4/5/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 470

VOL. 470, SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 373

Doldol vs. People

*
G.R. No. 164481. September 20, 2005.

CONRADO C. DOLDOL, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES and THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS,
respondents.

Criminal Law; Malversation; Evidence; Admissions; Partial restitution

of the cash shortage is an implied admission of misappropriation of the
missing funds.—Except for his bare testimony, the petitioner offered no
competent and credible evidence to prove that the missing funds were
actually cash advances of employees in the municipality. The petitioner
could have offered in evidence the documents evidencing the names of the
recipients and amounts of the cash advances, but failed to do so. Moreover,
the petitioner wrote

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

374

374 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Doldol vs. People

the Provincial Auditor and offered to refund the missing funds as follows:
P200,000.00 on September 15, 1995, P200,000.00 on or before October 31,
1995, and P884,139.66 on November 30, 1995. He was able to pay only
P200,000.00 on September 15, 1995, and failed to remit the balance of his
shortage. Such partial restitution of the petitioners of the cash shortage is an
implied admission of misappropriation of the missing funds.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of

Appeals.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000169e94ae466aaeabdea003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/11
4/5/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 470

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     Villamor A. Tolete for petitioner.
     The Solicitor General for the People.

CALLEJO, SR., J.:

1
Conformably to the Memorandum dated April 6, 1995 of the
Provincial Auditor, a team of State Auditors led by State Auditor
Emilie S. Ritua, with State Auditors Lydia Naoe and Beverly T.
Cruz as members, conducted an audit of the cash and cash account
of Conrado C. Doldol, the Municipal Treasurer of Urbiztondo,
Pangasinan. The audit covered the General Fund, Special Education
Fund and Trust Fund in his custody for the period of November 30,
1994 to June 8, 1995. Doldol and the Municipal Accountant were
present during the audit. The State Auditors discovered that Doldol
had a shortage of P801,933.26. They also noted that on June 5,
1995, he made cash withdrawals from the municipality’s deposit
account with the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) amounting to
P360,000.59. The withdrawal, purportedly for salaries, wages,
allowances and mid-year bonuses of municipal officers and
employees, had not been recorded in the General Fund Cashbook as
of June 8, 1995. The State Auditors also noted that Doldol made
adjustments in the said cashbook on June 8, 1995, increasing his
P801,933.26 shortage to P1,134,421.54.

_______________

1 Exhibit “A.”

375

VOL. 470, SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 375

Doldol vs. People

2
In a Letter dated July 5, 1995, the State Auditors demanded the
immediate refund of the said amount, and for Doldol to submit
within 72 hours a written explanation on the said shortage. Doldol
failed to respond and was, thereafter, relieved of his duties. On July
20, 1995, he was directed to transfer the account to Assistant
Municipal Treasurer Loida Cancino.
The State Auditors then conducted another audit of the said
account, this time covering the period of June 8, 1995 to July 19,
1995. They discovered that Doldol incurred an added cash shortage
of P149,905.92. In a Letter to Doldol dated July 27, 1995, the State
Auditors demanded the immediate restitution of the missing fund,
and directed him to submit within 72 hours a written explanation
why he incurred such shortage. Again, Doldol failed to respond. The
State Auditors submitted their Report to the Provincial Auditor on

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000169e94ae466aaeabdea003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/11
4/5/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 470

their examinations showing his shortages. On August 3, 1995, the

State Auditors submitted their Memorandum on the result of the
audits to the Provincial Auditor.
On the same day, Doldol wrote the Provincial Treasurer
requesting that a re-audit be conducted on his cash and cash account,
taking exception to the findings of the State Auditors.
Instead of pursuing his request for a re-audit, Doldol opted to
refund the missing funds. On September 15, 1995, he remitted
P200,000.00 to the Acting Municipal Treasurer for which he was
issued Official Receipt No. 436756. Doldol promised to pay the
balance of his shortage, as follows: P200,000.00 on October 31,
1995, and P884,139.66 on or before November 30, 1995. However,
he reneged on his promise.
On February 6, 1996, the Provincial Auditor transmitted the
Memorandum and Consolidated Report of the State Auditors to the
Ombudsman, and requested that Doldol be

_______________

2 Exhibit “E.”

376

376 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Doldol vs. People

charged for malversation of public funds. Despite the extensions

given to him, Doldol failed to file his counter-affidavit.
Two informations for malversation of public funds were then
filed against Doldol in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Carlos
City. The first Information, docketed as Criminal Case No. SCC-
2760, reads:

“That on or about June 8, 1995, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in

Urbiztondo, Pangasinan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, CONRADO C. DOLDOL, a public officer, being then the
Municipal Treasurer, Municipality of Urbiztondo, Pangasinan, and as such
accountable for public funds received and/or entrusted to him by reason of
his office, acting in relation of his office and taking advantage of the same,
did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, use and benefit the
amount of ONE MILLION ONE HUNDRED THIRTY-FOUR
THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED TWENTY-ONE PESOS and 54/100
(P1,134,421.54) from such public funds received by him by reason of his
office, to the damage of the government in the amount aforestated.
3
CONTRARY TO LAW.”

The second Information, docketed as Criminal Case No. SCC-2763,

reads:

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000169e94ae466aaeabdea003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/11
4/5/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 470

“That sometime between June 8, 1995 and July 19, 1995 or sometime prior
or subsequent thereto, in Urbiztondo, Pangasinan, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, CONRADO C. DOLDOL, a public
officer, being then the Municipal Treasurer, Municipality of Urbiztondo,
Pangasinan, and as such accountable for public funds received and/or
entrusted to him by reason of his office, acting in relation of his office and
taking advantage of the same, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, take, misappropriate and convert to his personal use and benefit
the amount of ONE HUNDRED FORTY-NINE THOUSAND NINE
HUNDRED FIVE PESOS and 92/100 (P149,905.92) from such public
funds received by him by reason of his office, to the damage of the
government in the amount aforestated.

_______________

3 Rollo, pp. 54-55.

377

VOL. 470, SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 377

Doldol vs. People

4
CONTRARY TO LAW.”

Doldol testified that the funds which the State Auditors found
missing were, in fact, cash advances availed of by the municipal
employees. He insisted that not a single centavo was used for his
personal benefit. He averred that the charges lodged against him
were premature because the same were based on an incomplete
audit.
In a Joint Decision, the trial court convicted the accused of the
crimes charged. The fallo of the decision reads:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the accused Conrado Doldol is

hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Malversation
of Public Funds in Criminal Case No. SCC-2760 and in Criminal Case No.
SCC-2763, as defined and penalized by Art. 217 of the Revised Penal Code.
In both cases, the amount involved is more than P22,000.00, as such the
penalty to be imposed is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to
reclusion perpetua. Considering that the accused surrendered to the police
in Urbiztondo, Pangasinan (See Exh. “4”) and being entitled to the provision
of [the] Indeterminate Sentence Law, he is hereby sentenced to suffer an
indeterminate penalty of 10 years, 1 day of prision mayor as minimum to 18
years, 8 months of reclusion temporal as maximum in each of the two cases.
Further, he is ordered to pay the amount of P1,134,421.54 in Criminal Case
No. SCC-2760 and another amount of P149,905.92 in Criminal Case No.
SCC-2763 minus, of course, his advance payment of P200,187.80. In
addition, he should be made to suffer the accessory penalties corresponding

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000169e94ae466aaeabdea003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/11
4/5/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 470

to the principal penalty imposed upon him which includes perpetual

absolute disqualification (Art. 41, Rev. Penal Code) and to pay the costs.
5
SO ORDERED.”

On appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA), Doldol alleged:

1. That the trial court erred in rejecting the defenses put up by

the accused as follows:

_______________

4 Id., at pp. 57-58.

5 Rollo, pp. 87-88.

378

378 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Doldol vs. People

a. The evidence shows that the audits were not yet completed
when the letters of demand were served upon him to
produce the alleged missing funds.
b. He was not given the chance to further verify the records
despite his request to that effect.
c. There is no evidence that he took the money from the vault
or brought it home.
d. The missing funds, if any, were cash advances of certain
municipal employees.
e. His having borrowed money from the bank negates the
charge of misappropriation of public funds.

2. That the trial court erred in convicting the accused based on

the testimonies of the auditors and the documentary
evidence adduced by them.
3. That the trial court erred in sentencing the accused to suffer
6
the penalties imposed by the assailed joint decision.

On February 11, 2001, the CA rendered judgment affirming the

appealed decision, and, likewise, denied Doldol’s motion for
reconsideration thereof.
Doldol, now the petitioner, forthwith filed the present petition for
review on certiorari, faulting the CA as follows:

1. In affirming the joint decision of the Regional Trial Court,

Branch 56, San Carlos City, Pangasinan in Crim. Case Nos.
SCC-2760 and SCC-2763;

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000169e94ae466aaeabdea003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/11
4/5/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 470

2. In convicting the accused-petitioner on the basis of an

erroneous and incomplete audit;
7
3. In not dismissing the cases against the accused-petitioner.

The petitioner reiterates his arguments that the audit of his

accountabilities had not been completed because the State Auditors
had yet to conduct a verification of their initial findings based on the
cashbook and a reconciliation of the bank

_______________

6 Id., at p. 64.
7 Rollo, p. 15.

379

VOL. 470, SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 379

Doldol vs. People

deposits of the municipality. The petitioner insists that the State

Auditors did not submit any bank reconciliation statement. The
petitioner argues that he was never given a chance to explain and
point out that he did not incur any shortage of public funds, and that
the charges against him should be dismissed. To bolster his claim,8
he
cites the ruling of this Court in Dumagat v. Sandiganbayan and
Section 560 of the Manual of Instructions to Treasurers and Auditors
and other Guidelines to bolster his claim.
The petitioner asserts that the prosecution failed to prove that the
public funds were for his personal use. In fact, the petitioner insists,
the evidence shows that the alleged missing funds were unliquidated
cash advances of employees. Hence, the petitioner concludes, the
prima facie presumption under the last paragraph of Article 217 of
the Revised Penal Code does not apply.
In its comment on the petition, the Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG) asserts that the issues raised by the petitioner are factual and,
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be
raised. The OSG posits that the findings of facts of the trial court, as
affirmed by the CA, are conclusive on this Court, absent a showing
that the trial court ignored, misconstrued or misunderstood cogent
facts and circumstances which, if considered, would change the
outcome of the case. The OSG maintains that the prosecution
adduced proof beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner
malversed the public funds subject of the two Informations.
Moreover, the petitioner’s contention that the charges against him
were premature, because the audit of his accountabilities had not yet
been completed and he was not given a chance to explain the
whereabouts of the subject funds before the said charges were filed,
is belied by the fact that he even made a partial restitution of the
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000169e94ae466aaeabdea003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/11
4/5/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 470

public funds. The OSG notes that as found by the trial court, the
petitioner even failed to specify the

_______________

8 G.R. No. 96915, 3 July 1992, 211 SCRA 171.

380

380 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Doldol vs. People

names of the employees who were granted cash advances and the
accounts of the said advances. It further avers that the ruling of this
9
Court in Dumagat v. Sandiganbayan does not apply because:

In his vain attempt to exculpate himself from criminal liability, petitioner

invokes the doctrine established in Dumagat vs. Sandi-ganbayan, et al.,
[211 SCRA 171, 177 (1992)], wherein this Honorable Court acquitted the
accused of the crime of malversation of public funds, holding that “[s]ince
the audit examination left much to be desired in terms of thoroughness and
completeness as there were accounts which were not considered, the same
cannot be made the basis for holding petitioner liable for malversation.”
It is submitted that the ruling in Dumagat vs. Sandiganbayan (supra) is
not applicable to the instant case as the two cases are based on different
factual circumstances.
In the first place, in Dumagat vs. Sandiganbayan (supra, at p. 178), there
was a finding that the “haphazard examination of the cash accountability of
petitioner” was made by the auditor “in violation of the Manual of
Instructions to Treasurers and Auditors” and that “the ‘missing’ funds would
have been ‘discovered’ if only the auditor took into consideration the
contents of the two vaults in Sindangan and Tampisilan and the fact that her
collection in Di-polog City were deposited with the NFA cashier.” In the
instant case, there was sufficient compliance with the Manual of Instructions
to Treasurers and Auditors as the two (2) auditing teams had completed their
examination and, thereafter, required herein petitioner to produce or explain
the shortages of funds in his custody. Notwithstanding the demand for him
to explain the shortages, petitioner totally disregarded the same and further
failed to produce upon demand the missing funds amounting to
P1,134,421.54 and P149,905.92. There was, thus, nothing left for the team
of auditors to do in the instant case. If at all, State Auditor Ritua requested
for the return of petitioner’s cashbook and passbooks merely to reconcile
10
and confirm the correctness of their findings.

The petition has no merit.

_______________

9 Ibid.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000169e94ae466aaeabdea003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/11
4/5/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 470
10 Rollo, pp. 139-140.

381

VOL. 470, SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 381

Doldol vs. People

The evidence on record shows that the team of State Auditors

conducted its first audit of cash and cash accounts of the General
Fund, Special Education Fund and Trust Fund in the custody of the
11
petitioner, and discovered that he had a shortage of P1,134,421.54.
12
In a Letter dated July 5, 1995, the State Auditors demanded that
the petitioner immediately produce the missing funds. He was also
required to submit within 72 hours a written explanation why the
shortage occurred. In the meantime, the State Auditors conducted
another audit of the cash and cash accounts of the petitioner during
the period of June 8, 1995 to July 19, 1995, and he was found to
have a shortage of P149,905.92. The petitioner was informed of the
results of the audit in a Letter dated July 27, 1995, where he was
directed to refund his shortage of P149,905.92 and to submit a
13
written explanation thereon within 72 hours. However, the
petitioner failed to respond to such demand, and failed to object to
the findings and conclusions of the State Auditors. It bears stressing
that the petitioner was present during the said audit.
While it is true that the petitioner requested for a re-audit on
August 3, 1995 and objected to some of the findings of the audit
team, he addressed the letter-request to the Provincial Treasurer, and
not to the Provincial Auditor of Pangasinan. We note that while the
Provincial Auditor had already signed the Transmittal Letter dated
August 3, 1995 on the State Auditor’s Report and request for the
petitioner’s prosecution for malversation of public funds, it was filed
only on February 6, 1996. In the meantime, the Provincial Auditor
never received any letter from the petitioner requesting for a re-audit
of his account.

_______________

11 Exhibit “F.”
12 Exhibit “E.”
13 Ibid.

382

382 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Doldol vs. People

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000169e94ae466aaeabdea003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/11
4/5/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 470

Admittedly, State Auditor Ritua conducted an audit of the General

Fund, the Special Education Fund and Trust Fund Passbook, and the
LBP and DBP Passbooks on July 11, 1995 for verification and
reconciliation purposes. However, the petitioner was not barred from
examining and receiving the same, preparatory to the submission of
his explanation to the State Auditors’ demand-letters. Indeed, the
petitioner was even able to write the Provincial Treasurer on August
3, 1995, and requested his objection to such findings. The following
findings and ratiocination of the CA, as supported by the evidence
on record, negate the submission of the petitioner:

. . . [T]he records at the depository banks confirmed the correctness of the

COA’s findings that there were, indeed, shortages in the funds under
appellant’s control, thus, rendering appellant’s request for a re-audit as a
mere superfluous and redundant procedure (TSN, Amando T. Sison; Emelie
Ritua, supra).
Appellant’s contention that he was not given the chance to verify the
records under audit despite a request to that effect deserves scant
consideration. The records show that appellant was twice afforded ample
opportunity to replenish the funds or explain the reason for its
disappearance. Verily, this could have been the perfect opportunity for the
appellant to verify the records and provide an acceptable reason behind the
shortages in the municipal funds under his custody. Appellant, however, on
both instances failed to reply to the demands given by the COA. For having
refused “to face the music,” so to speak, and disregarded the demands sent
by the COA, appellant has only himself to blame if he has lost any
14
opportunity to further verify the financial records of the municipality.

The record of the Ombudsman shows that the petitioner was

required to submit his counter-affidavit, but requested for time to do
so, on his representation that his request to the Commission on Audit
for a re-audit was still pending. It turned out that the petitioner made
no such request. Moreover, the petitioner failed to submit his
counter-affidavit to the Ombudsman. Thus, the petitioner’s
submission that the

_______________

14 Rollo, pp. 38-39.

383

VOL. 470, SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 383

Doldol vs. People

audit of his account had not been completed before the report of the
State Auditors was referred to the Ombudsman is not correct.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000169e94ae466aaeabdea003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/11
4/5/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 470

Except for his bare testimony, the petitioner offered no competent

and credible evidence to prove that the missing funds were actually
cash advances of employees in the municipality. The petitioner
could have offered in evidence the documents evidencing the names
of the recipients and amounts of the cash advances, but failed to do
so. Moreover, the petitioner wrote the Provincial Auditor and
offered to refund the missing funds as follows: P200,000.00 on
September 15, 1995, P200,000.00 on or before October 31, 1995,
and P884,139.66 on November 30, 1995. He was able to pay only
P200,000.00 on September 15, 1995, and failed to remit the balance
of his shortage. Such partial restitution of the petitioners of the cash
shortage is an implied admission of misappropriation of the missing
funds. The ruling of the CA on this matter is correct:

As We have already stated hereinabove, on September 15, 1995, not too

long after the shortages in the municipal funds were discovered, appellant
made a partial payment/settlement in the amount of 200,187.80 pesos as
evidenced by Official Receipt No. 436756 (Exhibit “8,” Record, Volume III,
p. 6). With respect to the balance of the missing funds, appellant promised
to pay the same in installment basis. Appellant, though, failed to comply
with his undertaking (Record, Volume I, p. 457; TSN, Amando T. Sison,
July 27, 1998, pp. 32-33). Said payment is of no moment and could not have
legally brought acquittal for the appellant. On the contrary, as guided by
Section 27, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence, We hold that said payment,
particularly when taken in conjunction with appellant’s commitment to
gradually pay the remainder of the missing funds, is a clear offer of
compromise which must be treated as an implied admission of appellant’s
15
guilt that he embezzled or converted the missing funds to his personal use.

_______________

15 Rollo, p. 40.

384

384 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Manly Sportwear Manufacturing, Inc. vs. Dadodette Enterprises

IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED for

lack of merit. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR
No. 25845 is AFFIRMED. Costs against the petitioner.
SO ORDERED.

          Puno (Chairman), Austria-Martinez, Tinga and Chico-

Nazario, JJ., concur.

Petition denied, judgment affirmed.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000169e94ae466aaeabdea003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/11
4/5/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 470

Notes.—The act of encashing a check intended for a particular

project and subsequently using the money for some other purpose
constitutes misappropriation. (Nizurtado vs. Sandiganbayan, 239
SCRA 33 [1994])
One essential element of the crime of malversation is that a
public officer must take public funds, money or property, and
misappropriate it for his own private use or benefit. (Aquino vs.
Olivares, 399 SCRA 475 [2003])

——o0o——

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000169e94ae466aaeabdea003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/11