Parungao v Sandiganbayan |197 scra 173



Facts: Oscar Purangao was a former municipal treasurer, he was charged with malversation of public funds for he allegedly misappropriated the fund he received from the Ministry of Public Works and Highways the amount of P185,250.00 known as the fund for construction, rehabilitation, betterment and Improvement (CRBI) for the concreting of Barangay Jalung Road in Porac, Pampanga. In his defense, petitioner accounted for the P185,250.00 fund as follows: A) P126,095.57 = was disbursed for materials delivered by the contractor; B) P59,154.41 = was used to pay, upon the insistence of the then Porac Mayor Ceferino Lumanlan, the labor payrolls of the different barangays in the municipality. After hearing, the respondent Sandiganbayan rendered decision acquitting the petitioner of the crime charged but convicting him of the crime of illegal use of public funds. Petitioner filed motion of reconsideration which was denied, hence this petition for review.

Issue: May the Sandiganbayan, after finding that the petition charged with malversation of public funds is not guilty thereof, nevertheless convict him, in the same criminal case, for illegal use of public funds?

Holding: No. A comparison of the two articles reveals that their elements are entirely distinct and different from each other. In malversation, the offender misappropriates public funds for his own personal use or allows any other person to take such public funds fo the latters personal use. In technical malversation, the public officer applies public funds under his administration not for his or another personal use, but to a public use other than that for which the fund was appropriated by law or ordinance. Technical malversation is, therefore, not included in nor does it necessarily include the crime of malversation of public funds charged in the information. Since the acts constituting the crime of technical malversation were not alleged in the information, and since technical malversation does not include or is not included in the crime of malversation, he cannot reluctantly be convicted of technical malversation.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

People vs. Sunico, et al [C.A., 50 o.g. 5880]

FACTS: The accused were election inspectors and poll clerks whose duty among others was to transfer the names of excess voters in other precincts to the list of a newly created precinct.Several voters were omitted in the list.Because their names were not in the list, some of them were not allowed to vote. The accused were prosecuted for violation of Secs. 101 and 103 of the Revised Election Code. The accused claimed that they made the omission in good faith.The trial court seemed to believe that notwithstanding the fact that the accused committed in good faith the serious offense charged, the latter are criminally responsible therefor, because such offense is malum prohibitum, and, consequently, the act constituting the same need not be committed with malice or criminal intent to be punishable. ISSUE: Is the act of the accused merely a mala prohibita? HELD: The acts of the accused cannot be merely mala prohibita - they are mala in se . The omission or failure to include a voter’s...
Read more

US v. Serapio [23 P 584]

FACTS: Defendant was charged with the crime of libel. Upon said complaint the defendant was duly arraigned. Upon arraignment the defendant, by his attorneys, presented the following demurrer:I. The facts alleged in the complaint do not constitute a crime. II. It appears from the allegation in the complaint that if there were a crime it has prescribed. With reference to the second ground, counsel for the defense maintains that the crime has prescribed under the provisions of the laws in force in the Islands and supports such conclusion by asserting that in the absence of a definite provision in Act No. 277 of the Philippine Commission, which fixes the time during which the penal action arising from the crime of libel may be exercised, the time which article 131 of the Penal Code fixes for the prescription of the crimes of calumny and insults is strictly applicable. Against this contention of the defense, the Attorney-General and the private prosecutor maint...
Read more

People v Macatanda [109 S 35]

FACTS: Charged with and convicted on a plea of guilty, in the Court of First Instance of Lanao del Norte, Branch IV in Iligan City, for the crime of cattle rustling, Saglala Macatanda. From the judgment of conviction, Saglala Macatanda (hereinafter referred to as appellant) appealed direct to this Court. The Solicitor General comes up with a reply that Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code does not apply to penalties prescribed by special laws. He considers P.D. 533, otherwise known as "Anti- Cattle Rustling Law of 1974" as a special law, and in accordance with existing rulings, 8 the penalty should not be governed by the Revised Penal Code. ISSUE: Whether the contention of the Solicitor-General is valid. RULING: The court do not agree with the Solicitor General that P.D. 533 is a special law, entirely distinct from and unrelated to the Revised Penal Code. From the nature of the penalty imposed which is in terms of the classification and duration of penalties as prescribe...
Read more