Title
Parungao vs. Sandiganbayan
Case
G.R. No. 96025
Decision Date
May 15, 1991
Former municipal treasurer acquitted of malversation but convicted of technical malversation; Supreme Court reversed, citing improper charge and distinct crime elements.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 96025)

Facts:

  • Parties and Background
  • Oscar P. Parungao, Municipal Treasurer of Porac, Pampanga (appointed and qualified).
  • Respondents: Sandiganbayan (special anti-graft court) and the People of the Philippines.
  • Charge and Trial Proceedings
  • Information (Art. 217, Revised Penal Code) charged petitioner with malversation of public funds for allegedly converting ₱185,250.00 in CRBI (Construction, Rehabilitation, Betterment and Improvement) funds to personal use, to the damage of the government.
  • Petitioner pleaded not guilty and admitted receipt on September 29, 1980 of the ₱185,250.00 from the Ministry of Public Works and Highways, intended for concreting Barangay Jalung Road.
  • Prosecution presented six witnesses (including Engr. Lacsamana, NBI Agent Azares, Homer Mercado) to show the funds were fully disbursed yet the road remained uncompleted.
  • Petitioner’s Defense Accounting:
    • ₱126,095.59 paid for construction materials under Voucher Nos. 41-80-12-440 (₱86,582.50) and 41-80-12-441 (₱39,513.09).
    • ₱59,154.41 disbursed for labor payrolls of various barangays at the insistence of then-Mayor Ceferino Lumanlan.
  • Audits and Supporting Documents:
    • Certificate of Settlement (Exh. 5) signed by Auditor Rolando A. Quibote and approved by Provincial Auditor Jose C. de Guzman, certifying correctness of accounts for February 6 to December 31, 1980.
    • Acknowledgments by auditing examiner Jose Valencia and Emerenciana Tiongco that disbursements were entered in the Treasurer’s Journal and Cashbook.
  • Sandiganbayan Decision and Post-Trial
  • Acquitted petitioner of malversation (Art. 217 RPC) due to full accounting and presumption of regularity in the audit.
  • Convicted petitioner of illegal use of public funds (Art. 220 RPC, “technical malversation”) for diverting ₱59,154.41 to purposes other than road concreting, thereby causing non-completion of the project.
  • Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting a petition for review to the Supreme Court.

Issues:

  • Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion by convicting petitioner of illegal use of public funds (Art. 220 RPC), a crime neither charged nor necessarily included in the offense of malversation (Art. 217 RPC).
  • Whether documents and audit certificates establishing full accountability should have been considered to exonerate petitioner of all charges.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.