Malversation Conviction Upheld: Signature on Audit Report as Evidence of Accountability

A government officer who signs a cash examination report showing a shortage cannot later claim he merely received the document. In Loguinsa, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 146949, February 13, 2009), the Supreme Court affirmed a malversation conviction and treated the officer’s signature on the audit report as an acknowledgment of accountability. The ruling matters to every accountable public officer, and to anyone who deals with findings of the Commission on Audit.

The shortage found in Banaybanay

Narciso C. Loguinsa, Jr. was Municipal Treasurer of Banaybanay, Davao Oriental. On March 29, 1993, a team from the Provincial Auditor’s Office, led by COA State Auditor II Robert Lumpay, conducted a cash examination of his accounts in his presence. The team examined the journals and ledgers and the cashbooks. The INFRA, SEF, NALGU and Trust Fund balances showed no difference, but the General Fund cashbook — which the treasurer had personally prepared — showed a shortage of P1,728,145.35.

Lumpay prepared the Report of Cash Examination on General Form No. 74(A), gave the treasurer a copy, and the latter signed it. A demand to produce the missing funds and to explain the shortage followed. A second, separate investigation by Lupon Municipal Treasurer Maximo Tanzo and Administrative Officer Anecita Plaza later confirmed the same shortage. Administrative proceedings also found Loguinsa guilty of dishonesty through malversation, and he was dismissed from service.

He was charged with malversation of public funds under the Revised Penal Code. The Regional Trial Court of Mati, Davao Oriental, Branch 5 convicted him, and the Sandiganbayan affirmed in full. He elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

The arguments raised

Before the Court, Loguinsa argued that his conviction rested improperly on the cash examination report instead of the General Fund cashbooks and other original records, and that he was never shown exactly which collections were not deposited or which withdrawals created the shortage. He also insisted that his signature meant only that he had been furnished a copy and that a demand had been made, not that he admitted any shortage.

He further claimed that the Sandiganbayan denied him due process when it refused his request for a re-audit and review of his accounts.

What the Court ruled

The Supreme Court denied the petition. It held that the conviction did not rest on the cash examination report alone. The prosecution also presented documentary exhibits and the testimonies of Lumpay, Tanzo, and Melinde Conson, the Assistant and later Acting Municipal Treasurer. The Court stressed that the prosecution has the discretion to determine which evidence to present, and that the accused cannot dictate the prosecution’s choice of evidence.

The Court also applied the rule on entries in official records, as quoted in the decision: entries in official records made in the performance of duty by a public officer of the Philippines are prima facie evidence of the facts stated. The cash examination report, prepared in the performance of official functions, thus stood as prima facie proof of its contents. If the cashbooks could have exonerated the treasurer, it was for him to present them.

On the signature, the Court reasoned that a person is presumed not to sign an official document in blank or without knowing its contents. A ranking government treasurer is presumed to know better than to sign a document that would make him responsible. By signing, he acknowledged and certified