Allan, the Municipal Treasurer of the Municipality of Gerona, was in a hurry to

return to his office after a day-long official conference. He alighted from the
government car which was officially assigned to him, leaving the ignition key and the
car unlocked, and rushed to his office. Jules, a bystander, drove off with the car and
later sold the same to his brother, Danny for P20,000.00, although the car was
worth P800,000.00.

In the case of Allan:

The Revised Penal Code defines the crime of malversation of public funds or property as
follows:

Art. 217. Malversation of public funds or property. Presumption of malversation. -

Any public officer who, by the reason of the duties of his office, is accountable for public
funds or property, shall appropriate the same, or shall take or misappropriate or shall
consent, or through abandonment or negligence, shall permit any other person to take
such public funds or property wholly or partially, or shall otherwise be guilty of
misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property

Hence, the elements of the said felony are as follows:

A. that the offender be a public officer

B. that he had custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his
office

C. that those funds or property were public funds or property for which he was
accountable

D. that he appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented or, through abandonment or

negligence, permitted another person to take them.

In this case, Allan, the municipal treasurer is liable for malversation committed through
negligence or cupla. The government car which was assigned to him is public property under
his accountability by reason of his duties. By his act of negligence, he permitted the taking of the
car by another person, resulting to malversation, consistent with the language of Article 217 of
the Revised Penal Code.

In the case of Danny:

Section 2 (a) of PD 1612 also known as the Anti-Fencing law provides:

 Definition of Terms. The following terms shall mean as follows:

(a) "Fencing" is the act of any person who, with intent to gain for himself or for
another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or
shall buy and sell, or in any other manner deal in any article, item, object or
anything of value which he knows, or should be known to him, to have been
derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.

Added further,

Section 5. Presumption of Fencing. Mere possession of any good, article, item,

object, or anything of value which has been the subject of robbery or thievery
shall be prima facie evidence of fencing.

Danny violated the Anti-Violated the Anti-Fencing Law. He is in possession of an item which is
the subject of thievery. PD No 1612 under Section 5 provides that mere possession of any
goods, article, item, object or anything of value which has been the subject of robbery or
thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing. We can also deduce from the facts that he
knows that car is a proceed of the crime of theft since high confidence can be assumed in the
relationship of brothers and the price of the car is far less that its real value which is glaringly
obvious that his intent is to dispose of it as soon as possible and gain from it.

In the case of Jules:

Section 2 of the RA 6539 also known as the Anti Carnapping Act of 1972 provides:

"Carnapping" is the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to another
without the latter's consent, or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons,
or by using force upon things.

xxx

"Motor vehicle" is any vehicle propelled by any power other than muscular power using
the public highways,

Jules is guilty of car napping. He took the motor vehicle belonging to another without the latters
consent in violation of RA No 6539

Civil Liabilities

Article 104 of the Revised Penal Code provides what is included in civil liability:
 What is included in civil liability. - The civil liability established in articles 100, 101, 102,
and 103 of this Code includes:

1. Restitution;

2. Reparation of the damage caused;

3. Indemnification for consequential damages.

Since Allan has caused the loss of the car through his acts, Allan is under obligation to restitute
the vehicle or makes reparation if not possible. Jules must pay the amount he gained from the
sale of the car which is P 20,000.00Since Danny has in his possession the stolen car obtained
through a crime of fencing, he must make reparation corresponding to the value of the car which
is P 800,000.00. The court shall also determine the amount of damage.

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of the Honorable Court that the accused Allan,
Danny and Jules be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt in the crime of Malversation of Public
Funds, Violation of the Anti-Fencing Law, and the violation of the Anti-Carnapping Law
respectively.