In a letter[7] dated 25 August 1986, addressed to the Resident Auditor of the MPWH, petitioner
compliedwiththedirectivebyexplainingthatthecashshortagewas,ineffect,duetoafortuitousevent
where the amount could have been stolen/taken by somebody on the day she suffered a stroke on 22
October1985,nearthecornerofJuanLunaStreetandImeldaAvenue,TaclobanCity.
Inthecourseofthepretrial,petitionerAgulloconcededthefactofauditandadmitted[8]thefindings
intheReportofCashExaminationandthefactssetforthintheLetterofDemand.Ineffect,sheadmitted
the fact of shortage in the amount stated in the Information. Notwithstanding, petitioner Agullo, at all
stages of the criminal indictment, persistently professed her innocence of the charge and categorically
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jul2001/132926.htm

2/9

1/28/2015

AgullovsSandiganbayan:132926:July20,2001:J.Buena:SecondDivision

deniedhavingmalversedorconvertedthepublicfundsinquestionforherownpersonaluseorbenefit.[9]
Withpetitionersadmissionofthefactofcashshortage,theprosecutionthenresteditscase.[10]For
its part, the defense, in its bid to overturn the presumption of malversation and shatter the prima facie
evidenceofconversion,offeredthetestimonyofthefollowingwitnesses:petitionerElviraAgulloRene
BrionesAustero,CashierIIIoftheDepartmentofPublicWorksandHighways(DPWH),RegionVIII
andEngraciaCamposanoCamaoy,BarangayCaptainofHinabuyan,Dagame,Leyte.
During trial, the defense offered to present the testimony of witness Austero for the purpose of
provingthatanamountequaltoP26,722.05[11]waswithheldfromthesalaryandothercompensationof
petitioner Agullo. Further, the defense offered the testimony of witness Barangay Captain Camaoy for
thepurposeofestablishingthattheaccusedsufferedaheartattack(stroke)onOctober22,1985thaton
June 30, 1986, the accused informed her that the accused lost the money for which she (was being)
subjectedtocriminalprosecutionxxxandthatbetweenOctober22,1985andJune30,1986,therehad
beennodemandupontheaccusedtoproducethemoneyforwhichshewasdeclaredshort.[12]
Additionally, the defense presented the following documentary evidence,[13] all of which were
admittedbytheSandiganbayan:
Exhibit1Letterdated25August1986byaccusedtotheResidentAuditorMPWH,Regional
OfficeNo.8,Candahug,Palo,Leyte
Exhibit2Letterdated22August1987byaccusedtoEngr.AlfredoP.Torres,Regional
Director
Exhibit3MedicalCertificatedated05August1986,issuedbyDr.JuanT.Abando,M.D.,St.
PaulsHospital,TaclobanCity
Exhibit3AVerifiedMedicalCertificatedated19January1986,issuedbyDr.JuanAbando,
notarizedonpage02
Exhibit4Letterdated26December1986byaccusedtotheRegionalDirector
Exhibit5Letterdated19February1987totheRegionalDirectorbyAtty.EricT.DeVeyra
Exhibit6Letterdated15April1987byaccusedtotheRegionalDirector
Exhibit7Letterdated01September1987ofDirectorAlfredoTorresofDPWHtotheRegional
DirectorCOA
Exhibit8LetterofAccuseddated26November1987
Exhibit9AffidavitofaccusedElviraAgullo
Exhibit10AffidavitofwitnessEngraciaCamaoy
Exhibit11LetterRequestdated04May1988ofaccusedtotheRegionalDirector
Exhibit12CertificationbyMauricioPacatang
Exhibit13ProtestofaccusedagainsttheappointmentofSylviadelaRosa
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jul2001/132926.htm

3/9

1/28/2015

AgullovsSandiganbayan:132926:July20,2001:J.Buena:SecondDivision

Exhibit14Letterdated25February1987totheManager,EmployeesCompensation
Department,GSIS,MetroManila
Exhibit15InitialApprovaloftheEmployeesCompensationDepartment,GSIS
Exhibit16HospitalizationClaimforpaymentofaccused
Exhibit17ReportofInjurysignedandapprovedbyPabloP.Burgos,RegionalEngineering
CoordinatorandHeadofOffice
Exhibit18CertificationissuedbyPNBTacloban,thruitsAsst.ManagerB.L.Telmo
Exhibit19Memorandumtoaccuseddated02April1984
Exhibit20Memorandumdated05May1990.
At the witness stand, petitioner Agullo unrelentingly maintained her innocence and vehemently
deniedtheaccusationagainsther.Thus,accordingtopetitioner,inthemorningof21October1985,she
reportedforworkandpreparedaninventoryofhercashaccountability[14] as Disbursing Officer[15]of
the MPWH Regional Office, Candahug, Palo, Leyte. On the same day, petitioner received around
thirteen (13) checks in the form of cash advances in her name totaling P26,076.87,[16] which amount
representedsalariesofMPWHofficialsandemployees.
Around 1:30 PM, petitioner, together with Benjamin Veridiano, driver of MPWH Finance and
Management Division, proceeded to the Philippine National Bank (PNB) Tacloban City Branch, on
board the MPWH official vehicle, to encash the aforesaid checks. Upon encashment of the checks,
petitionerthenputthemoneyinsideaPNBenvelopewhichshefurtherplacedinherbag.FromthePNB,
petitionerwhoboardedtheofficialvehicledrivenbyVeridianoforthepurposeofproceedingfurtherto
the MPWH Regional Officefelt dizziness, chest pain and nausea. As a result of her condition,
petitionerAgullorequesteddriverVeridianotodropheroffatpetitionersresidencelocatedat109Juan
LunaStreetabouthalfakilometerawayfromthePNB.[17]
Inthemorningofthefollowingday,22October1985,petitioneruponrealizingthatitwasthenthe
thirdweekpaydayofthemonth,andburdenedwiththethoughtthatshefailedtogivethesalaryofthe
permanentemployeesstrovetoreportforworkdespiteherweakphysicalcondition.PetitionerAgullo
testifiedthatsheleftherresidencealoneandbroughtwithherthebagcontainingthemoneywhichshe
encashedthepreviousdayfromthePNB.[18]
Uponleavingthehousewiththemoneyinsideherbag,shewalkedthestretchofJuanLunaStreet
and was able to reach almost the corner of Juan Luna and Imelda Avenue[19] a distance of around 50
meters away from her residence[20] when she was stricken with deep chest pain[21] and experienced
dizziness her vision blurred and the right part of (her) body (became) heavy to the point that she
couldnotmoveanymore.Atthispoint,shecollapsedandlostconsciousness.[22]
Intheafternoonofthesameday,shefoundherselfinahospitalbedofSt.PaulsHospitallocated
about a block away from petitioners residence. Upon inquiry, she was informed that a certain Metro
TaclobanAidebythenameofTeresaLorenzocametoherrescuewhenshefainted,assistedinrushing
hertothehospital,andinformedherfamilyaboutAgullosdireconditionandtheunfortunateeventthat
befellher.[23]PetitionerwasconfinedinSt.PaulsHospitalforoveraweekfrom22October1985to
01 November 1985[24] under the care of her attending physician, Dr. Juan Abando, who issued the
correspondingMedicalCertificatepregnantwiththefollowingfindings:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jul2001/132926.htm

4/9

1/28/2015

AgullovsSandiganbayan:132926:July20,2001:J.Buena:SecondDivision

XXXHypertensioncomplicatedwithCerebroVascularAccident(CVA),Rt.HemiparesisandUrinary
Infection.
Conditionstartedapparently20hrs.beforeadmissionasmoderateheadacheanddizziness,associated
withblurringofvisionandnausea.Fifteenhrs.priortoadmission,shefeltweaknessofherrighthalfof
herbodyandslurringofspeech.HadhistoryofhighbloodpressuretakenlastApril1985.B/P=190/120.
OnadmissionB/P=was230/120PR=83/min.RR=20/min.
Pertinentfindings:conscious,coherent,slurredspeech,rt.Hemiplegia.
Diagnosis:=Malignanthypertension.
=CVAwithRightHemiplegia.
=UrinaryTractInfection.
Astopetitionersmedicalhistoryandphysicalconditionafterherstroke,theSandiganbayan,inits
decision,observedfromtherecords:
XXXInthepast,theaccusedhadlikewisesufferedastrokeandhadundergonemedicaltreatment.A
medicalcertificate,markedasExhibits3and3A,attest(s)tothefactthatshehadahistoryofhigh
bloodpressureandhadbeenundergoingtreatmentforthesaidmalady.Sincehersuddenbreakdownon
October22,1985,therightpartofherbodybecameparalyzedandherspeechhasbeenimpaired.She
wasadvisedbyherdoctortoundergophysicaltherapyandtotakemedicineregularly.Shewasadvised
nottoreportforworkduringsuchtimethatshewasunderrecuperation.OnlyonFebruary2,1986did
shestarttoreportforwork,althoughatirregularintervals,untilthedateoftheaudit,July14,1986.
Striking down the defense as incredible and without basis, the Sandiganbayan rendered its
assaileddecision,convictingpetitionerAgulloofthecrimeofmalversationofpublicfunds,ratiocinating
principally that no evidence has been presented linking the loss of the government funds with the
allegedsuddenheartattackoftheaccused(hereinpetitioner).
Wedonotagree.
Byandlarge,thepiecesofevidencepresentedagainstpetitionerinthiscasedonotfulfillthetestof
moral certainty and may not be deemed sufficient to support a conviction.[25] Records reveal that
evidence for the prosecution consisted solely of the Report of Cash Examination,[26] dated 14 July 1986,
which was presented by the prosecution to prove the cash shortage in the amount of P26,404.26, on
petitionerAgullosaccountabilityasDisbursingOfficerofthethenMPWH.Likewise,theprosecution
presentedtheLetterofDemand[27]dated14July1986signedbyAuditingExaminerIIIIgnacioGerez.
Asidefromtheaforementioneddocuments,theprosecutionoptednottopresentasinglewitness
to buttress its bid for conviction and relied merely on the prima facie evidence of conversion or
presumptionofmalversationunderArticle217,paragraph(4)oftheRevisedPenalCode,towit:
ART.217.MalversationofpublicfundsorpropertyPresumptionofmalversation
XXXThefailureofapublicofficertohavedulyforthcominganypublicfundsorpropertywith
whichheischargeable,upondemandbyanydulyauthorizedofficer,shallbeprimafacieevidence
thathehasputsuchmissingfundsorpropertytopersonaluses.
Stated otherwise, the evidence for the prosecution, upon which the Sandiganbayan riveted its
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jul2001/132926.htm

5/9

1/28/2015

AgullovsSandiganbayan:132926:July20,2001:J.Buena:SecondDivision

judgmentofconviction,waslimitedtodocumentstowit,theReportofCashExaminationandLetterof
Demand.Ascouldbereadilygleanedfromtheassaileddecision,theverdictadjudginghereinpetitioner
guiltyofthecrimeofmalversationwasanchoredsolelyonthepresumptionprovidedunderArticle217,
paragraph4oftheRevisedPenalCode,whichprimafacieevidence,inturn,wasrootedlooselyonthe
documentaryevidencepresentedbytheprosecution,towittheReportofCashExaminationandLetter
ofDemandpiecesofevidencewhichthedefenseconcededlyadmitted,butwhich,toourmind,donot
sufficetoconvictthepetitionerbeyondreasonabledoubtofthecrimecharged.
Thus,inastringofcategoricalpronouncements,thisCourthasconsistentlyandemphaticallyruled
thatthepresumptionofconversionincarnatedinArticle217,paragraph(4)oftheRevisedPenalCodeis
byitsverynaturerebuttable.Toputitdifferently,thepresumptionunderthelawisnotconclusive
butdisputablebysatisfactoryevidencetotheeffectthattheaccuseddidnotutilizethepublicfundsor
propertyforhispersonaluse,gainorbenefit.
Accordingly, if the accused is able to present adequate evidence that can nullify any likelihood
thathehadputthefundsorpropertytopersonaluse,thenthatpresumptionwouldbeatanendand
the prima facie case is effectively negated. This Court has repeatedly said that when the absence of
fundsisnotduetothepersonalusethereofbytheaccused,thepresumptioniscompletelydestroyed
infact,thepresumptionisneverdeemedtohaveexistedatall.[28]
Applyingtheforegoingprinciple,theprosecutionintheinstantcaseuponwhoseburden,asinDiaz
vs. Sandiganbayan,[29] was laden the task of establishing by proof beyond reasonable doubt that
petitionerhadcommittedtheoffensecharged,mainlyreliedonthestatutorypresumptionaforesaidand
failedtopresentanysubstantialpieceofevidencetoindicatethatpetitionerhadusedthefundsforpersonalgain.

WorthnotingisthattheSandiganbayan,initsimpugneddecision,admittedthatconversionorthe
placingofmalversedgovernmentfundstopersonaluseshas,indeed,notbeenproveninthecaseat
bar.[30]Perhapsrealizingsuchgapinghole,theSandiganbayannonethelessleapedintotheconclusion,
albeiterroneous,thathereinpetitionerwasjustthesameguiltyofmalversationinvokingtheprimafacie
evidencestatedinArticle217,paragraph(4)oftheRevisedPenalCode.
On this score, the rule of general application is that the factual findings of the Sandiganbayan are
conclusive on this court. However, such rule admits of settled exceptions, among others: (1) the
conclusionisafindinggroundedentirelyonspeculation,surmiseandconjectures(2)theinferencemade
is manifestly mistaken (3) there is grave abuse of discretion (4) the judgment is based on
misapprehensionoffactsand(5)thefindingsoffactoftheSandiganbayanarepremisedonawantof
evidenceandarecontradictedbyevidenceonrecord.[31]
Onthismatter,theSandiganbayansconclusionthatthereisnoevidencetoshowthattheaccused
wasthencarryingthesumofP26,404.26inherpersonwhensheallegedlycollapsedatJuanLunaStreet,
Tacloban City, is to say the least, without factual basis and not duly supported by evidence. On the
starkcontrary,therecordsareextant,aspetitionerAgullo,infact,testifiedonthewitnessstandthatshe
hadthemoneywithherwhenshesufferedastrokeandcollapsedonthestreetsofTaclobanCityon22
October 1985. Records likewise reveal that the amount of P327.39, which is the difference between
P26,404.26[32]andP26,076.87,[33] represents the salary of Mr. Alcober, Jr., Administrative Officer of
the DPWH in Candahug, who made a telephone call to petitioner for the latter to bring the sum of
P327.39,togetherwiththepayroll.
Inthecasebeforeus,theSandiganbayanundoubtedlydisregardedoroverlookedcertainevidenceof
substancewhich,toalargeextent,bearconsiderableweightintheadjudicationofpetitionersguiltorthe
affirmationofherconstitutionalrighttobepresumedinnocentuntilprovenotherwise.
Upon thorough scrutiny of the evidence adduced by both prosecution and defense, we hold that
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jul2001/132926.htm

6/9

1/28/2015

AgullovsSandiganbayan:132926:July20,2001:J.Buena:SecondDivision

petitionerAgullohassatisfactorilyovercomeandrebuttedbycompetentproof,theprimafacieevidence
ofconversionsoastoexonerateherfromthechargeofmalversation.Tothisend,petitionerpresented
evidence that satisfactorily prove that not a single centavo of the missing funds was used for her own
personalbenefitorgain.
Trueenough,theevidenceadducedbythedefenserevealssufficientcircumstancestoestablishthe
strongestdegreeofprobabilitythatthepublicfundssubjectofthecriminalindictmentformalversation
was lost during that fateful day of 22 October 1985, where petitioner Agullo suffered a stroke on the
streetsofTaclobanCityasshewasthenonherwaytotheMPWHRegionalOffice.
In fact, the records though insensate, clearly reveal that the prosecution admitted that petitioner
sufferedastrokeonthestreetsofTaclobanon22October1985.Astotheprosecutionsallegationthat
no evidence exists regarding loss of the public funds, this postulation is belied by the records as
petitionerherselftestifiedonthestandthatshehadthemoneysubjectofinquirywhenshecollapsedand
lostconsciousnessasaresultofthestroke.
To us, this circumstance coupled with the other peculiarities attendant in the instant case and
furtherconsideringthepalpablefailureoftheprosecutiontoadduceotherevidencetoclearlyestablish
conversion suffice to make the mind uneasy as to Agullos guilt, notwithstanding the prima facie
evidence established by law against herein petitioner, which by no means dispenses with the need of
proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt."[34]After all, mere absence of funds is not sufficient proof of
conversion.Neitheristhemerefailureoftheaccusedtoturnoverthefundsatanygiventimesufficient
tomakeevenaprimafaciecase.Conversionmustbeaffirmativelyproved,eitherbydirectevidenceor
bytheproductionoffactsfromwhichconversionnecessarilyfollows.[35]
Truly,theseserveasstrongconsiderationsthatseriouslyimpairthebasisuponwhichisfoundedthe
legalpresumptionofpersonalmisappropriationofmoneyorpropertyofaccountableofficerswhofailto
haveforthcoming,suchmoneyorpropertywhensodemandedbyadulyauthorizedofficial.[36]Verily,a
findingofprimafacieevidenceofaccountabilitydoesnotshatterthepresumptiveinnocencetheaccused
enjoysbecause,beforeprimafacieevidencearises,certainfacts[havestilltobe]provedthetrialcourt
cannotdependaloneonsuchanevidence,becauseprecisely,itismerelyprimafacie.Itmuststillsatisfy
thattheaccusedisguiltybeyondreasonabledoubtoftheoffensecharged.Neithercanitrelyonthe
weakdefensethelattermayadduce.[37]
Notably, the Sandiganbayan, in convicting petitioner, obviously relied more on the flaws and
deficienciesintheevidencepresentedbythedefense,notonthestrengthandmeritoftheprosecutions
evidence.[38] This course of action is impermissible for the evidence of the prosecution clearly cannot
sustainaconvictioninanunprejudicedmind.[39]
All told, this Court, through the scholarly ponenciaof Mr. Justice Isagani Cruz in People vs. De
Guzman,[40] inked in vivid prose the premium accorded to the right of an accused to be presumed
innocentuntilthecontraryisproved,towit:
TheconstitutionalpresumptionofinnocenceisnotanemptyplatitudemeantonlytoembellishtheBill
ofRights.Itspurposeistobalancethescalesinwhatwouldotherwisebeanunevencontestbetweenthe
loneindividualpittedagainstthePeopleofthePhilippinesandalltheresourcesattheircommand.Its
inexorablemandateisthat,foralltheauthorityandinfluenceoftheprosecution,theaccusedmustbe
acquittedandsetfreeifhisguiltcannotbeprovedbeyondthewhisperofdoubt.
Hence,inlightofthesatisfactoryexplanationprofferedbythedefenseandinviewoftheimpotency
of the prosecutions evidence, petitioners constitutional right to be presumed innocent necessarily
thrives.Corollarily,theprimafacieevidenceofconversionintheinstantcase,withers,sotospeak,likea
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jul2001/132926.htm

7/9

1/28/2015

AgullovsSandiganbayan:132926:July20,2001:J.Buena:SecondDivision

petrifiedtwigwiltedinthescorchingheatofthenoondaysun.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is granted. ACCORDINGLY, the
decisionofrespondentSandiganbayandated16March1992anditsResolutiondated18March1998,are
herebyREVERSEDandSETASIDE.PetitionerElviraAgulloisherebyACQUITTEDongroundsof
reasonabledoubt.
MOREOVER, the DPWH is hereby directed to refund petitioner the sum of Three Hundred
Seventeen Pesos and Seventy Nine Centavos (P317.79) representing the amount overdeducted from
petitionerssalary,costoflivingallowanceandotheremoluments.
SOORDERED.
Bellosillo(Chairman),Mendoza,andDeLeon,JJ.,concur.
Quisumbing,J.,onofficialbusiness.
[1]DecisionofSandiganbayan,1stDivision,promulgatedon16March1992Rollo,pp.3956.
[2]MotionforReconsiderationdated27March1992Rollo,pp.5763.
[3]Records,pp.12.
[4]CertificateofArraignmentdated03August1989Recordsp.19.
[5]Records,pp.3637.
[6]ExhibitB.
[7]Exhibit1.
[8]Rollo,p.73Rollo,p.75.
[9]Ibid,p.76.
[10]Ibid,p.85.
[11]Ibid,p.93Exhibit12,Certificationdated09May1988issuedbyMauricioPacatang.
[12]Decision,pp.56Rollo,pp.4344.
[13]Rollo,pp.4143.
[14]Rollo,p.109.
[15]Atthetimeoftrial,petitionerAgullowasemployedasClerkIIIattheDepartmentofPublicWorksandHighwaysTSN,
06April1990,p.5Rollo,p.107.
[16]Exhibit18,Certificationdated18August1986signedbyPhilippineNationalBankTaclobanCityBranchAssistant
ManagerB.L.Telmo.
[17]Rollo,p.113.
[18]TSN,06April1990,p.11Rollo.P.114.
[19]Aroundsix(6)metersfromthecornerofJuanLunaStreetandImeldaAvenueTSN,06April1990,p.11Rollo,p.114.
[20]Ibid.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jul2001/132926.htm

8/9

1/28/2015

AgullovsSandiganbayan:132926:July20,2001:J.Buena:SecondDivision

[21]A:XXXMasakitnamasakit,thechestpain,verymabigatdito(witnesspointingtoherchest)XXXTSN06
April1990,p.10Rollo,p.113.
[22]Rollo,p.114.
[23]TSN,06April1990,p.12Rollo,p.115.
[24]Exhibit3.
[25]Alvarezvs.Sandiganbayan,201SCRA557[1991].
[26]ExhibitA.
[27]ExhibitB.
[28]Diazvs.Sandiganbayan,302SCRA118[1999]citingU.S.vs.Catolico,18Phil.504,U.S.vs.Elvina,24Phil230,Quizo
vs.Sandiganbayan,149SCRA108[1987],Mahinayvs.Sandiganbayan,173SCRA237[1989].
[29]302SCRA118[1999].
[30]Rollo,p.54.
[31] Diaz vs. Sandiganbayan, 302 SCRA 118 [1999] Bugayong vs. People, 202 SCRA 762 [1991] citing Cesar vs.
Sandiganbayan,134SCRA105[1985].
[32]TheamountofcashshortageallegedintheInformation.
[33]AmountencashedatthePhilippineNationalBank.
[34]Galivs.CourtofAppeals,98SCRA268[1980].
[35]U.S.vs.Catolico,18Phil.504[1911]citedinBugayongvs.People,202SCRA762[1991].
[36]Galivs.CourtofAppeals,98SCRA268[1980].
[37]Babidavs.People,178SCRA204[1989]citingPeoplevs.Mingoa,92SCRA856[1953].
[38]Bugayongvs.People,202SCRA762[1991].
[39]Section2,Rule133,RulesofCourtprovides,Proofbeyondreasonabledoubt.Inacriminalcase,theaccusedis
entitledtoanacquittal,unlesshisguiltisshownbeyondreasonabledoubt.Proofbeyondreasonabledoubtdoesnotmean
suchadegreeofproofas,excludingpossibilityoferror,producesabsolutecertainty.Moralcertaintyonlyisrequired,orthat
degreeofproofwhichproducesconvictioninanunprejudicedmind.
[40]194SCRA601,606[1991].

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jul2001/132926.htm

9/9