GR 192330; (November, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. 192330 ; November 14, 2012
ARNOLD JAMES M. YSIDORO, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Arnold James M. Ysidoro, the Municipal Mayor of Leyte, Leyte, was charged with technical malversation under Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code. The charge stemmed from his approval of the release of four sacks of rice and two boxes of sardines, valued at P3,396.00, from the municipality’s Supplemental Feeding Program (SFP) to beneficiaries of the Core Shelter Assistance Program (CSAP). The SFP goods, intended for malnourished children, were diverted when CSAP beneficiaries, who were indigent calamity victims rebuilding their homes, stopped work due to lack of food. The MSWDO officers sought and obtained Mayor Ysidoro’s approval for the release, which he granted after instructing them to consult the accounting department. The supervising clerk approved the withdrawal, viewing it as an emergency.
The Sandiganbayan found Ysidoro guilty beyond reasonable doubt of technical malversation. It ruled that he applied public property to a public purpose different from that for which it was appropriated by law or ordinance, as the SFP had specific guidelines and a distinct budgetary allocation. The court fined him P1,698.00, noting the act caused no damage or embarrassment to public service. Ysidoro appealed, arguing the goods constituted savings that could be augmented to another public purpose and that he acted in good faith.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting petitioner Ysidoro of the crime of technical malversation.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s decision. The crime of technical malversation under Article 220 requires: (1) the offender is an accountable public officer; (2) he applies public funds or property under his administration to some public use; and (3) the public use is different from the purpose for which they were appropriated by law or ordinance. All elements were present. First, Ysidoro was an accountable public officer as Municipal Mayor. Second, he approved the application of the SFP goods to the CSAP beneficiaries. Third, the goods were appropriated by Sangguniang Bayan Resolution 00-133 under a specific SFP budget line intended solely for feeding malnourished children, as detailed in program guidelines. Their diversion to CSAP labor, though also a public purpose, was distinctly different from the specific appropriation.
The Court rejected Ysidoro’s defenses. The goods were not “savings” that could be legally augmented to another item, as they remained part of an allocated fund for a specific purpose with unfulfilled targets. Good faith is not a defense in technical malversation, which is a malum prohibitum crime; the law is violated irrespective of intent once a public officer applies property to a use other than its legally designated purpose. The conviction and imposed fine were upheld.