Short answer. Yes. Under the Revised Penal Code, an accountable public officer who is required by law or regulation to render an account and fails to do so for two months after it fell due commits a crime — and it is a separate offence from any missing funds.
What the law says
who is required by law or regulation to render account to the Commission on Audit, or to a provincial auditor and who fails to do so for a period of two (2) months after such accounts should be rendered
Revised Penal Code, Article 218 — Failure To Render Accounts. Read the full provision →
The omission is the offence
This is the point most people miss. The article does not require that a single peso be missing. What it punishes is the failure to account within the period the law allows. An officer whose funds are complete, whose records are intact, and against whom no one alleges dishonesty can still fall under this provision simply by not filing the report when it was due. The reason is that public accountability depends on timely reporting; audit cannot function if officers submit only when convenient. So "nothing is missing" is an answer to a malversation charge, not to this one.
Who is covered, and for how long
The article reaches any public officer required by law or regulation to render an account to the Commission on Audit or to a provincial auditor. Crucially, it applies whether in the service or separated therefrom by resignation or any other cause. Resigning, retiring, being replaced or reassigned does not close the obligation for accounts that were already due. The clock is two months from the date the accounts should have been rendered — that is the moment liability attaches, not the date a demand letter arrives. An officer who leaves a post with unrendered accounts carries that exposure with him.
The penalty, and why the peso figures matter
The penalty is prisión correccional in its minimum period, or a fine ranging from ₱40,000 to ₱1,200,000, or both. Those amounts are the current ones, set by Republic Act No. 10951 (2017), which revised the peso values and fines throughout the Revised Penal Code. Older reproductions still in circulation print the 1930 figures — a few hundred pesos for this article — and anyone relying on them will badly misjudge the exposure. If a source shows you the small pre-2017 amounts, it is out of date. Administrative liability under civil service and audit rules runs independently of the criminal case, so an officer can face both.
What it does not decide, and what to do
A conviction under this provision says nothing about whether funds were misused; separate offences deal with malversation and with failure to make delivery of public funds on demand, each with its own elements and much heavier penalties. Equally, this article does not create the duty to account — that comes from the auditing rules and the officer's own designation as accountable. Anyone who receives an audit notice should locate and reconstruct the records immediately, respond in writing within the period given, and keep proof of filing, since the defence usually turns on documents rather than explanations. Because the timelines are short and the consequences reach both the criminal and administrative side, take counsel early.