People vs. Mingoa (Case)
People vs. Mingoa (Case)
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-5371
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 use.
The contention that this legal provision violates the constitutional right of the accused to be
presumed innocent until the contrary is proved cannot be sustained. The question of the
constitutionality of the statute not having been raised in the court below, it may not be considered
for the first time on appeal. (Robb vs. People, 68 Phil., 320.)
In many event, the validity of statutes establishing presumptions in criminal cases is now settled
matter, Cooley, in his work on constitutional limitations, 8th ed., Vo. I, pp. 639-641says that
"there is no constitutional objection to the passage of law providing that the presumption of
innocence may be overcome by contrary presumption founded upon the experience of human
conduct, and enacting what evidence shall be sufficient to overcome such presumption of
innocence." In line with this view, it is generally held in the United States that the legislature may
enact that when certain facts have been proven they shall be prima facie evidence of the
existence of the guilt of the accused and shift the burden of proof provided there be rational
connection between that facts proved and the ultimate fact presumed so that the inference of the
one from proof of the others is not unreasonable and arbitrary because of lack of connection
between the two in common experience. (See annotation on constitutionality of statutes or
ordinances making one fact presumptive or prima facie evidence of another, 162 A.L.R. 495-535;
also, State vs. Brown, 182 S.E., 838, with reference to embezzlement.) The same view has been
adopted here as may be seen from the decisions of this court in the U.S. vs. Tria, 17 Phil., 303;
U.S. vs. Luling, 34 Phil., 725; and People vs. Merilo, G.R. No. L-3489, promulgated June 28,
1951.
The statute in the present case creates a presumption of guilt once certain facts are proved. It
makes the failure of public officer to have duly forthcoming, upon proper demaand, any public
funds or property with which he is chargeable prima facie evidence that he has put such missing
funds or property to personal use. The ultimate fact presumed is that officer has malversed the
funds or property entrusted to his custody, and the presumption is made to arise from proof that
he has received them and yet he has failed to have them forthcoming upon proper demand.
Clearly, the fact presumed is but a natural inference from the fact proved, so that it cannot be
said that there is no rational connection between the two. Furthermore, the statute establishes
only a prima faciepresumption, thus giving the accused an opportunity to present evidence to
rebut it. The presumption is reasonable and will stand the test of validity laid down in the above
citations.
There being no reversible error in the decision appealed from, the same is hereby affirmed, with
costs.
Paras, C.J., Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor, Jugo, Bautista Angelo and
Labrador, JJ.,concur.