CANDAO vs.

PEOPLE

On August 5, 1993, an Expanded Special Audit of the Office of the Regional Governor, Autonomous Region for
Muslim Mindanao (ORG-ARMM) was conducted since the main audit conducted for the financial transactions
of the said office was discontinued due to the threats experienced by then state auditor against her security
that she had to be immediately recalled from her assignment.

During the expanded audit, the audit team requested for the original copies of the disbursement vouchers,
together with their complete supporting documents, covering 52 checks payable to the order of petitioner
Israel B. Haron (Disbursing Officer II). ORG-ARMM failed to provide these requested disbursement vouchers at
the time of the expanded audit, or any time thereafter, that in the Special Audit Office (SAO) Report submitted
by the audit team, these withdrawals were reported as illegal.

In a letter dated September 10, 1993, Chairman Banaria of COA demanded from petitioner Haron to produce
and restitute to the ARMM-Regional Treasurer immediately the full amount of P21,045,570.64 and submit his
explanation within seventy-two (72) hours together with the official receipt issued by the ARMM Regional
Treasurer in acknowledgment of such restitution, which petitioner failed to do so.

The Office of the Special Prosecutor, Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao, filed in the Sandiganbayan criminal
cases for malversation of public funds against the petitioners. Sandiganbayan found petitioners guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of malversation of public funds.

ISSUE
1) Whether or not the Sandiganbayan committed an error in not applying the equipoise rule in this case.

2) Whether or not direct evidence is required so as to infer conspiracy.

RULING OF SC:
Sandiganbayan committed no reversible error in holding that the testimonial and documentary evidence
presented by the petitioners failed to overcome the prima facie evidence of misappropriation arising from
Harons failure to give a satisfactory explanation for the illegal withdrawals from the ARMM funds under his
custody and control. Petitioners likewise did not accomplish the proper liquidation of the entire amount
withdrawn, during the expanded audit or any time thereafter. The failure of a public officer to have duly
forthcoming any public fund 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 uses. There is
therefore no merit in petitioners argument that the Sandiganbayan erred in not applying the equipoise rule.

Under the equipoise rule, where the evidence on an issue of fact is in equipoise or there is doubt on which side
the evidence preponderates, the party having the burden of proof loses. The equipoise rule finds application if
the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent
with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, for then the evidence does not fulfill
the test of moral certainty, and does not suffice to produce a conviction. Such is not the situation in this case
because the prosecution was able to prove by adequate evidence that Disbursing Officer Haron failed to
account for funds under his custody and control upon demand, specifically for the P21,045,570.64 illegally
withdrawn from the said funds. In the crime of malversation, all that is necessary for conviction is sufficient
proof that the accountable officer had received public funds, that he did not have them in his possession when
demand therefor was made, and that he could not satisfactorily explain his failure to do so. Direct evidence of
personal misappropriation by the accused is hardly necessary in malversation cases.
2) Conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence and may be inferred from the conduct of the accused
before, during and after the commission of the crime, which are indicative of a joint purpose, concerted action
and concurrence of sentiments. In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. Conspiracy is present when one
concurs with the criminal design of another, indicated by the performance of an overt act leading to the crime
committed. It may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated.