The proper offense committed was Malversation of Public Property, not estafa, considering that Reyes

and Santos upon their application, were constituted as “fiscal agents” of the sequestered firm and were
“given the custody and possession” of the sequestered properties, including the delivery vans which
later they could not account for, They were thus made the depository and administrator of properties
deposited by public authority and hence, by the duties of their office/position, they are accountable for
such properties. Such properties, having been sequestered by the Government through the PCGG, are in
custodial egis and therefore impressed with the character of public property, even though the
properties belong to a private individual.

Under Article 217 of the RPC provides that any public officer who, by reason of 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.

As held in the article there must be the four elements that must be present to be guilty for the crime of
malversation.

1. The offender be a public officer

2. That he had the custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his office
3. That those funds or property were public funds for which he was accountable
4. That he appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented or, through abandonment or
negligence, permitted another person to take them.

Undoubtedly, all the elements of the crime are present in the case at bar. First, it is undisputed that
Reyes and Santos were the fiscal agents of the sequestered firm at the time material to this
case. Second, they were given the custody and possession of the sequestered building and its
contents. Third, they were also given the custody to the various vehicles used in the firm’s
operation. Fourth, Reyes and Santos failed to give any reason or explanation why the vans were
missing. The failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds 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. (As amended by Rep. Act No. 1060, approved June
12, 1954.)

In the case at bar, Reyes and Santo’s failure to give any satisfactory explanation why the vans were
missing, is prima facie evidence that they had put the same to their personal use.

Therefore, Reyes and Santos committed a crime of Malversation of Public Funds.