During my law school days, in my Criminal Law 2 under now Court of Appeals Associate Justice Juliet San Gaspar, one particular provision of the Revised Penal Code – Article 220. Illegal use of public funds or property – as well the assigned case reading therein – Ysidoro vs People of the Philippines -bewildered with me.
To begin with, the Revised Penal Code explicitly states under Article 220. Illegal use of public funds or property – Any public officer who shall apply any public fund or property under his administration to any public use other than for which such fund or property were appropriated by law or ordinance shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period or fine ranging from one-half to the total of the sum misapplied, if by reason of such misapplication, any damage or embarrassment shall have resulted to the public service. In either case, the offender shall also suffer the penalty of temporary special disqualification.
The essential elements of this crime, more commonly known and referred to as technical malversation, are: (a) the offender is an accountable public officer; (b) he applies public funds or property under his administration to some public use; and (c) the public use for which the public funds or property were applied is different from the purpose for which they were originally appropriated by law or ordinance.
In the case of Ysidoro vs People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 192330, November 14, 2012), the MSWDO of Leyte operated a Core Shelter Assistance Program (CSAP) that provided construction materials to indigent calamity victims with which to build their homes, and the beneficiaries, in turn, shall provide the labor needed for the construction. However, when the construction for calamity victim in a certain barangay was 70% done, the beneficiaries stopped reporting for work for the reason that they had to find food for their family.
With this, the CSAP Officer-in-charge sought the help of an officer of the MSWDO in charge of the municipality’s Supplemental Feeding Program (SFP) that rationed food to malnourished children. The two went the city mayor to seek for approval. After learning the situation, the latter approved the release and signed the withdrawal slip for four sacks of rice and two boxes of sardines worth P3,396.00 to CSAP. The said sacks of rice and boxes of sardines were originally intended to be distributed to Leyte’s malnourished children.
Thereafter, a criminal complaint for technical malversation was filed against the city mayor contending that the subject SFP goods were intended for its target beneficiaries, Leyte’s malnourished children, thus, the city mayor committed technical malversation when he approved the distribution of the SFP goods to the CSAP beneficiares.
In his defense, the city mayor argued, among others, that the diversion of the SFP good to a project also meant for the poor of the municipality was valid since they came from the savings of the SFP and the Calamity Fund. He also claimed good faith considering that the municipality’s poor CSAP beneficiaries were also in urgent need of food.
Unfortunately, however, the Sandiganbayan found the city mayor guilty beyond reasonable doubt of technical malversation and such conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court.
In affirming the Sandiganbayan’s ruling of conviction, the Highest Court explained: Ysidoro disregarded the guidelines when he approved the distribution of the goods to those providing free labor for the rebuilding of their own homes. This is technical malversation. If Ysidoro could not legally distribute the construction materials appropriated for the CSAP housing beneficiaries to the SFP malnourished clients neither could he distribute the food intended for the latter to CSAP beneficiaries.
Moreover, it was emphasized therein that criminal intent is not an element of technical malversation. The law punishes the act of diverting public property earmarked by law or ordinance for a particular public purpose to another public purpose. The offense is mala prohibita, meaning that the prohibited act in not inherently immoral but becomes a criminal offense because positive law forbids its commission based on considerations of public policy, order and convenience. It is the commission of an act as defined by the law, and not the character or effect thereof, that determines whether or not the provision has been violated. Hence, malice or criminal intent is completely irrelevant.
Dura lex sed lex. Ysidoro’s act, no matter how noble or miniscule the amount diverted , constituted the crime of technical malversation.