Article 220.

Illegal use of public funds or property

Elements

1. Offender is a public officer;

2. There are public funds or property under his administration;

3. Such fund or property were appropriated by law or ordinance;

4. He applies such public fund or property to any public use other than for which it was appropriated for.

Illegal use of public funds or property is also known as technical malversation. The term technical
malversation is used because in this crime, the fund or property involved is already appropriated or
earmarked for a certain public purpose.

The offender is entrusted with such fund or property only to administer or apply the same to the public
purpose for which it was appropriated by law or ordinance. Instead of applying it to the public purpose
to which the fund or property was already appropriated by law, the public officer applied it to another
purpose.

Since damage is not an element of malversation, even though the application made proved to be more
beneficial to public interest than the original purpose for which the amount or property was appropriated
by law, the public officer involved is still liable for technical malversation.

If public funds were not yet appropriated by law or ordinance, and this was applied to a public purpose
by the custodian thereof, the crime is plain and simple malversation, not technical malversation. If the
funds had been appropriated for a particular public purpose, but the same was applied to private purpose,
the crime committed is simple malversation only.

Illustration:

The office lacked bond papers. What the government cashier did was to send the janitor,

get some money from his collection, told the janitor to buy bond paper so that the office will have
something to use. The amount involved maybe immaterial but the cashier commits malversation pure
and simple.

This crime can also be committed by a private person.

Illustration:

A certain road is to be cemented. Bags of cement were already being unloaded at the side. But then,
rain began to fall so the supervisor of the road building went to a certain house with a garage, asked the
owner if he could possibly deposit the bags of cement in his garage to prevent the same from being wet.
The owner of the house, Olive, agreed. So the bags of cement were transferred to the garage of the
private person. After the public officer had left, and the workers had left because it is not possible to do
the cementing, the owner of the garage started using some of the cement in paving his own garage. The
crime of technical malversation is also committed.
Note that when a private person is constituted as the custodian in whatever capacity, of public funds or
property, and he misappropriates the same, the crime of malversation is also committed. See Article 222.

Illustration:

The payroll money for a government infrastructure project on the way to the site of the project, the
officers bringing the money were ambushed. They were all wounded. One of them, however, was able
to get away from the scene of the ambush until he reached a certain house. He told the occupant of the
house to safeguard the amount because it is the payroll money of the government laborers of a particular
project. The occupant of the house accepted the money for his own use. The crime is not theft but
malversation as long as he knew that what was entrusted in his custody is public fund or property.

Q: Why is it termed “technical malversation”? A: Because under this article, the fund or property invol
ved is already appropriated or earmarked for a certain public purpose.

Q: How is technical malversation committed? A: Instead of applying it to the public purpose for which
the fund or property was already appropriated by law, the public officer applied it to another purpos
e.

Q: X appropriated the salary differentials of secondary school teachers of the Sulu State College
contrary to the authorization issued by the DBM. Can X be held liable for technical malversation?
A: No. The third element is lacking. The authorization given by DBM is not an ordinance or law cont
emplated in Art. 220. (Abdulla v. People)

Q: Suppose the application made proved to be more beneficial to the public than the original p
urpose for which the amount or property is appropriated, is there technical malversation? A: Yes,
because damage is not an essential element of technical malversation.

Art. 220. Illegal use of public funds or property. — Any public officer who shall apply any public fund or
property under his administration to any public use other than that for which such fund or property were
appropriated by law or ordinance shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period or
a fine ranging from one-half to the total of the sum misapplied, if by reason of such misapplication, any
damage or embarrassment shall have resulted to the public service. In either case, the offender shall also
suffer the penalty of temporary special disqualification.