ALVARES vs SANDIGANBAYAN

FACTS:
Gonzalo Alvarez was the Assistant Municipal Treasurer of Sultan Kudarat. An audit were made
to the funds in which it is in his official custody, the first on July 23, and the second on August 9,
1982. The audit was made by Mrs. Gloria Garcia, Auditing Examiner of Office of the Provincial
Auditor, Sultan Kudarat. The first examination revealed a shortage on his part of P86, 704.57, the
second, P1,091.15.1 The total shortage amounted to P87,795.72. Corresponding demand letters
were served on him to produce the missing funds. He failed to do so. Three years later, an
information was filed against Alvarez in the Sandiganbayan accusing him of Malversation as
principle. Sandiganbayan found him guilty of Malversation but only for P10, 097.15.

ISSUE:
WN the accused was guilty of Malversation

HELD:
NO. Alvarez is acquitted of the crime of Malversation, without pronouncement as to costs.

The element of Malversation under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code is a public officer who
has custody or control to the public funds or public property by reason of the duites of his office
misappropriated or consented or through abandonment negligence, permitted another person to
take them.

In this case, Alvarez during his 90-day preventive suspension from office as a result of the findings
of Garcia, he searched for, and located those vouchers and shortages in the vault of the Municipal
Treasurer. In fact, this triggered the examination of the accounts of accountable officers in his
office. Alvarez also submitted to Garcia for audit examination vouchers, and other records found
by him, but she refused to consider them. So he went and asked the help of Isidro T. Javier, O.I.C
of the Provincial Auditor if he could do the verification. He examined the documents and thereafter
signed a statement that verified those documents. On September 19, 1984, Alvarez went to Angel
E. Fernandez, the newly appointed Assistant Provincial Auditor then he issued the desired
certification that clearly shows that he never use those public funds to his personal use.

In the case Villacorta v. People, “Nor can negligence approximating malice or fraud be attributed
to petitioner. If he made wrong payments, they were made in good faith mainly to government
personnel, some of them even working at the provincial auditor’s and the provincial treasurer’s
offices. And if these payments ran counter to auditing rules and regulations, they did not amount
to a criminal offense and he should only be held administratively or civilly liable.