Short answer. There is a presumption, but it is not conclusive. Under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, failure to produce public funds on demand by a duly authorised officer is prima facie evidence that you put them to personal use. It shifts the burden of explaining — it does not convict you.
What the law says
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.
Revised Penal Code, Article 217 — Malversation Of Public Funds. Read the full provision →
What 'prima facie' actually means here
A prima facie presumption is evidence that stands unless it is met. It does not remove the presumption of innocence and it does not relieve the prosecution of proving the elements of the offence. What it does, very practically, is make the shortage itself proof enough to require an answer from you. If nothing is offered in reply, that evidence remains standing, and it will carry the day. If a credible explanation is produced — records showing the funds were disbursed, transferred, deposited or turned over — the presumption does not survive. Everything therefore turns on whether the accountability documents can be produced, and on how soon.
The presumption only bites in specific conditions
Read the sentence carefully, because each condition is a defence. There must be a demand, and it must come from a duly authorised officer — a casual query from a colleague or a rumour of a shortage is not a demand. The funds must be ones you are chargeable with, which depends on your actual accountability, not on your proximity to the cash. And there must be a genuine failure to produce them. An officer who was never validly accountable for the funds, or who was never lawfully required to produce them, is not within the presumption at all — though that is a matter to argue with documents, not assertions.
Answering the demand is the decisive moment
The window in which most of these matters are won or lost is the audit stage, before any complaint is drafted. Ignoring a demand letter is the single most damaging thing an accountable officer can do, because silence is exactly what the presumption is designed to punish. Gather your cash books, deposit slips, disbursement vouchers, turnover receipts and any documentation of who else held keys, combinations or system credentials. Where the loss was a robbery, fire or flood, the incident reports and any relief from accountability sought at the time matter enormously. Restitution may be relevant to other things but does not by itself erase the offence.
What follows, and how much is at stake
The penalty ladder for malversation is keyed to the amount involved, rising from prisión correccional in its medium and maximum periods to reclusion perpetua above the top bracket, with perpetual special disqualification and a fine equal to the amount in every case. The current thresholds — beginning at forty thousand pesos and running through one million two hundred thousand, two million four hundred thousand, four million four hundred thousand and eight million eight hundred thousand pesos — were set by Republic Act No. 10951 (2017), so older tables are unreliable. Criminal, administrative and audit proceedings usually run in parallel. Get counsel involved before answering, not after.