Petitioner was charged with malversation after he failed to produce the missing amount incurred during his designation as Acting Supervising Cashier. He insisted his innocence, claiming that the shortage imputed to him was malversed by other people.
Whether or not petitioner’s presumed innocence was not sufficiently proved contrary.
NO. The evidence of the prosecution is overwhelming and has not been overcome by the petitioner with his nebulous claims of persecution and conspiracy. The presumed innocence of the accused must yield to the positive finding that he malversed the missing money to the prejudice of the public whose confidence he has breached.
Petition is DENIED.