GR 150129; (April, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 150129 April 6, 2005
NORMA A. ABDULLA, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Norma A. Abdulla, then President of Sulu State College, was charged with technical malversation under Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code. The Information alleged that in November 1989, she, along with other college officials, conspired to apply P40,000.00—an amount appropriated for the payment of salary differentials of secondary school teachers—to the payment of wages for casual employees. After trial, the Sandiganbayan acquitted her co-accused but convicted Abdulla, sentencing her to pay a fine. The anti-graft court later amended its decision by deleting the penalty of temporary special disqualification.
The prosecution’s evidence, primarily documentary, established that the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) approved the conversion of 34 secondary school teacher positions to Instructor I items and allotted P40,000.00 for the corresponding salary differentials. The funds were sourced from a lump-sum appropriation under R.A. 6688 (the 1989 General Appropriations Act) and from the college’s savings. Only six teachers were entitled to and received differentials totaling P8,370.00. The remaining balance of P31,630.00 was used to pay the terminal leave benefits of other teachers.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan correctly convicted petitioner Norma A. Abdulla of the crime of technical malversation.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the Sandiganbayan’s decision and acquitted Abdulla. The crime of technical malversation under Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code requires the concurrence of four elements: (1) the offender is a public officer; (2) he applies public funds or property under his administration; (3) the application is for a public purpose other than that for which the fund or property was appropriated by law or ordinance; and (4) the law or ordinance appropriates the fund or property for a specific public purpose. The Court found the third and fourth elements absent.
Crucially, the P40,000.00 was not specifically appropriated by a law or ordinance solely for salary differentials. The fund came from a lump-sum appropriation in R.A. 6688 and from the college’s savings. The Court, citing precedents like Parungao v. Sandiganbayan, ruled that when money is sourced from a lump-sum appropriation, its use for another public purpose does not constitute technical malversation, as there is no specific designation to violate. Since R.A. 6688 did not specifically appropriate the amount for salary differentials only, using the unexpended balance for another legitimate public purpose—the payment of terminal leave benefits—was not illegal. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove all the elements of the crime beyond reasonable doubt.