G.R. No. 192330 - Ysidoro vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 192330)

Petitioner

Arnold James M. Ysidoro, Municipal Mayor of Leyte, Leyte

Respondent

People of the Philippines

Key Dates

June 15, 2001 – Approval and diversion of four sacks of rice and two boxes of sardines
August 27, 2001 – Formal complaint filed before the Ombudsman
February 8, 2010 – Sandiganbayan conviction for technical malversation; fine imposed
May 12, 2010 – Motion for reconsideration denied by Sandiganbayan
June 8, 2010 – Appeal to the Supreme Court filed
November 14, 2012 – Supreme Court Decision

Applicable Law

1987 Philippine Constitution (decision post-1987)
Article 220, Revised Penal Code (Technical Malversation)
Local Government Code of 1991
• Section 318–319 (Budget preparation and legislative authorization)
• Section 336 (Use of appropriated funds and savings)

Facts of the Case

The Municipal Social Welfare and Development Office operated two separate programs:
• CSAP, to supply construction materials for indigent calamity victims’ housing projects.
• SFP, to ration rice and sardines to malnourished children and their families.
When CSAP beneficiaries halted work in June 2001 to seek food, Garcia and Polinio requested release of leftover SFP stocks. Ysidoro approved withdrawal of four sacks of rice and two boxes of sardines (valued at P3,396.00) for CSAP beneficiaries. The municipal accounting clerk endorsed the release as an emergency measure.

Charges and Procedural History

The Ombudsman charged Ysidoro with technical malversation under Article 220, alleging he diverted SFP goods to CSAP—a public use different from the appropriation. The Sandiganbayan found him guilty (February 8, 2010), imposed a fine equal to 50% of the misapplied sum, and assessed temporary special disqualification. Ysidoro’s motion for reconsideration was denied (May 12, 2010), and he appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues Presented

Whether the diversion constituted application of funds to a purpose other than the one appropriated.
Whether the diverted goods were “savings” available for other municipal expenditures.
Whether failure to present the municipal auditor merits any presumption.
Whether good faith is a valid defense to technical malversation.

Elements of Technical Malversation

Under Article 220 RPC, the prosecution must establish:
a) The offender is an accountable public officer;
b) He applied public funds or property to a public use;
c) The use differs from the purpose for which they were originally appropriated by law or ordinance.

Separate Appropriations for SFP and CSAP

Sangguniang Bayan Resolution 00-133 (November 8, 2000) enacted the 2001 general fund appropriation based on the executive budget, allocating:
• P100,000 for SFP
• P113,957.64 for CSAP housing projects
These separate line items demonstrate legislative intent to maintain distinct funds. By using SFP appropriations to feed CSAP laborers, Ysidoro contravened the specific purpose of the SFP appropriation.

On the Nature of SFP “Savings”

Ysidoro argued that unsued SFP goods constituted “savings” and could be reallocated. The Court rejected this:
• The SFP is a continuous year-round program; unused mid-year stocks are not final savings.
• Section 336 LGC prohibits transfer of appropriated funds or savings without an ordinance authorizing augmentation within the same expense class.
Absence of such legislative action rendered any diversion unlawful.

Failure to Present Auditor’s Testimony

The Sandiganbayan invoked a presumption that unproduced witnesses would testify adversely. The Supreme Court held