see - sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/july2013/184908.pdf
"x x x.
Malversation is committed either intentionally or by negligence. The dolo or the culpa present in the offense is only a modality in the perpetration
of the felony. Even if the mode charged differs from the mode proved, the
same offense of malversation is involved and conviction thereof is proper.
20 All that is necessary for conviction is sufficient proof that the accountable officer had received public funds, that he did not have them in his possession when demand therefor was made, and that he could not satisfactorily explain his failure to do so. Direct evidence of personal misappropriation by the accused is hardly necessary as long as the accused cannot explain satisfactorily the shortage in his accounts?' To our mind, the evidence in this case is thoroughly inconsistent with petitioner's claim of innocence. Thus, we sustain the Sandiganbayan's finding that petitioner's guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
x x x."
