### Facts:
In November 1989, within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, Norma A. Abdulla, then President of the Sulu State College, along with Nenita P. Aguil (cashier) and Mahmud I. Darkis (Administrative Officer V), were accused of illegally using public funds amounting to forty thousand pesos (₱40,000.00), allocated for the salary differentials of secondary school teachers, for the payment of wages of casuals. The funds used were sourced from a lump-sum appropriation authorized by R.A. 6688 and current savings under personal services. Abdulla’s co-accused, Aguil and Darkis, were acquitted, leaving Abdulla as the only convicted party, fined ₱3,000.00 with temporary special disqualification for six years, which was later amended to exclude the disqualification. Abdulla sought review under Rule 45, claiming innocence.
The procedural history saw the prosecution opting not to present testimonial evidence but instead relying on documentary evidence. The defense presented several witnesses, including Abdulla, to prove the funds were used legally for terminal leave benefits following existing laws. The contention extended to the Supreme Court, emphasizing issues with the presumption of criminal intent and failure to prove essential elements of technical malversation.
### Issues:
1. Whether the prosecution failed to prove criminal intent on the part of Norma A. Abdulla, thereby making the presumption of criminal intent inappropriate.
2. Whether the prosecution failed to prove all the essential elements of the crime of technical malversation, particularly regarding the appropriation and application of public funds.
### Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court granted Norma A. Abdulla’s appeal, setting aside the Sandiganbayan’s decision and acquitting her of the crime charged. The Court found that the presumption of criminal intent incorrectly applied to Abdulla and that the prosecution failed to prove essential elements of technical malversation. Specifically, the funds in question were part of “current savings,” not specifically appropriated by law for a distinct purpose, failing to satisfy the key elements required for a conviction under Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code.
### Doctrine:
The presumption of criminal intent does not automatically apply to charges of technical malversation because the disbursement of public funds for public use is not per se an unlawful act. Also, for a conviction of technical malversation under Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code, it must be proven that the public funds used were specifically appropriated by law or ordinance for a certain purpose and that they were applied to a public use other than that for which they were appropriated.
### Class Notes:
– **Technical Malversation:** For conviction under Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code, four elements must be satisfied: (1) The offender is a public officer; (2) There is public fund or property under their administration; (3) Such public fund or property has been appropriated by law or ordinance; (4) The public officer applies the same to a public use different from that for which it was appropriated.
– **Presumption of Criminal Intent:** Does not apply where the act in question involves the disbursement of public funds for another public purpose, which is not per se unlawful.
– **Savings in Public Funds:** The use of savings under personal services for expenses other than those originally appropriated does not necessarily constitute technical malversation if not specifically appropriated by law or ordinance for a distinct purpose.
### Historical Background:
This case occurred in the context of the Philippine government’s efforts to regulate and monitor the use of public funds, especially in educational institutions. The legal battle underscored the intricacies of handling public finances and the rigorous standards for proving criminal intentions and actions in cases of alleged misappropriation or misuse of funds by public officers.
Leave a Reply