Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

OSCAR P. PARUNGAO v. SANDIGANBAYAN

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 197567 2014-11-19	GOVERNOR ENRIQUE T. GARCIA v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
First, while Garcia insists upon the sufficiency of his evidence to indict respondents for Technical Malversation, the Court cannot pass upon this issue, considering that the Complaint-Affidavit filed before the Ombudsman originally charged respondents not with Technical Malversation under Article 220[73] of the RPC, but with Malversation of Public Funds through Falsification of Public Documents, defined and penalized under Article 217,[74] in relation to Article 171[75] of the RPC, a complex crime.[76] It bears stressing that the elements of Malversation of Public Funds are distinctly different from those of Technical Malversation. In the crime of Malversation of Public Funds, the offender misappropriates public funds for his own personal use or allows any other person to take such public funds for the latter's personal use. On the other hand, in Technical Malversation, the public officer applies public funds under his administration not for his or another's personal use, but to a public use other than that for which the fund was appropriated by law or ordinance.[77] Technical Malversation does not include, or is not necessarily included in the crime of Malversation of Public Funds.[78]
	GR Nos. 164068-69 2013-11-19	ROLANDO P. DE LA CUESTA v. SANDIGANBAYAN ABAD, J.
The element in the crime of technical malversation that public fund be appropriated for a public use requires an earmarking of the fund or property for a specific project.[58] For instance there is no earmarking if money was part of the municipality's "general fund," intended by internal arrangement for use in paving a particular road but applied instead to the payrolls of different barangay workers in the municipality. That portion of the general fund was not considered appropriated since it had not been earmarked by law or ordinance for a specific expenditure. Here, there is no allegation in the informations that the P2 million and P6 million grants to COCOFED had been earmarked for some specific expenditures.
	GR NO. 147913 2007-01-31	CLEMENT JOHN FERDINAND M. NAVARRETE v. PEOPLE
The Constitution mandates that the accused, in all criminal prosecutions, shall enjoy the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.[20] From this fundamental precept proceeds the rule that the accused may be convicted only of the crime with which he is charged.[21]
	GR NO. 156427 2006-01-20	AMANDO TETANGCO v. OMBUDSMAN QUISUMBING, J.
The elements of the offense, also known as technical malversation, are: (1) the offender is an accountable public officer; (2) he applies public funds or property under his administration to some public use; and (3) 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. It is clear that for technical malversation to exist, it is necessary that public funds or properties had been diverted to any public use other than that provided for by law or ordinance.[12] To constitute the crime, there must be a diversion of the funds from the purpose for which they had been originally appropriated by law or ordinance.[13] Patently, the third element is not present in this case.
	GR NO. 150129 2005-04-06	NORMA A. ABDULLA v. PEOPLE GARCIA, J.
The presumption of criminal intent will not, however, automatically apply to all charges of technical malversation because disbursement of public funds for public use is per se not an unlawful act. Here, appellant cannot be said to have committed an unlawful act when she paid the obligation of the Sulu State College to its employees in the form of terminal leave benefits such employees were entitled to under existing civil service laws. Thus, in a similar case,[12] the Court reversed a conviction for technical malversation of one who paid out the wages of laborers:There is no dispute that the money was spent for a public purpose - payment of the wages of laborers working on various projects in the municipality. It is pertinent to note the high priority which laborers' wages enjoy as claims against the employers' funds and resources.