People of the Philippines vs. Mingoa, 92 Phil. 856

 People of the Philippines vs. Mingoa, 92 Phil. 856

Keywords:  Presumption of guilt; Malversation of Public Funds, Prima Facie presumption

Summary:  Appellant claimed that he lost the money he was in charged of and was unable to produce the missing funds upon demand by the provincial auditor. He was then prosecuted for the crime of malversation of public funds in the Court of First Instance in Roblon.

REYES, J.

Facts:  Found short in his accounts as officer-in-charge of the office of the municipal treasurer of Despujols,

Romblon, and unable to produce the missing fund amounting to P3,938 upon demand by the provincial

auditor, Aquino Mingoa was prosecuted for the crime of malversation of public funds in the Court of First

Instance of Romblon. Mingoa explained to the examining officer that some days before he had, by mistake,

put the money in a large envelope which he took with him to a show and that he forgot it on his seat and it

was not there anymore when he returned. But he did not testify in court and presented no evidence in his

favor. Having been found guilty as charged and sentenced to the corresponding penalty, he appealed to the

Court of Appeals. But that court certified the case to the Supreme Court on the ground that it involved a

constitutional question.

Issue:  Whether Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides that "the failure of a public officer to

have duly forthcoming any public funds or property with which he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly

authorized officer, shall be prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or property to personal

use" violates the constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved

cannot be sustained.

Held:   The validity of statutes establishing presumptions in criminal cases is now a settled matter, Cooley, in

his work on constitutional limitations (8th ed., Vol. I, pp. 639-641), says that "there is no constitutional

objection to the passage of a law providing that the presumption of innocence may be overcome by a contrary presumption founded upon the experience of human conduct, and enacting what evidence shall be sufficient to overcome such presumption of innocence." In line with this view, it is generally held in the United States that the legislature may enact that when certain facts have been proved they shall, be prima facie evidence of the existence of the guilt of the accused and shift the burden of proof provided there be a rational connection between the facts proved and the ultimate fact presumed so that the inference of the one from proof of the others is not unreasonable and arbitrary because of lack of connection between the two in common experience.

The same view has been adopted here as may be seen from the decisions of the Supreme court in US vs. Tria (17 Phil 303); US vs. Luling (34 Phil 725); and People vs. Merilo (GR L-3489, 28 June 1951).

The statute in the present case creates a presumption of guilt once certain facts are proved. It makes the failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming, upon proper demand, any public funds or property with which he is chargeable prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or property to personal use. The ultimate act presumed is that the officer has malversed the funds or property entrusted to his custody, and the presumption is made to arise from proof that he has received them and yet he has failed to have them forthcoming upon proper demand. Clearly, the fact presumed is but a natural inference from the fact proved, so that it cannot be said that there is no rational connection between the two. Furthermore, the statute establishes only a prima facie presumption, thus giving the accused an opportunity to present evidence to rebut it. The presumption is reasonable and will stand the test of validity laid down in the above citations.

Herein, Mingoa's explanation is inherently unbelievable and cannot overcome the presumption of guilt arising from his inability to produce the fund which was found missing. If the money was really lost without Mingoa's fault, the most natural thing for him to do would be to so inform his superiors and apply for release from liability. But this he did not do. Instead, he tried to borrow to cover the shortage. And on the flimsy excuse that he preferred to do his own sleuthing, he even did not report the loss to the police. Considering further, as the prosecution points out in its brief, Mingoa had at first tried to avoid meeting the auditor who wanted to examine his accounts, and that for sometime before the alleged loss many teachers and other employees of the town had not been paid their salaries, there is good ground to believe that Mingoa had really malversed the fund in question and that his story about its loss was pure invention.

Ruling:  There being no reversible error in the decision appealed from, the same is hereby affirmed, with costs.

Doctrine: – SYLLABUS

1. CRIMINAL LAW; EVIDENCE; MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS; "PRIMA FACIE" PRESUMPTION OF GUILT. — "There is no constitutional objection to the passage of a law providing that the presumption of innocence may be overcome by a contrary presumption founded upon the experience of human conduct, and enacting what evidence shall be sufficient to overcome such presumption of innocence." Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code creates a presumption of guilt once certain facts are proved. It makes the failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming, upon proper demand, any public funds or property with which he is chargeable, prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or property to personal use. The presumption is reasonable and valid.

PRIMA FACIE —  may be used as an adjective meaning "sufficient to establish a fact or raise a presumption unless disproved or rebutted