ESTEPA v.

SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. No. L-59670
February 15, 1990
Topic:
FACTS:
Leonardo Estepa was a senior paymaster of the cash division of the city treasurers
office of the City of Manila. He and 9 other paymasters and supervising paymaster
Cesar Marcelo went to the Central Bank to get P7,640,000 which is the amount of cash
advances requested by the 10 paymasters. The cash was placed inside 2 duffel bags
and transported to the city treasurers office of the City of Manila. The cash distribution
was made in Atty. Kempis room, head of cash division, where the door was closed and
guarded to stop people from entering. With Atty. Kempis and the 10 paymasters,
Marcelo opened the duffel bags and again counted the sum of P7,640,000 (bills of 100s,
50s, 20s, 10s, and coins) and was placed in a table. Each paymaster was given the sum
they requested for in different denominations. Estepa was given the amount of
P850,000. After all 10 paymasters got their money, Marcelo asked if everything was fine
to which no complaints were heard, even from Estepa. All of them left the room.
Upon receiving the money, Estepa placed them on the sofa and transported the smaller
denominations first to the table, leaving the bigger denomination on the sofa since he
could not carry all at once. People were already entering the office of Atty. Kempis. He
brought the bigger denominations to his cage first then the smaller ones. After counting
the money in his cage, he discovered that P50,000 was missing and reported it to
Marcelo. Marcelo summoned the 10 paymasters and asked if they got the correct
amount. All of them got the correct amount except for Estepa.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Estepa is guilty of the crime of Malversation of Public Funds under Art
217 of RPC.
HELD:
YES. In the crime of malversation, all that is necessary for conviction is proof that the
accountable officer had received the public funds and that he did not have them in his
possession when demand therefore was made and he could not satisfactorily explain his
failure so to account. An accountable public officer may be convicted for malversation
even if there is no direct evidence of personal misappropriation, where he has not been
able to explain satisfactorily the absence of the public funds involved. There is prima
facie evidence of malversation where the accountable public officer fails to have duly
forthcoming any public funds with which he is chargeable upon demand by duly
authorized officer.
Estepa carelessly and negligently allowed an unknown person to steal or misappropriate
the amount of P50,000 and he had failed to exercise his duty as a public officer
accountable for public funds received by him. His actions amounted to negligence as it
provided two opportunities for a mysterious, unseen third person to pick up the missing
bundle of money amounting to P50,000:
1. From the sofa inside the room of Atty. Kempis where he had left the bundles of large

denomination bills, without asking anyone to keep an eye on them while he left the room;
or
2. From petitioner's cage outside Atty. Kempis' room where he left the bundles of large
denomination bills, again without anyone being left in charge thereof, while he went back
to the desk (also outside Atty. Kempis' room) to retrieve the bundles of small
denomination bills he had previously deposited on top of said desk without, once more,
getting someone to watch those bundles.
PETITION DENIED.