Under the topic: Accused lack of care may be a ground for administrative sanction only di

ko magets ang connection sa case kasi dito found criminally liable si petitioner eh
G. R. No. 149613. August 9, 2005]
PAMELA CHAN, Petitioners, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, Respondent.
Facts: In November 1989, petitioner was hired as Accounting Clerk II and assigned at the Regional
Office of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in Cebu City, discharging the function of Cashier
or Collection Officer.
An audit was conducted to the petitioners account and the auditor found that petitioner had a
cumulative shortage of cash accountability in the amount of P333,360.00 which was reflected in her
Cash Examination Report dated March 1, 1996, signed by petitioner. The auditor issued a demand
letter to petitioner requiring her to explain the shortage incurred, to which petitioner did not respond.
During trial, petitioner admitted that she extended loans using her collection (public funds) to her
colleagues and that the same is practiced in their office (although she knows its illegality kahit daw
kasi supervisor nila nanghihiram sa kanya from her collection pero isinasauli naman daw kaagad.)
RTC and Sandiganbayan found her guilty of Malversation of Public Funds under Article 217
of the Revised Penal Code.
ISSUE: WON petitioner is guilty of malversation?
HELD: YES
The fact that petitioner did not personally use the missing funds is not a valid defense and will not
exculpate him from his criminal liability. And as aptly found by respondent Sandiganbayan, "the fact
that (the) immediate superiors of the accused (petitioner herein) have acquiesced to the practice of
giving out cash advances for convenience did not legalize the disbursements".