FACTS:

The case involves Arnold James M. Ysidoro, a municipal mayor who was charged with illegal diversion of food intended for malnourished individuals to beneficiaries of reconstruction projects for calamity victims. The Office of the Ombudsman accused Ysidoro of violating Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code, which pertains to the illegal use of public property. The Municipal Social Welfare and Development Office (MSWDO) of Leyte implemented the Core Shelter Assistance Program (CSAP), providing construction materials to indigent calamity victims for rebuilding their homes. However, construction for the calamity victims was halted when the beneficiaries stopped reporting for work due to the need to find food for their families. The CSAP Officer-in-Charge sought the help of an officer in charge of the municipality's Supplemental Feeding Program (SFP), Cristina Polinio, who informed that there were remaining sacks of rice and boxes of sardines in the SFP's storeroom. With the approval of Ysidoro, the municipal mayor, the food intended for the SFP beneficiaries was diverted to the CSAP beneficiaries. Ysidoro claimed that the diversion was valid since it came from the savings of the SFP and Calamity Fund, and he acted in good faith. Meanwhile, Alfredo Doller filed a complaint against Ysidoro, and on February 8, 2010, the Sandiganbayan found Ysidoro guilty of technical malversation. The Sandiganbayan imposed a fine on Ysidoro but denied his motion for reconsideration. Thus, Ysidoro appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, raising questions regarding the finding of technical malversation, the nature of the goods diverted, the absence of the municipal auditor as a witness, and the validity of good faith as a defense.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the accused, Ysidoro, approved the diversion of the subject goods to a public purpose different from their originally intended purpose.

2. Whether or not the goods approved for diversion were in the nature of savings that could be used to augment other authorized expenditures.

3. Whether or not the accused's failure to present the municipal auditor can be taken against him.

4. Whether or not good faith is a valid defense for technical malversation.

RULING:

1. The Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan's finding that Ysidoro committed technical malversation by approving the diversion of the subject goods to a public purpose different from their originally intended purpose. The Court held that the goods were originally intended for the malnourished children under the Supplemental Feeding Program (SFP), but were instead diverted to construction beneficiaries under the Core Shelter Assistance Program (CSAP). This diversion violated the law and the guidelines governing the distribution of SFP goods.

2. The Court rejected Ysidoro's argument that the goods approved for diversion were in the nature of savings that could be used to augment other authorized expenditures. The Court held that the goods were specifically allocated for the SFP and, by diverting them to the CSAP, Ysidoro misapplied public property for a purpose different from that for which it was appropriated by law or ordinance.

3. The Court found that the accused's failure to present the municipal auditor cannot be taken against him. The court noted that the absence of the municipal auditor did not affect the Sandiganbayan's finding of guilt, as there was sufficient evidence presented to prove Ysidoro's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

4. The Court ruled that good faith is not a valid defense for technical malversation. The Court held that good faith cannot excuse the accused from the criminal liability of technical malversation, as the law does not require a specific mens rea or criminal intent for the offense. The act of misapplying public property for a purpose different from its intended purpose is sufficient to establish the crime.

PRINCIPLES: