SUBJECT:

TOPIC:
Date Made:
Digest Maker:
Crim II
Malversation
11mar16
Arabe
CASE NAME: people v sendaydiego
PONENTE: Aquino
Case Date: 20jan78
Case Summary:
Sendaydiego is a provincial treasurer. Through six falsified vouchers peresented by
samson in his office, they managed to take 55k from the provincial budget. Samson is an
employee af a hardware store. Sendaydiego received the vouchers in his office when his
secretary said that he usually recieves them outside.
During the pendency of the case, sendaydiego died. It was ruled that his estate will still
be civilly liable.
It was contested that samson didnt sign the vouchers but subsequently proven that he
did. His possession of such falsified documents gave rise to the presumption that he also
authored them; a presumption he failed to rebut.
The lower court convicted samson on being a principal in complex crime of malversation
and falsification.
It was held that there was no complex crime of falsification and malversation.
Falsification is not indispensible with malversation. Each voucher is a separate act of
falsification and each corresponding amount of money taken is a separate act of
malversation. Thus, he was sentenced guilty of 12 criminal cases.
It was also held the despite being a private individual, samson is still liable as a principal
to malversation
Rule of Law:
Malversation by private individuals
Detailed Facts:
Sendaydiego the provincial treasurer, Samson an employee of a hardware and
lumber store, and quirimit the provincial auditor were charged with malversation
with the first two as principals and thelast one as an accomplice.
They use six vounchers to secure permits to release money for alleged repairs for a
bridge that entailed purchase or lumber and hardware products.
The vouchers needed to be signed by city engineers but it was proven that the
signatures were falsified
Samson delivered the vouchers inside sendaydiegos office where the latter paid in
cash.
Samson and quirimit signed the vouchers. It would later be held that quirimit is
innocent and was only doing his job to sign documents authorized by Sendaydiego
It was contested in the lower court that Samson didnt sign the vouchers. Handwriting experts testified that his specimen signatures and the ones on the
vouchers were different. They then found out that he used different signature on
purpose but they were written by the same hand.
Sendaydiego died during the pendency of the case. It eas proven beyond
reasonable doubt that he was a principal. His estate is liable for indemnity
Ulanday was the provincial cashier who would have been knowledgeable about the
BLOCK D 2019 1

manner of payment but he also died.

Rosete works in the inner office and saw that the payment was not done like how it
usually was
Samsons possession of the falsified documents gave rise to the presumption that
he authored them
Issue:
(S) W/N there is a complex crime of falsification and malversation? NO
(S) W/N a private individual like Samson can be liable for malversation
Holding:
1. Falsification is not indispensable in malversation. The court held that they could
have taken the money without the vouchers. It held that each voucher is a
separate act of falsification and each amount is a separate act of malversation.
2. A private individual can be a principal in malversation since his acts were
indispensable to allow sendaydiego to steal the money
Ruling:
Samson is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Sendaydiegos estate is liable
Other Opinions:

BLOCK D 2019 2