Scribd
Upload
110 views2 pages

Malversation Case: Tanggote v. Sandiganbayan

Subo Tanggote, a former municipal mayor, was convicted of malversation of public funds for misappropriating cash advances he received from the municipal treasurer to repair municipal buildings. He appealed, arguing he was not an accountable public officer under the law and that the evidence did not support his conviction. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding that a municipal mayor is an accountable public officer as the duties of their office involve receiving and accounting for public funds. It also found substantial evidence supported the trial court's conclusion that Tanggote failed to properly account for the public funds he received.

Uploaded by

Let Blancaflor
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
110 views2 pages

Malversation Case: Tanggote v. Sandiganbayan

Subo Tanggote, a former municipal mayor, was convicted of malversation of public funds for misappropriating cash advances he received from the municipal treasurer to repair municipal buildings. He appealed, arguing he was not an accountable public officer under the law and that the evidence did not support his conviction. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding that a municipal mayor is an accountable public officer as the duties of their office involve receiving and accounting for public funds. It also found substantial evidence supported the trial court's conclusion that Tanggote failed to properly account for the public funds he received.

Uploaded by

Let Blancaflor
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

TANGGOTE v.

SANDIGANBAYAN
GR No. 103584
Sep 02, 1994
Vitug, J.

FACTS:

Subo Tanggote was convicted of the crime of malversation of public funds, defined in Article 217(4) of
the Revised Penal Code after he misappropriated sums he received fromas cash advances from the
Municipal Treasurer, for the repair of the town's municipal building and public market and the
construction of a municipal stage when he was still Municipal Mayor of Poonapiagapo, Lanao del Norte.

In this petition, the judgment of conviction is assailed allegedly for being contrary to the evidence
adduced by the parties and for being based on mere inferences and speculations. He further alleges that
he is not the accountable officer contemplated in law to be guilty of malversation.

ISSUES:

(1) Was the conviction of the accused for malversation proper?


(2) Is a municipal mayor an accountable public officer as contemplated in law?

HELD:

(1) YES. The petition cannot be granted.

The crime of malversation of public funds, defined under the Revised Penal Code, is committed by "(a)ny
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, x x x." The
failure of the public officer to have duly forthcoming such public funds or property, upon demand by a
duly authorized officer, "shall be prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or property to
personal use."

We see no reason to depart from the rule, particularly, such as in this case at bench, where the records
cannot be said to be bereft of substantial evidence to support the trial court's conclusions.

Petitioner argues that since the municipal treasurer did not incur any shortage of funds, the latter
having been able to fully liquidate the amount of P32,424.00 (representing petitioner's cash advances),
petitioner must then be deemed have likewise accounted in full that same amount. Obviously, it does
not necessarily follow. The municipal treasurer liquidated his withdrawals totaling P32,424.00, by
merely reflecting, such as could be expected, his proper disbursements to the petitioner (Municipal
Vouchers [Exhibits A and B]), which the latter has duly receipted for. It has thus behooved petitioner, in
turn, to liquidate his own cash advances and to prove his lawful usage thereof.
(2) Yes. Neither is there merit in petitioner's assertion that he is not an accountable public officer.

An accountable officer under Art. 217 of the Revised Penal Code is a public officer who, in the discharge
of his office, receives money or property of the government which he is bound to later account for. It is
the nature of the duties of, not the nomenclature used for, or the relative significance of the title to, the
position which controls in that determination (see U.S. vs. Velasquez, 32 Phil. 157).

In the crime of malversation, all that is essential for conviction is proof that the accountable officer has
received public funds but that, when demand therefor is made, he is unable to satisfactorily account for
the same (Valle vs. Sandiganbayan, 214 SCRA 532; Felicilda vs. Grospe, 211 SCRA 285; Sambrano vs.
Sandiganbayan, 208 SCRA 44).

You might also like