Ysidoro vs. People - GR 192330 - Digested

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 2

JDR 503 – CRIMINAL LAW 1

08 SEPTEMBER 2021

YSIDORO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES


G.R. No. 192330, 14 November 2012

FACTS:

The Office of the Ombudsman for the Visayas accused Arnold James M. Ysidoro, the
Municipal Mayor of Leyte, before the Sandiganbayan of violation of illegal use of public property
(technical malversation) under Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code.

The Municipal Social Welface and Development Office (MSWDO) of 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. However, the beneficiaries stopped reporting for work because they had to find
food for their families. Lolita Garcia, the CSAP Officer-in-Charge, sought the help of Cristina
Polinio, who was 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 remaining
sacks of rice and boxes of sardines could be given to the CSAP beneficiaries.

Garcia and Polinio explained the situation to Mayor Ysidoro and sought for his approval.
Ysidoro approved the release and signed the withdrawal slip for the goods. He then instructed
Garcia to consult the accounting department regarding the matter. 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. The goods were then delivered to the
beneficiaries. Afterwards, Garcia reported the matter to the MSWDO and to the Auditor as per
auditing rules.

Alfredo Doller, former member of the Sangguniang Bayan of Leyte, filed the present
complaint against Ysidoro. Doller’s wife, former MSWDO head, testified that the subject SFP
goods were intended for the Leyte’s malnourished children. Thus, Ysidoro committed technical
malversation when he approved the distribution of SFP goods to CSAP beneficiaries.

In his defense, Ysidoro claimed that the diversion of the subjects goods to a project also
meant for the poor 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, he pointed out that the COA Auditor found nothing
irregular in its transactions.

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 50% of the sum misapplied. Ysidoro filed for a motion for reconsideration but was
denied, hence he appealed the Sandiganbayan Decision to this Court.

ISSUE:

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

jmm
JDR 503 – CRIMINAL LAW 1
08 SEPTEMBER 2021

RULING:

Good faith is not a valid defense for technical malversation.

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.

The court affirmed in its entirety the assailed Decision of the Sandiganbayan.

jmm

You might also like