18 labatagos v sandiganbayan_seneres

8/18/2019 18 Labatagos v Sandiganbayan_Seneres

1/3

Labatagos v. Sandiganbayan

G.R. No. 71581

March 21, 1990

Toic! "rt. 217 # Ma$v%rsation&"'TS! This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Sandiganbayan finding the

petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the crime of (a$v%rsation o) *b$ic )*nds

defined and penalized under "rtic$% 217, ar. + of the RPC.

From January !"# to $ecember !#%& petitioner Carmen 'abatagos was the cashier and collecting

officer of the (indanao State )niversity *eneral Santos City. She filed a maternity leave for the

months of (arch& +pril and (ay !"# and did not discharge her duties for the said period.

,n ,ctober !#%& Commission on +udit -C,+ *eneral conducted the e/amination of the cash

and accounts of the petitioner. Tthe petitioner did not have any cash in her possession& so she wasas0ed to produce all her records& boo0s of collection& copies of official receipts and remittance

advices and her monthly reports of collections. 1ased on the official receipts and the record of

remittances for the period from an*ary to "*g*st 1978& the audit e/amination disclosed that the

petitioner collected the total amount of -11,205.58 and made a total remittance to the $1P& the

depository ban0 of the university& in the amount of -78,8/8./9& leaving an unremitted amount of

-+,/.19.

,n the basis of similar official receipts and record of remittances& the audit e/amination further

disclosed that for the period from an*ary 1979 to *n% /, 1980& the petitioner made a total

collection of -27,982.00 and remitted to the $1P the total amount of -25/,/0/.25 incurring a

shortage of -71,/5.75.

The petitioner signed without e/ception both Reports of 2/amination as well as their supporting

summaries. $espite the demand letters& the petitioner did not submit any e/planation of her

shortages. 3ence& on 4" ,ctober !#& the Tanodbayan filed with the Sandiganbayan an

information charging petitioner with the crime of (alversation of Public Funds.

Respondent Sandiganbayan did not give weight nor credence to her defense and found her guilty

beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of malversation of public funds.

SS! whether or not the guilt of the petitioner has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

3L4! The established facts show that respondent court did not err in convicting petitioner for the

crime of malversation. +s held by said court5

There is no merit in the accused6s defense. 3er claim that she signed the audit report and

statement of collections and deposits prepared by the audit team of Francisco Rivera on the

understanding that her shortage was only P4&%%%.%% is belied by the figures clearly reflected

on the said documents. 2/hibit +& the audit report which she signed without e/ception& shows

that she incurred a shortage of P78&779.! for the period from January to +ugust !"#: while

1


2/3

2/hibit +;& the statement of her collections and deposits for the same period which she

certified as correct& indicates the same amount of P78&779.! as her shortage.

(rs. 2ster *uanzon& the prosecution6s rebuttal witness& confirmed that she assisted the

accused in the collection of fees: that the accused filed application for maternity leave in (arch

!"# but continued reporting for wor0 during that month: that the accused did not report for wor0 in +pril !"#: and that she -*uanzon was the one assigned to collect the fees in her

stead. (iss *uanzon& however& e/plained that she turned over all her collections to the

accused during all the times that she was assisting her in collecting the fees: and that even in

+pril !"# when the accused was physically absent from office& she also turned over her

collections to the accused ill the latter


3/3

S, ,R$2R2$.

3

18 labatagos v sandiganbayan_seneres

Documents