Short answer. Two things, in every case. Revised Penal Code Article 217 imposes perpetual special disqualification and a fine equal to the amount malversed or the value of the property embezzled, on top of whatever prison term applies. Both attach automatically to a conviction, regardless of how much was involved.
What the law says
In all cases, persons guilty of malversation shall also suffer the penalty of perpetual special disqualification and a fine equal to the amount of the funds malversed or equal to the total value of the property embezzled.
Revised Penal Code, Article 217 — Malversation Of Public Funds. Read the full provision →
Two penalties the article makes automatic
Article 217 tiers the prison term for malversation according to the amount involved, but it does not stop there. It adds: in all cases, persons guilty of malversation shall also suffer the penalty of perpetual special disqualification and a fine equal to the amount of the funds malversed or equal to the total value of the property embezzled. The phrase 'in all cases' is doing real work here: unlike the prison term, which scales with how much was taken, these two additional penalties attach to every conviction under this article, whatever the amount involved turns out to be.
What perpetual special disqualification means
Perpetual special disqualification affects the convicted person's ability to hold public office and to exercise the specific right connected to the office involved in the offense. Because it is described as perpetual, it is not a penalty that expires after a fixed number of years the way a prison term does; it is meant to permanently remove the convicted officer from that kind of position and its related rights, on top of whatever time is served for the malversation itself.
The fine tied directly to what was taken
The second automatic penalty is a fine, and the article does not set it at a flat figure; it is pegged to the amount actually malversed or the value of the property embezzled. So the fine moves with the facts of the case rather than being fixed in advance, unlike the tiered prison terms. Between the loss of eligibility for public office and rights connected to it, and a fine matched to what was actually taken, a malversation conviction carries consequences that reach well beyond the time served in prison, following the convicted officer long after any sentence has been served in full.
Who the article applies to
These automatic penalties attach specifically to a public officer who, by reason of the duties of the office, is accountable for public funds or property, and who appropriates, takes, misappropriates, or through abandonment or negligence permits another person to take such funds or property. The article also treats a public officer's failure to produce funds or property they are chargeable with, upon demand by a duly authorized officer, as prima facie evidence that the missing funds were put to personal use. That presumption shifts the practical burden onto the accountable officer once a shortage is discovered and demand has been made.