View full case

OSCAR P. PARUNGAO v. SANDIGANBAYAN

FACTS:

The petitioner, a former municipal treasurer of Porac, Pampanga, was charged with malversation of public funds amounting to P185,250. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner misappropriated the funds for his personal use, resulting in the unfinished concreting of Barangay Jalung Road. The petitioner, during the pre-trial conference, admitted receiving the funds for the said project.

In his defense, the petitioner accounted for the funds disbursed for materials delivered by the contractor, as well as for the amount used to pay the labor payrolls of different barangays in the municipality, as insisted by the then Porac Mayor.

After the hearing, the Sandiganbayan acquitted the petitioner of malversation of public funds but convicted him of illegal use of public funds. The court found that while the petitioner fully accounted for the funds, he allowed the use of part of it for a purpose other than intended, which resulted in the non-completion of the project. The Sandiganbayan denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration, prompting him to file a petition for review. The petitioner argued that he cannot be convicted of a different crime from what was charged in the information.

ISSUES:

  1. Is the decision of the Sandiganbayan convicting the petitioner of the crime of illegal use of public funds justified by the rule on variance?

  2. Does the crime of malversation of public funds include the crime of illegal use of public funds, or is the former included in the latter?

  3. Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of illegal use of public funds.

RULING:

  1. The decision of the Sandiganbayan convicting the petitioner of the crime of illegal use of public funds is not justified by the rule on variance.

  2. The crime of malversation of public funds does not include the crime of illegal use of public funds, nor is the former included in the latter.

  3. The Court reversed the decision of the Sandiganbayan and acquitted the petitioner of the crime of illegal use of public funds. The Court found that there was no law or ordinance appropriating the funds for the specific project of concreting the Barangay Jalung Road. The funds were instead used to pay the wages of laborers working on various projects in the municipality, which is a legitimate public purpose. As such, the petitioner cannot be declared guilty of illegal use of public funds.

PRINCIPLES:

  • When there is a variance between the offense charged and that proved, and the offense as charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused shall be convicted of the offense proved included in that which is charged, or of the offense charged included in that which is proved. (Section 4, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Court)

  • The offense charged necessarily includes that which is proved when some of the essential elements or ingredients of the former, as alleged in the complaint or information, constitute the latter. An offense charged is necessarily included in the offense proved when the essential ingredients of the former constitute or form a part of those constituting the latter. (Section 5, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Court)

  • To be guilty of technical malversation, it is necessary that public funds or properties had been diverted to any public use other than that provided for by law or ordinance.

  • In the absence of a law or ordinance appropriating the funds for a specific project, the diversion of funds for a legitimate public purpose does not constitute illegal use of public funds.