Case Summary (G.R. No. 96025)
Petitioner
Oscar P. Parungao, charged with malversation of public funds under Article 217, RPC.
Respondents
Sandiganbayan and the People of the Philippines.
Key Dates
• September 29, 1980 – Receipt of ₱185,250 CRBI fund for Barangay Jalung Road
• May 15, 1991 – Decision by the Supreme Court (En Banc)
Applicable Law
• 1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 14(2) – Right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation
• Revised Penal Code
– Art. 217 (Malversation of public funds)
– Art. 220 (Illegal use of public funds, “technical malversation”)
• Rules on Criminal Procedure, Rule 120 (variance), Rule 119, Sec. 11 (mischarge)
Facts of the Case
Parungao admitted receiving ₱185,250 from DPWH as CRBI funds for concreting Barangay Jalung Road. He accounted for disbursements of ₱126,095.59 to materials (vouchers 41-80-12-440 and 41-80-12-441) and ₱59,154.41 for labor payrolls at Mayor Lumanlan’s insistence. Despite full exhaustion of funds, the road remained unfinished.
Procedural History
Sandiganbayan acquitted Parungao of malversation (Art. 217) but convicted him of illegal use of public funds (Art. 220) on the ground that ₱59,154.41 was diverted to other barangay labor. A motion for reconsideration was denied. Parungao filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court.
Issue
Whether Sandiganbayan erred in convicting Parungao of illegal use of public funds—a distinct offense—from the one charged (malversation of public funds).
Variance and Mischarge Analysis
• Constitution and Rule 120 guarantee the accused may only be convicted of the offense charged, unless one offense is included in the other.
• Art. 217 requires misappropriation for personal use or permitting another’s personal use.
• Art. 220 penalizes application of public funds to a public use other than that appropriated by law or ordinance.
• The two crimes have distinct elements; neither includes the other.
• Rule 119, Sec. 11 mandates dismissal and refiling a proper information when the charged offense cannot support conviction for another crime.
Error in Conviction
Sandiganbayan should have dismissed the original information and ordered refiling under Art. 220 instead of convicting on a mischarged offense. The conviction for illegal use under the malversation case was procedurally improper.
Merits Review of
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 96025)
Facts
- Oscar P. Parungao served as Municipal Treasurer of Porac, Pampanga, and on September 29, 1980, received ₱185,250.00 from the Ministry of Public Works and Highways as a CRBI (Construction, Rehabilitation, Betterment and Improvement) fund for concreting Barangay Jalung Road.
- He was charged with malversation of public funds under Article 217, Revised Penal Code, accused of willfully taking, appropriating, and converting the full ₱185,250.00 to his own use.
- During pre-trial, Parungao admitted receipt of the fund but denied misappropriation, instead accounting for the disbursement as follows:
- ₱126,095.59 for construction materials (Voucher Nos. 41-80-12-440 for ₱86,582.50 and 41-80-12-441 for ₱39,513.09).
- ₱59,154.41 used to pay labor payrolls of various barangays at the insistence of Mayor Ceferino Lumanlan.
- Prosecution presented six witnesses to show the road remained unfinished despite full exhaustion of the fund.
Procedural History
- The Sandiganbayan acquitted Parungao of malversation (Art. 217) but convicted him for illegal use of public funds (technical malversation under Art. 220).
- Parungao’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting his petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court.
Issues Presented
- Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting Parungao of a crime (illegal use of public funds) different from that charged (malversation of public funds).
- Whether malversation under Article 217 includes, or is included in, technical malversation under Article 220 for purposes of the Rule on Variance (Rule 120, Secs. 4–5, Rules of Court).
- Whether Parungao’s diversion of ₱59,154.41 to labor payrolls constituted illegal use of public funds in absence of specific appropriating law or ordinance.
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The Constitution (Art. III, Sec. 14[2]) guarantees the right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusations; conviction for a different offense violates due process.
- No variance exception applies because Article 217 (malversation) and Article 220 (technical malver