Case Summary (G.R. No. 95546)
Petitioner
Oscar P. Parungao pleaded not guilty to an information charging malversation of public funds (Article 217, Revised Penal Code). He admitted receipt of the CRBI funds and produced disbursement vouchers and accounting entries accounting for the fund.
Respondent(s)
The Sandiganbayan tried the case; after trial it acquitted Parungao of malversation (Article 217) but convicted him of illegal use of public funds (Article 220, commonly called technical malversation). The People of the Philippines prosecuted the case.
Facts (Operational and Accounting Details)
- On or about September 29, 1980, Parungao, as Municipal Treasurer, received P185,250 from the Ministry of Public Works and Highways for the CRBI project to concrete Barangay Jalung Road.
- Petitioner accounted for disbursements as: P86,582.50 (Voucher No. 41-80-12-440) and P39,513.09 (Voucher No. 41-80-12-441) totaling P126,095.59 for materials delivered by the contractor; and P59,154.41 used to pay municipal labor payrolls at the behest of Mayor Ceferino Lumanlan.
- Prosecution alleged misappropriation because the CRBI fund was exhausted yet the road remained unfinished. Auditor’s Certificate of Settlement and audited vouchers were introduced, and certain witnesses acknowledged deliveries and accounting entries.
Procedural History
- Pretrial admission by petitioner: receipt of CRBI funds for the specified project.
- Trial: prosecution presented six witnesses; petitioner presented disbursement documents and accounting entries.
- Sandiganbayan decision: acquitted of Article 217 malversation but convicted under Article 220 (illegal use of public funds). Motion for reconsideration denied. Petitioner filed petition for review with the Supreme Court.
Applicable Law and Constitutional Baseline
- Applicable Constitution: 1987 Philippine Constitution — specifically Article III, Section 14(2) (right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation).
- Rules on Criminal Procedure referenced: Rule 120, Section 4 (judgment in case of variance between allegation and proof) and Section 5 (when an offense includes or is included in another); Rule 119, Section 11 (procedure when mistake in charging the proper offense is manifest before judgment).
- Substantive criminal law: Article 217 (malversation of public funds or property) and Article 220 (illegal use of public funds or property) of the Revised Penal Code — both texts and essential elements were relied upon by the Court.
Legal Issue Presented
Whether the Sandiganbayan could lawfully convict Parungao of illegal use of public funds (Article 220) in the same criminal case after acquitting him of malversation (Article 217) when the original information charged only Article 217.
Rule on Variance and Its Constitutional Foundation
The Constitution guarantees that an accused may be convicted only of the crime charged; variance is permitted only under Rule 120, Section 4 when the offense proved is included in or necessarily includes the offense charged. Section 5 defines when one offense includes another by comparing essential elements. Thus, conviction for a different offense can stand only if the essential elements of the proved offense are included in those of the offense charged (or vice versa).
Comparative Elements: Article 217 vs Article 220
- Article 217 (Malversation): essential elements include (a) offender is a public officer; (b) by reason of duties accountable for public funds/property; and (c) offender appropriates, takes, misappropriates, permits others to take such funds/property, or is otherwise guilty of misappropriation or malversation — i.e., diversion to personal use.
- Article 220 (Illegal Use / Technical Malversation): essential elements include (a) offender is an accountable public officer; (b) he applies public funds/property under his administration to some public use; and (c) such public use is different from the purpose for which the funds/property were originally appropriated by law or ordinance — i.e., diversion to another public use, not personal gain.
Court’s Analysis on Inclusion and Variance
The Court found the elements of the two offenses to be entirely distinct. Malversation (Article 217) involves conversion to personal use or allowing another to take public funds for personal benefit; Article 220 involves application to a different public use from that appropriated by law or ordinance (no element of personal conversion). Because neither offense is included in the other under the test of essential elements, conviction for Article 220 could not be sustained on an information charging only Article 217.
Procedural Corrective Measure Required by the Rules
When it becomes manifest before judgment that the accused cannot be convicted of the offense charged or of any offense necessarily included therein, Rule 119, Section 11 requires that the accused not be discharged if good cause to detain exists; instead, the court shall commit the accused to answer for the proper offense and dismiss the original case upon filing of the proper information. The Sandiganbayan erred in convicting Parungao of Article 220 in the original Article 217 case rather than ordering commitment and a new information under Article 220.
Court’s Discretion to Decide Merits of Article 220 (Practical Considerations)
Although the ordinary course would be to set aside the conviction without prejudice to a new prosecution for Article 220 (subject to prescription), the Supreme Court exercised its discretion to decide the merits of Article 220 in order to spare the petitioner another trial and to avoid unnecessary burden on the judicial system, since the same evidence would be presented in any subsequent prosecution.
Merits Analysis: Was There Illegal Use under Article 220?
- The Court examined evidence (including testimony summarized from Engr. Lacsamana) and concluded that the CRBI fund is a general fund administered by the Department of Public Works and Highways; the specific use for concreting Barangay Jalung Road was an internal arrangement among DPWH officials and the barangay captain rather than an appropriation established by law or ordinance for that particular purpose.
- All expenditures were for public purpose (payment of wages of laborers on municipal projects). Because Article 220 requires that funds be applied to a public use other than that for which they were appropriated by law or ordinance, and since there was no law or ordinance specifically appropriating the CRBI fund to the concreting of Barangay Jalung Road, the elements of Article 220 were not satisfied.
Court’s Holding and Disposition
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the Sandiganbayan’s conviction for illegal use of pu
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 95546)
Procedural Posture
- Petition for review from a Sandiganbayan decision acquitting petitioner of malversation (Art. 217, RPC) but convicting him of illegal use of public funds (Art. 220, RPC).
- Sandiganbayan denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration; petitioner brought the case to the Supreme Court by petition for review.
- Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the Sandiganbayan decision, and acquitted the petitioner of illegal use of public funds.
- A concurring and dissenting opinion by Justice Feliciano agreed in result to set aside the Sandiganbayan decision but dissented from the Court’s decision to decide the merits of a different offense not charged in the information.
Title, Citation and Panel
- Reported as 274 Phil. 451, En Banc; G.R. No. 96025; decided May 15, 1991.
- Decision authored by Justice Gutierrez, Jr.
- Chief Justice Fernan and Justices Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Cruz, Paras, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Grino-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado, and Davide, Jr., concurred.
- Justice Feliciano filed a separate concurring and dissenting opinion.
Facts (as pleaded and admitted)
- Petitioner Oscar P. Parungao was municipal treasurer of Porac, Pampanga.
- Information alleged that on or about September 1980, Parungao, as municipal treasurer, wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously and with abuse of confidence took, appropriated and converted to his own personal use P185,250.00 CRBI (Construction, Rehabilitation, Betterment and Improvement) fund intended for concreting Barangay Jalung Road.
- Petitioner pleaded not guilty.
- At pre-trial, petitioner admitted receiving P185,250 on September 29, 1980 from the Ministry of Public Works and Highways as CRBI funds for concreting Barangay Jalung Road, Porac, Pampanga.
Accounting by Petitioner (defense)
- Petitioner presented an accounting that the P185,250 was expended as follows:
- P126,095.59 disbursed for materials delivered by the contractor under Voucher Nos. 41-80-12-440 (P86,582.50) and 41-80-12-441 (P39,513.09).
- P59,154.41 used to pay, at the insistence of then Mayor Ceferino Lumanlan, the labor payrolls of the different barangays in the municipality.
- Supporting documentary entries: disbursements under the two vouchers entered in Treasurer’s Journal of Cash Disbursements and Cashbook, and submission of disbursement vouchers and supporting documents audited by the Provincial Auditor’s Office.
Prosecution Case and Evidence
- Prosecution presented six witnesses aiming to establish misappropriation based on the fact that the CRBI fund was exhausted while concreting of Barangay Jalung Road remained unfinished.
- Relevant prosecution witnesses included Homer Mercado, District Engineer Armando Lacsamana, and investigating NBI Agent Azares.
- Testimony summarized by Sandiganbayan (from Armando Lacsamana):
- CRBI is an annual fund received by the province; in 1980 Barangay Jalung was a recipient of P185,250.
- CRBI funds are released to the provincial treasurer and withdrawn by the municipal treasurer where the project is to be implemented.
- Through Engr. Anselmo Fajardo, the DPWH conferred with the barangay captain and agreed the fund be utilized for concreting Barangay Jalung Road.
- The project was accompanied by program of work documents and supporting schedules (items of work, equipment, labor schedules, summary of project, etc.).
Sandiganbayan Ruling (findings and reasoning)
- Sandiganbayan findings:
- Acquitted petitioner of malversation (Art. 217) because Auditor Rolando A. Quibote issued Certificate of Settlement (Exh. 5) certifying petitioner’s accounts from Feb. 6, 1980 to Dec. 31, 1980 were audited and found correct, and documentary/auditing evidence supported the disbursements for materials.
- Convicted petitioner of illegal use of public funds (Art. 220 / technical malversation) because petitioner allegedly applied part of the CRBI fund (P59,154.41) to pay labor payrolls for various barangays rather than fully applying the fund to the concreting of Barangay Jalung Road, resulting in non-completion of the project.
- Sandiganbayan relied on presumption of regularity of official acts (citing Sec. 5, par. m, Rule 131, Rules of Court) and admissions/acknowledgments of witnesses and auditing examiners to conclude accounting was made but that part of the fund was diverted from its intended project purpose.
Issues Raised in the Petition to the Supreme Court
- Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and in affirming conviction for technical malversation (illegal use of public funds) when the information charged only malversation under Art. 217.
- Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in not considering documents in petitioner’s favor that, though not self-explanatory, constituted eloquent proof of innocence.
Legal Principles and Statutory Provisions Cited
- Constitutional guarantee: accused must be informed of nature and cause of accusation (1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 14[2]); accused may be convicted only of the crime charged.
- Rule on variance: Section 4, Rule 120, Rules on Criminal Procedure — conviction only of offense charged or of one included in that charged when there is variance between allegation and proof.
- Section 5, Rule 120 — defines when an offense includes or is included in another (essential elements overlap).
- Section 11, Rule 119, Rules on Criminal Procedure — procedure when mistake is made in charging the proper offense: court may commit the acc