ARNOLD JAMES M. YSIDORO, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.; G.R. No. 192330 , November 14, 2012

GIST:

Ysidoro committed technical malversation. He used good faith as a defense. It was ruled that good faith is not a valid defense for technical malversation since it is considered as malum prohibitum. Thus, criminal intent is not an element of technical malversation. His act, no matter how noble or miniscule the amount diverted, constitutes the crime of technical malversation. However, the law and Sandiganbayan recognizes that his offense is not grave, warranting a mere fine.

FACTS:.

1. 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.

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

3. Lolita Garcia, the CSAP Officer-in-Charge sought the help pf Cristina 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.

4. Polonio and Garcia went to petitioner Arnold James M. Ysidoro, the Leyte Municipal Mayor, to ask for his approval. Petitioner approved the release and signed the withdrawal slip for four sacks of rice and two boxes of sardines worth P3,396.00 to CSAP.

5. On August 27, 2001 Alfredo Doller, former member of the Sangguniang Bayan of Leyte, filed a complaint against Ysidoro for committing technical malversation when he approved the distribution of SFP goods to the CSAP beneficiaries.

6. 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.

7. 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 public 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:

Whether or not good faith is a valid defense for technical malversation.

RULING: 

No, good faith is not a valid defense for technical malversation. Petitioner 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. Petitioner’s act, no matter how noble or miniscule the amount diverted, constitutes the crime of technical malversation. The law and the Sandiganbayan however, recognize that his offense is not grave, warranting a mere fine.