Skip to main content

ARNOLD JAMES YSIDORO v. PEOPLE - CRIMINAL LAW CASE DIGEST

 

ARNOLD JAMES YSIDORO v. PEOPLE

G.R. No. 192330, November 14, 2012

ABAD, J.:


TOPICS: MALA PROHIBITA IN REVISED PENAL CODE

                 TECHNICAL MALVERSATION


FACTS:

Mayor Arnold James Ysidoro of Leyte was accused of the crime technical malversation for approving the release and signed the withdrawal slip for four (4) sacks of rice and two (2) boxes of sardines worth P3,396 from the Supplemental Feeding Program (SFP) which is devoted to the ration of food to malnourished children to Core Shelter Assistance Program (CSAP).

The goods were to be given to the workers of the construction for the calamity victims as there was a stoppage of work as the workers had to find food for their families.

ISSUE:

Whether Ysidoro committed the crime of Technical Malversation.

Whether the crime of Technical Malversation is considered mala in se or mala prohibita.

HELD:

Yes Ysidoro committed the crime of Technical Malversation.

The elements of the crime Technical Malversation under Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code are as follows:

  1. That the offender is an accountable public officer;
  2. That he applies public funds or property under his administration to some public use; and
  3. 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.
The Supreme Court held that since the municipality bought the subject goods using SFP funds, then those goods should be used for SFPs needs, observing the rules prescribed for identifying the qualified  beneficiaries of its feeding program.  This was disregarded by Ysidoro when he approved the distribution of the goods to those providing free labor for the rebuilding of their own homes.  This is technical malversation.  If Ysidoro could not legally distribute the construction materials appropriated for the CSAP housing beneficiaries to the SFP malnourished clients, neither could he distribute the food intended for the latter to CSAP beneficiaries.

Technical malversation is mala prohibita.

The Supreme Court held that 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 purpose to another 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 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.


Read Full Text: Arnold James Ysidoro v. People (full text) - ChanRobles

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

LAW SCHOOL ADVICE - HOW TO MAKE A CASE DIGEST : A DETAILED GUIDE ON MAKING A CASE DIGEST

DISCLAIMER:  This entry may look familiar since this is from my other blog, "LAW STUDENT'S COFFEE TABLE" however, I made some minor adjustments and improvements so that you can make an organized, effective, and understandable case digest. Let us start with the basics.  How do you digest a case? Some students and not just law students who have law subjects are often asked by their professors as a requirement for their class to digest cases that are normally assigned by your professors either for your next meeting or for the whole semester.  For someone who does not know how to digest a case, this can be a laborious task as some cases may be as long as reading a whole book.  What are these cases assigned to you by your professors? These are the cases decided by the Supreme Court containing the story of the case and the application of the principles and theories that are discussed under the law.  These cases were assigned to you simply because they are related to t...
Post a Comment
Read more

EVANGELINE LADONGA v. PEOPLE - CRIMINAL LAW CASE DIGEST

EVANGELINE LADONGA v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 141066, February 17, 2005 AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.: TOPICS: CONSPIRACY IN VIOLATION OF B.P 22                       SUPPLETORY APPLICATION OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE                       CONSPIRACY FACTS: Spouses Adronico and Evangeline Ladonga was a regular customers of Alfredo Oculam's pawnshop.  Ladonga spouses obtained several loans from Oculam which were guaranteed by several check.  The said checks bounced for the reason of "Closed Account".  Spouses Ladonga failed to redeem the checks despite repeated demand thus three (3) criminal cases for conspiracy to commit violation of B.P. 22. RTC found spouses Ladonga guilty for violation of B.P. 22.  On appeal, Evangeline argued that conspiracy RTC erred in finding her criminally liable for conspiring with her husband as the principle of conspiracy is inapp...
Post a Comment
Read more