Abdulla vs.

People of the Philippines

GR No. 150129 – April 6, 2005
Justice Garcia

Topic: Technical Malversation

Petitioner: Norma Abdulla

Respondent: People of the Philippines

FACTS
This is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court for the petitioner’s
conviction with technical malversation by the Sandiganbayan.

(On or about) Nov 1989 – Petitioner Norma Abdulla (President) and Nenita Aguil (Cashier),
were both public offices of the Sulu State College in Jolo, Sulu, Philippines.
 While in their performance of their functions, conspired and confederated with
Mahmud Darkis (Administrative Officer V) allegedly unlawfully and feloniously
applied for the payment of wages of casuals in the amount of P40,000.
 Said amount was appropriated for the payment of the salary differentials of secondary
school teachers of the said school.
 Aguil and Darkis were acquitted. Appellant was found guilty, and sentenced by the
Sandiganbayan with the penalty of temporary special disqualification for a period of 6
years and meted a fine of P3,000.
o Upon consideration, the Sandiganbayan deleted the disqualification penalty.
 Evidence on record, which included 4 witnesses (Darkis, Aguil, Abdulla herself, and
Director IV and Head of the Department of Budget and Management- Regional Office
No. 9 Zamboanga City Gerardo Concepcion, Jr.) showed:
o The DBM approved the request for conversion of 34 secondary school
teachers to Instructor I items through Abdulla.
o The allotted amount of P40,000 by the DBM of the partial funding for the said
request was sourced from the lump sum appropriation authorized by on page
370(396) RA 6688 (General Appropriations Act January 1-Deceber 31, 1989),
and the current savings under personal services of said school.
o Out of the 34 teachers, only 6 were entitled and paid the salary. So the
remaining amount was used to pay for the terminal leave benefits of the 6
casuals.
 For the sake of recognizing the right of presumption of innocence unless proven
otherwise, petitioner went all the way to the Supreme Court even though the sentence
imposed upon her by the Sandiganbayan was merely a fine of P3,000.

ISSUE
W/N the petitioner did commit technical malversation  NO
 COURT: The Sandiganbayan’s reliance on Section 3(b) of Rule 1311 as basis for its
imputation of criminal intent upon petitioner/appellant is untenable.
o The procedural rule that the presumption of the existence of unlawful or
criminal intent presupposes the commission of an unlawful act does not apply

1
Section 3(b). Disputable presumptions. — The following presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but
may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence:
(b) That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent
 to all charges of technical malversation because disbursement of public
funds for public use is per se not an unlawful act.
o In the case at bar, the petitioner cannot be said to have committed an unlaqful
act when she paid the obligation of the college to its employees in the form of
terminal leave benefits, wherein said employees were entitled to such.
 In the absence of any presumption of unlawful intent, the burden of proving by
competent evidence rests upon the prosecution (in this case, the respondents).
When the prosecution fails to discharge its burden of establishing the guild of an
accused, an accused need not even offer evidence in his behalf. A judgment of
conviction must rest on nothing less than moral certainty. Absent this required
quantum of evidence would mean exoneration for accused-appellant (in this case,
petitioner Abdulla).
o The prosecution/resp did not present any single witnesses at all. They failed to
prove unlawful intent on the part of Abdulla.
 The prosecution/resp also failed to prove the existence of all the elements of the
crime of technical malversation defined in Article 220 RPC2.
 That the offender is a public officer;
 There is public fund or property under his administration;
 Such public fund or property has been appropriated by law or
ordinance;
 That he applies the same to a public use other than that for which such
fund or property has been appropriated by law or ordinance.
o COURT: 3rd and 4th elements = not present.
 There is no particular appropriation of the P40,000 for the salary
differentials of secondary school teachers of the Sulu State College in
RA 6688. Furthermore, the authorization by the DBM for the use of
P40,000 is not an ordinance or law.
 Parungao vs Sandiganbyan ruled that in the absence of a law or
ordinance appropriating the public fund allegedly technically
malversed, the use thereof for another public purpose will not
make the accused guilty of violation of Art 220 RPC.
 Hence, usage of the remainder of the P40,000 for the payment of the
terminal leave benefits is not unlawful.

RULING
Petition is GRANTED. Appealed decision and resolution of the Sandiganbayan =
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant is ACQUITTED.

2
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 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 damages or
embarrassment shall have resulted to the public service. In either case, the offender shall also suffer the penalty
of temporary special disqualification.chanrobles virtual law library