G.R. No. 192330 Ysidoro v.

People

November 14, 2012

ARNOLD JAMES M. YSIDORO, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent

FACTS

This case is about a municipal mayor charged with illegal diversion of food intended for those suffering
from malnutrition to the beneficiaries of reconsideration projects affecting the homes of victims of
calamities.

The Office of the Ombudsman for the Visayas accused Arnold James M. Ysidoro before the
Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case 28228 of violation of illegal use of public propertry (technical
malversation) under Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code.

The facts show that the Municipal Social Welfare and Development Office (MSWDO) of Leyte, Leyte,
operated a Core Shelter Assistance Program (CSAP) that provided construction materials to indigent
calamity victims with which to rebuild their homes. The beneficiaries provided the labor needed for
construction.

On June 15, 2001 when construction for calamity victims in Sitio Luy-a, Barangay Tinugtogan, was 70%
done, the beneficiaries stopped reporting for work for the reason that they had to find food for their
families. This worried Lolita Garcia (Garcia), the CSAP Officer-in-Charge, for such construction stoppage
could result in the loss of construction materials particularly the cement. Thus, she sought the help of
Cristina Polinio (Polinio), an officer of the MSWDO in charge of the municipality’s Supplemental
Feeding Program (SFP) that rationed food to malnourished children. Polinio told Garcia that the SFP still
had sacks of rice and boxes of sardines in its storeroom. And since she had already distributed food to
the mother volunteers, what remained could be given to the CSAP beneficiaries.

Ysidoro approved the release and signed the withdrawal slip for four sacks of rice and two boxes of
sardines worth P3,396.00 to CSAP. Mayor Ysidoro instructed Garcia and Polinio, however, to consult the
accounting department regarding the matter. On being consulted, Eldelissa Elises, the supervising clerk
of the Municipal Accountant’s Office, signed the withdrawal slip based on her view that it was an
emergency situation justifying the release of the goods. Subsequently, CSAP delivered those goods to its
beneficiaries. Afterwards, Garcia reported the matter to the MSWDO and to the municipal auditor as per
auditing rules.

On August 27, 2001 Alfredo Doller, former member of the Sangguniang Bayan of Leyte, filed the present
complaint against Ysidoro. Nierna Doller, Alfredo's wife and former MSWDO head, testified that the
subject SFP goods were intended for its target beneficiaries, Leyte’s malnourished children. She also
pointed out that the Supplemental Feeding Implementation Guidelines for Local Government Units
governed the distribution of SFP goods. Thus, Ysidoro committed technical malversation when he
approved the distribution of SFP goods to the CSAP beneficiaries.

In his defense, Ysidoro claims that the diversion of the subject goods 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.
Ysidoro also claims good faith, believing that the municipality’s poor CSAP beneficiaries were also in
urgent need of food. Furthermore, Ysidoro pointed out that the COA Municipal Auditor conducted a
comprehensive audit of their municipality in 2001 and found nothing irregular in its transactions.

On February 8, 2010 the Sandiganbayan found Ysidoro guilty beyond reasonable doubt of technical
malversation. But, since his action caused no damage or embarrassment to public service, it only fined
him P1,698.00 or 50% of the sum misapplied. The Sandiganbayan held that Ysidoro applied public
property to a pubic purpose other than that for which it has been appropriated by law or ordinance . On
May 12, 2010 the Sandiganbayan denied Ysidoro’s motion for reconsideration. On June 8, 2010 Ysidoro
appealed the Sandiganbayan Decision to this Court.

ISSUE

W/N Ysidoro is guilty of technical malversation. YES

RULLINGS

One. The crime of technical malversation as penalized under Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code has
three elements: a) that the offender is an accountable public officer; b) that he applies public funds or
property under his administration to some public use; and c) that the public use for which such funds or
property were applied is different from the purpose for which they were originally appropriated by law
or ordinance. Ysidoro claims that he could not be held liable for the offense under its third element
because the four sacks of rice and two boxes of sardines he gave the CSAP beneficiaries were not
appropriated by law or ordinance for a specific purpose.

Resolution 00-133 appropriating the annual general fund for 2001 (11/8/2020); executive budget which
allocated P100,000.00 for the SFP and P113,957.64 for the Comprehensive and Integrated Delivery of
Social Services; creation of the two items shows the Sanggunian’s intention to appropriate separate
funds for SFP and the CSAP in the annual budget.

Two. Ysidoro claims that the subject goods already constituted savings of the SFP and that, therefore,
the same could already be diverted to the CSAP beneficiaries. The subject goods could not be regarded
as savings. The SFP is a continuing program that ran throughout the year.

SEC. 336. Use of Appropriated Funds and Savings. – Funds shall be available exclusively for the specific
purpose for which they have been appropriated. No ordinance shall be passed authorizing any transfer
of appropriations from one item to another. However, the local chief executive or the presiding officer
of the sanggunian concerned may, by ordinance, be authorized to augment any item in the approved
annual budget for their respective offices from savings in other items within the same expense class of
their respective appropriations.

Three. Ysidoro claims that, since the municipal auditor found nothing irregular in the diversion of the
subject goods, such finding should be respected. The SB ruled, however, that since Ysidoro failed to
present the municipal auditor at the trial, the presumption is that his testimony would have been
adverse if produced. Ysidoro argues that this goes against the rule on the presumption of innocence and
the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions.
Four. Ysidoro insists that he acted in good faith since, first, the idea of using the SFP goods for the CSAP
beneficiaries came, not from him, but from Garcia and Polinio; and, second, he consulted the accounting
department if the goods could be distributed to those beneficiaries. Having no criminal intent, he argues
that he cannot be convicted of the crime.

But 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 is 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, constitutes the
crime of technical malversation. The law and this Court, however, recognize that his offense is not grave,
warranting a mere fine.

WHEREFORE, this Court AFFIRMS in its entirely the assailed Decision of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal
Case 28228 dated February 8, 2010.

SO ORDERED.

ROBERTO A. ABAD

Associate Justice