Metropolitan Waterworks Sewerage System (MWSS) employee Japar was often assigned to do field work. Every time he does field work, he accomplishes a disbursement voucher for the amount that he needs and liquidates the voucher by submitting receipts to the MWSS cashier, Filomena, at the end of the day. One day, another MWSS employee, Jonas, desperately needed ₱230,000. Taking the same disbursement voucher that Japar habitually signs in the morning, Jonas filled it out with the amount that he needed. He then forged the signature of Japar before presenting it to Filomena, who in turn released the stated amount. After some time, Filomena noticed that the voucher remained unliquidated. When Filomena showed the voucher to Japar, the latter swiftly returned it, telling Filomena that the signature appearing in the voucher was not his. Filomena then realized that Jonas was the one who presented the voucher and took the money. When confronted, Jonas readily admitted to the act. He was eventually convicted of Malversation. Was the conviction of Jonas proper? Explain.
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
No, the conviction of Jonas for Malversation was not proper. Under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, Malversation requires that the offender be an accountable public officer with custody or control of public
Unlock the full Criminal Law answers365 days of full access. GCash, Maya and card accepted.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
Why was Jonas's conviction for Malversation improper under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code?
Malversation requires that the offender be an accountable public officer having custody or control of public funds by reason of his office.
What complex crime was committed when Jonas forged Japar's signature on the disbursement voucher to obtain money?
Forging an official voucher to fraudulently obtain public funds constitutes the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public document.
What essential element of Malversation is missing when a non-accountable employee steals public funds via a forged voucher?
The element of official custody or control over the public funds by virtue of office is essential for malversation.
How does Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code treat Estafa committed through the Falsification of a Public Document?
Choices available with full access.
Under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code, what act constitutes Falsification of a Public Document?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Accountable Public Officers
Under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, malversation can only be committed by a public officer who has custody or control of public funds or property by reason of the duties of his office. An employee who does not have official custody or accountability over the funds cannot commit malversation. If a public officer takes funds that were never entrusted to him by virtue of his position, the element of custody is absent, making a conviction for malversation legally improper.
2. Falsification of Documents
Falsification of a public or official document under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code is committed by counterfeiting or forging the signature of another person on an official voucher. When an offender forges a public document to deceive an officer into releasing funds, the falsification serves as the necessary means to commit swindling or estafa under Article 315. The falsification of the disbursement voucher is directly tied to the fraudulent taking of money.
3. Complex Crime Estafa
Under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, a complex crime occurs when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when one offense is a necessary means for committing the other. Where an unauthorized employee forges an official disbursement voucher to fraudulently induce a government cashier to disburse public money, he commits the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public documents, rather than simple malversation or theft.