This Supreme Court decision affirms the conviction of Angel A. Enfermo, a former disbursing officer, for malversation and falsification of public documents. Enfermo misappropriated public funds through double issuance of checks and falsifying payrolls. The court underscored that possession and use of a forged document, absent a reasonable explanation, leads to the presumption that the possessor is the forger. This case highlights the severe consequences for public officials who exploit their positions for personal gain, reinforcing the importance of accountability and integrity in public service.

Double-Dealing Disbursing: Can a Public Officer Be Convicted of Crimes Beyond Initial Charges?

This case revolves around Angel A. Enfermo, formerly a disbursing officer at the National Research Council of the Philippines (NRCP), who faced multiple charges, including malversation through falsification and estafa. The initial investigation revealed discrepancies in bank records, pointing to double issuance of checks. The prosecution presented evidence showing that Enfermo issued duplicate checks to researchers Aurora Dacanay and Jose M. Bernaldez, and also misappropriated salary and incentive pay of employees Mary Christine Avanzado and Lanie P. Manalo. The central legal question is whether Enfermo can be convicted of malversation, even when initially charged with estafa through falsification, and whether the evidence presented sufficiently proves his guilt.

The charges against Enfermo stemmed from anomalous transactions discovered at the NRCP. Alejandro Rodanilla, the Administrative Officer, explained Enfermo’s role in assisting with check preparation and release. Luz Acosta Aramil, the Accountant III, discovered the imbalance in the bank records. This imbalance triggered an investigation that exposed the double issuance of checks and the misappropriation of funds. This evidence formed the basis for the charges of malversation through falsification in the cases involving Dacanay and Bernaldez.

In Criminal Cases Nos. 111086 and 111087, Enfermo was accused of malversation through falsification for the double issuance of checks to Aurora Dacanay and Jose M. Bernaldez. The prosecution demonstrated that Enfermo had issued second checks supported by the same disbursement vouchers as the original checks. The crucial point was that Enfermo allegedly forged the signatures of Dacanay and Bernaldez to encash these checks. This action, according to the prosecution, constituted both malversation and falsification of public documents. It was central to proving the element of misappropriation of public funds.

The Court of Appeals, in affirming the Regional Trial Court’s decision with modification, emphasized the elements of malversation. The court highlighted that to secure a conviction for malversation, the prosecution must prove that the accused is a public officer, has custody or control of funds, that the funds are public, and that the officer misappropriated them. The failure to account for public funds is prima facie evidence of malversation.

ART. 217. Malversation of public funds or property.–Presumption of malversation – Any public officer who, by reason of the duties of his office is accountable for public funds or property, shall appropriate the same, or shall take or misappropriate or shall consent, or through abandonment or negligence, shall permit any other person to take such public funds or property wholly or partially, or shall otherwise be guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property….

Building on this principle, the court noted that the prosecution satisfactorily proved all the elements of malversation in Enfermo’s case. Moreover, the court invoked the principle that possession of a forged document, without a satisfactory explanation, implies the possessor is the forger. This presumption was crucial in establishing Enfermo’s guilt in the double issuance of checks.

In Criminal Cases Nos. 111089 and 111091, Enfermo was initially charged with estafa through falsification for misappropriating the salary of Mary Christine Avanzado and the incentive pay of Lanie P. Manalo. Although Avanzado and Manalo had signed the payroll, they testified that they did not receive the money and that Enfermo had promised to return it. Despite the initial charge of estafa through falsification, the court convicted Enfermo of malversation in these cases as well. The court held that even though the signatures were genuine, the funds remained public funds until actually received by the employees. Consequently, Enfermo’s admission that he used the money for his own benefit constituted malversation.

The court addressed Enfermo’s argument that he could not be convicted of a crime other than what was specified in the information. It reaffirmed the principle that what controls is not the designation of the offense but the description of the offense as alleged in the information. The court concluded that the information contained all the essential elements of malversation. Even though Enfermo was initially charged with estafa through falsification, the facts alleged constituted malversation.

The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court affirmed that the amounts misappropriated by Enfermo constituted public funds until they were released and received by Avanzado and Manalo. Additionally, the Court corrected the penalties imposed by the lower courts, adjusting them to comply with the Revised Penal Code. These included modifying the penalties for malversation in Criminal Cases Nos. 111086 and 111087 and adjusting the indeterminate penalties in Criminal Cases Nos. 111089 and 111091 to align with legal standards.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Angel A. Enfermo, a public officer, was guilty of malversation and falsification of public documents due to double issuance of checks and misappropriation of funds. This included determining if he could be convicted of malversation even when initially charged with estafa through falsification.
What is malversation under the Revised Penal Code?	Malversation, under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, involves a public officer misappropriating public funds or property for which they are accountable due to their official duties. This includes taking, misusing, or allowing others to take public funds for personal use.
What evidence did the prosecution present against Enfermo?	The prosecution presented evidence of double-issued checks, forged signatures, and testimonies from employees whose salaries were misappropriated. They also provided bank records and audit reports showing discrepancies in fund disbursements.
What was Enfermo’s defense?	Enfermo argued that the prosecution failed to prove he falsified the signatures and that the funds taken for salary and incentive pay were not public funds since the employees signed the payroll. He also claimed that photocopies of the checks were inadmissible as evidence.
Why were photocopies of checks admitted as evidence?	The photocopies of the checks were admitted because Enfermo’s counsel had previously admitted they were faithful reproductions of the originals. Furthermore, he failed to object to their admissibility during the formal offer of evidence.
How did the court determine that Enfermo falsified the signatures on the checks?	The court invoked the presumption that one found in possession of and who used a forged document is the forger, especially since Enfermo failed to provide a satisfactory explanation. This was further supported by testimony from witnesses familiar with Enfermo’s signature.
Why was Enfermo convicted of malversation instead of estafa through falsification in some cases?	The court stated that the factual allegations in the information constituted malversation, even though the initial charge was estafa through falsification. The determining factor was the misuse of public funds, which falls under the definition of malversation.
What was the final ruling of the Supreme Court?	The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, convicting Enfermo of malversation and falsification of public documents. The court also adjusted the penalties to comply with the Revised Penal Code.

This case serves as a critical reminder of the responsibilities entrusted to public officials and the severe legal repercussions for failing to uphold those responsibilities. It clarifies the elements of malversation and highlights the evidentiary standards needed for conviction, reinforcing the importance of ethical conduct and financial accountability in public service.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: People of the Philippines vs. Angel A. Enfermo, G.R. NOS. 148682-85, November 30, 2005