A mother-of-four, who had landed a suspended sentence and a lifelong interdiction for allegedly embezzling funds at the Dingli day centre for the elderly, has been cleared on appeal in a case that boiled down to an unfounded suspicion.

Philippa Borg, now 69, was prosecuted over allegations of misappropriation as officer in charge at the centre for elderly residents where she had worked for some 12 years, starting out as helper.

Trouble brewed when an MCAST student on placement at the centre back in 2008, reported to her lecturers about certain ‘malpractices’ at the centre, allegedly concerning Borg who failed to keep proper records of tombola revenue.

On some three occasions, the sale total on tombola tickets and the remaining cash balance once winnings were deducted, did not tally, the student claimed.

The matter was reported by her college authorities to the Department for the Elderly and Community Service, sparking an investigation that ultimately landed the officer under police interrogation and prosecution.

The woman, who had an untainted criminal record, categorically denied the charges of misappropriation of public funds and making false declarations as a public officer.

Last year, she was declared guilty by a Magistrates’ Court and was handed a two-year jail term suspended for four years and placed under a perpetual general interdiction.

Still protesting her innocence, she filed an appeal.

In a 58-page long judgment delivered on Thursday, the court of criminal appeal, presided over by Madam Justice Consuelo Scerri Herrera, said that the total amount at stake was some €30.

The first court had relied on the student’s testimony which was described as “spontaneous and honest.”

But there had been no independent checks to verify the student’s claims, noted the judge.

Delving into the evidence put forward, the court found that the ‘malpractices’ flagged by the student had concerned mainly certain expired food stuffs that were allegedly being served to the elderly residents.

Yet, the girl’s lecturers said that they had not tackled the issue of “cash discrepancies.”

Moreover, the student’s own calculations “could never be correct,” said the court, questioning how the first court could have upheld the misappropriation charge after the student herself admitted that she had not taken into account the winnings before saying that there were discrepancies in the records.

Nor had she voiced her suspicions when her lecturers visited the Dingli centre but only did so later.

And she had not brought the matter up with other officials at the centre, observed the judge, adding that her version had been contradicted by the care workers and that the records were signed by other officers, besides the accused.

On the other hand, the accused had categorically denied any wrongdoing, saying that she had been terrified during police interrogation and ‘admitted’ to taking €5 from the funds to buy fuel for her car.

But it was not true, she insisted, explaining that she had lied because the interrogating officer had threatened to press charges and have her name splashed on the media.

A family doctor testified that the case had negatively impacted the woman whom he knew as a person of integrity.

In light of all considerations, the court concluded that the prosecution’s case was based upon “very weak evidence” and that the student’s testimony was not credible or trustworthy.

The unfounded suspicion had not been sufficiently proved and therefore, lacking moral certainty, the court quashed the conviction and cleared the woman of all criminal liability.

Lawyers Franco Debono, Kathleen Calleja Grima and Francesca Zarb assisted the appellant.