• This case involves a former city mayor, Joseph Cedrick O. Ruiz, who was convicted by the Sandiganbayan for graft and malversation of public funds. The charges stemmed from his act of directing a police officer to make a PHP 1 million cash advance from the city's Confidential and Intelligence Fund (CIF) right after losing an election and weeks before his term ended. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding that the prosecution's evidence, led by the testimony of a state witness, proved beyond reasonable doubt that Ruiz instigated the scheme and misappropriated the funds for personal use.

• The Accused: Joseph Cedrick O. Ruiz, then the City Mayor of Dapitan.
• The Scheme: On May 16, 2001, just after losing his re-election bid, Mayor Ruiz instructed Police Inspector Pepe Nortal to request a PHP 1,000,000.00 cash advance from the city's CIF for the entire year. Ruiz did this because he himself had several unliquidated cash advances.
• The Disbursement: Despite initial reluctance from the City Treasurer, Budget Officer, and Accountant, Ruiz used his authority as mayor to push through the release of the funds, misrepresenting that Nortal's required fidelity bond was being processed.
• The Misappropriation: On May 30, 2001, Nortal and the mayor's secretary encashed the check. Nortal testified that he delivered the PHP 1,000,000.00 to Ruiz, who then gave Nortal PHP 50,000.00 for police operations and kept the remaining PHP 950,000.00. The amount was never liquidated.

• Sandiganbayan Ruling: The Sandiganbayan found Ruiz guilty of both violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 (Graft) and Malversation of Public Funds. It gave full credit to the testimony of Nortal, who was discharged as a state witness, and found Ruiz's defenses of denial and alibi to be weak and unsubstantiated.
• Motion for New Trial: Ruiz's motion for a new trial was denied because the evidence he presented was not newly discovered and would not have changed the judgment.

• Did the prosecution prove Ruiz's guilt for both crimes beyond reasonable doubt?
• Is a prior demand for liquidation necessary to convict for Malversation?

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Sandiganbayan's decision with modifications on the penalty for Malversation.

• Guilt Proven for Both Crimes: The Court found that the Sandiganbayan's factual findings were conclusive and supported by evidence. Nortal's testimony was credible and established that Ruiz acted in evident bad faith by instigating the scheme, causing undue injury to the government by depleting its entire CIF, and misappropriating the funds for which he was accountable as mayor.
• Demand Not an Element of Malversation: The Court reiterated that demand for liquidation is not an element of malversation. It merely raises a *prima facie* presumption of misappropriation, which is not necessary when, as in this case, there is direct evidence of the accused taking the funds for personal use.
• Penalty Modified: The Court affirmed the penalty for the graft conviction but modified the penalty for malversation to align with the amendments introduced by R.A. 10951, resulting in a lower prison sentence for that specific charge.

• Violation of Sec. 3(e), R.A. 3019: An act committed with "evident bad faith" involves a dishonest purpose, a breach of a sworn duty, or some moral obliquity.
• Malversation (Art. 217, RPC): This crime is committed when an accountable public officer appropriates, takes, or misappropriates public funds under their custody or control. Demand for liquidation is not an element of the crime.
• Accountability of Public Officers: Local chief executives are immediately and primarily responsible for the government funds and property of their municipality.
• Review of Sandiganbayan Decisions: Factual findings of the Sandiganbayan are binding on the Supreme Court unless there is a clear showing of misapprehension of facts or grave abuse of discretion.