Sulapas Report - Art. 219220221222 1

CRIMINAL LAW II: Crimes Committed by Public Officers
ART. 219, 220, 221,

222 RPC
Presented by: REYNAN R. SULAPAS

Art. 219 – Failure of a responsible officer to render
accounts before leaving the country
Art. 219. Failure of a responsible public officer to render

accounts before leaving the country. — Any public officer
who unlawfully leaves or attempts to leave the Philippines
without securing a certificate from the Commission on
Audit showing that his accounts have been finally settled,
shall be punished by arresto mayor or a fine ranging from
Forty thousand pesos (P40,000) to Two hundred thousand
pesos (P200,000), or both. (As amended by RA No. 10951)
ELEMENTS
1. That the offender is a public officer;

2. That he must be an accountable officer for public funds or
property;
3. That he must have unlawfully left or be on the point of leaving
the Philippines without securing from the Commission on Audit a
certificate showing that his accounts have been settled. (Reyes, RPC
Annotated, 21st Ed., pp. 548-549)
COMMENTS/ANNOTATIONS
I. Purpose of the Law

• To discourage accountable or responsible officers from leaving without
first liquidating their accountability; (UP Criminal Law II Bar Ops, 2008)
• It is not necessary that they really misappropriated the funds. (Ibid)
II. Construction of “Any public officer who unlawfully leaves”

• Clause means that the act of leaving the Philippines is not authorized
or permitted by law. (Reyes, RPC Annotated, 21st Ed., pp. 549)
Art. 220 – Illegal use of Public Funds or Property
Art. Illegal use of public funds or property. — Any public officer who shall
apply any public funds 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 value 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.
If no damage or embarrassment to the public service has resulted, the
penalty shall be a fine from 5 to 50 percent of the sum misapplied.
ELEMENTS
1. That the offender is a public officer;

2. That there is public fund or property under his administration;
3. That such public fund has been appropriated by law or ordinance;
4. 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
(Reyes, RPC Annotated, 21st Ed., pp. 549-550)
I. 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 by virtue of a law or ordinance; (UP Criminal Law II Bar
Ops, 2008)
II. Variation of Penalty under Art. 220 is contingent upon the

presence of damages or embarrassment to public service.
Presence of suspensive condition Resulting penalty
If damages and embarrassment to public service be Imprisonment – Prision Correccional minimum; OR
present Fine – 50% - 100% of the fund/sum misapplied
If NO damages and embarrassment to public service Fine – 5% to 50% of the fund/sum misapplied
be present
III. Technical Malversation presupposes existence of a law or

ordinance appropriating public funds or property for a particular
purpose. (Reyes, RPC Annotated, 21st Ed., pp. 550)
• In the absence of a law or ordinance appropriating the public fund allegedly
technically malversed XXX the use thereof for another public purpose XXX will
not make the accused guilty of violation of Art. 220 of the RPC (Abdullah v. People,
GR No. 150129, April 6, 2005 citing Parungao v. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 96025, May 15, 1991);
• The relationship established between a public school and its students when the latter
pay a certain amount to answer for the value of materials broken, is one of debtor and
creditor, not of depositor and depositary. The transaction is a loan, not a deposit, and, as
such, the school acquires ownership of the moneys paid by the students, subject only to
the obligation of reimbursing equivalent amounts, unless a deduction should happen to
be due. For this reason the moneys become public funds from the time the school
receives them. (People v. Montemayor, et.al August 30, 1962)
• To constitute the crime of illegal use of public funds, there must be a diversion of the
funds from the purpose for which they had been originally appropriated by law or
ordinance. In the case at bar the students’ payments had been so appropriated,
because the resolution of the college authorities that the amounts paid by the students
should be later refunded nowhere implied that the repayment was to be made precisely
out of the moneys, and as the refund could be made out of any available funds of the
College, there was no appropriation for a particular purpose that was violated by the
accused. (Ibid)
• AMANDO TETANGCO, Petitioner vs.THE HON. OMBUDSMAN and MAYOR JOSE L.
ATIENZA, JR., Respondents, G.R. No. 156427, January 20, 2006
• FACTS: On March 8, 2002, petitioner filed his Complaint before the Ombudsman alleging that
on January 26, 2001, private respondent Mayor Atienza gave P3,000 cash financial assistance
to the chairman and P1,000 to each tanod of Barangay 105, Zone 8, District I. Allegedly, on
March 5, 2001, Mayor Atienza refunded P20,000 or the total amount of the financial assistance
from the City of Manila when such disbursement was not justified as a lawful expense.
Petitioner insists that Mayor Atienza illegally disbursed public funds when he gave the
aforementioned financial assistance to the chairman and tanods of Barangay 105 since the
disbursement was not authorized by law or ordinance, which the Ombudsman did not consider
when it dismissed the Complaint of petitioner. According to petitioner, the dismissal by the
Ombudsman was capricious since the evidence on record was clear that the mayor was guilty
of graft and corruption
• AMANDO TETANGCO, Petitioner vs.THE HON. OMBUDSMAN and MAYOR JOSE L.
ATIENZA, JR., Respondents, G.R. No. 156427, January 20, 2006
• Issue: W/N mayor Atienza was guilty of violating Art. 220 of the RPC
• Held: No.
• Ratio: The elements of the offense, also known as technical malversation, are: (1) the offender
is an accountable public officer; (2) he applies public funds or property under his administration
to some public use; and (3) the public use for which the public funds or property were applied
is different from the purpose for which they were originally appropriated by law or ordinance. It
is clear that for technical malversation to exist, it is necessary that public funds or
properties had been diverted to any public use other than that provided for by law or
ordinance. To constitute the crime, there must be a diversion of the funds from the
purpose for which they had been originally appropriated by law or ordinance. Patently,
the third element is not present in this case.
IV. Criminal Intent is NOT an element of Technical Malversation. (Reyes,

RPC Annotated, 21st Ed., pp. 551)
• Arnold James M. Ysidoro v. People, GR No. 192330, Nov. 14, 2012
• FACTS: This case is about a municipal mayor charged with illegal diversion of food intended for those
suffering from malnutrition to the beneficiaries of reconsideration projects affecting the homes of
victims of calamities. Polinio told Garcia that the SFP still had sacks of rice and boxes of sardines in
its storeroom. And since she had already distributed food to the mother volunteers, what remained
could be given to the CSAP beneficiaries. Garcia and Polinio went to petitioner Arnold James M.
Ysidoro, the Leyte Municipal Mayor, to seek his approval. After explaining the situation to him,
Ysidoro approved the release and signed the withdrawal slip for four sacks of rice and two boxes of
sardines worth P3,396.00 to CSAP.
The evidence shows that on November 8, 2000 the Sangguniang Bayan of Leyte enacted
Resolution 00-133 appropriating the annual general fund for 2001. This appropriation was based the
executive budget which allocated P100,000.00 for the SFP and P113,957.64 for the Comprehensive and
Integrated Delivery of Social Services which covers the CSAP housing projects.
• FACTS: The Sandiganbayan held that Ysidoro applied public property to a pubic purpose other than
that for which it has been appropriated by law or ordinance.
• HELD: Mayor Ysidoro is GUILTY of technical malversation.

• RATIO: Ysidoro insists that he acted in good faith since, first, the idea of using the SFP goods for the
CSAP beneficiaries came, not from him, but from Garcia and Polinio; and, second, he consulted the
accounting department if the goods could be distributed to those beneficiaries. Having no criminal
intent, he argues that he cannot be convicted of the crime.
But criminal intent is not an element of technical malversation. The law punishes the act of
diverting public property earmarked by law or ordinance for a particular public purpose to another
public purpose. The offense is mala prohibita, meaning that the prohibited act is not inherently
immoral but becomes a criminal offense because positive law forbids its commission based on
considerations of public policy, order, and convenience. It is the commission of an act as defined by
the law, and not the character or effect thereof, that determines whether or not the provision has been
violated. Hence, malice or criminal intent is completely irrelevant.
• RATIO:
Dura lex sed lex. Ysidoro’s act, no matter how noble or miniscule the amount diverted,
constitutes the crime of technical malversation. The law and this Court, however, recognize that his
offense is not grave, warranting a mere fine.
V. Technical Malversation distinguished from Malversation in Art
217. (Reyes, RPC Annotated, 21st Ed., pp. 551)
Points of Distinction Technical Malversation (Art. 220) Malversation (Art. 217)
Offender Public Officers OR Private Individuals (by Public Officers OR Private Individuals (by
operation of Art. 222) operation of Art. 222)
Presence of Personal Gain Offender does not derive personal gain or Offender in certain cases profits from the
profit proceeds of the crime
Application of Public Funds Public fund/property is allocated to Public fund/property is allocated to the
another public use in contravention of a personal use and benefit of the offender or
law or ordinance of another person
Defense of Good Faith Good faith or lack of criminal intent is Good faith or lack of criminal intent is a
immaterial defense in malversation through negligence
Art. 221 – Failure to make delivery of public funds or property
Article 221. Failure to make delivery of public funds or property. - Any public officer
under obligation to make payment from Government funds in his possession, who shall fail
to make such payment, shall be punished by arresto mayor and a fine from 5 to 25 per
cent of the sum which he failed to pay.
This provision shall apply to any public officer who, being ordered by competent authority to
deliver any property in his custody or under his administration, shall refuse to make such
delivery.
The fine shall be graduated in such case by the value of the thing, provided that it shall not
less than Ten Thousand (P10,000) pesos. (As amended by RA No. 10951)
PUNISHABLE ACTS:
(Reyes, RPC Annotated, 21st Ed., pp. 552)
1. FAILURE TO MAKE PAYMENT

• By failing to make payment by a public officer who is under obligation to make such
payment from the Government funds in his possession;
2. REFUSING TO MAKE DELIVERY

• By refusing to make delivery by a public officer who has been ordered by competent
authority to deliver any property in his custody or under his administration
CONSOLIDATED ELEMENTS:
(UP Criminal Law II Bar Ops, 2008)
1. That the public officer has Government funds in his possession;

2. That he is under obligation to either:
a. Make payment from such funds;
b. Deliver any property in his custody or under his administration;
3. He fails to make payment or refuses to make delivery maliciously.
COMMENTS/ANNOTATIONS:
1. Malice is material. (Reyes, RPC Annotated, 21st Ed., pp. 553)

• Under No.2 (refusal to make delivery of property), the refusal must be malicious also.
Thus, a stenographer of a provincial board who retains in his possession the
stenographic notes taken by him for purposes of transcribing the same does not
commit a violation of this article. (People v. Jubila, CA., 38 OG 1976)
Art. 222 – Officers included in the preceding provisions
Article 222. Officers included in the preceding provisions. - The

provisions of this chapter shall apply to individuals who in any capacity
whatever, have charge of any insular (now national), provincial or
municipal funds, revenues, or property and to any administrator or
depository of funds or property attached, seized or deposited by
public authority, even if such property belongs to a private individual.
Art. 222 – Officers included in the preceding sections
I. PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS DEEMED LIABLE UNDER ART. 217-221.
1. Private individuals who, in any capacity whatever, have charge of any national,
provincial or municipal funds, revenue, or property;
2. Administrator or depository of funds or property attached, seized, or deposited by

public authority, even if such property belongs to private individual
II. PURPOSE OF ART 222
• To extend the provisions of the Code on malversation to private individuals. (People v.

Escalante, CA 49, OG 4397)
III. CONSTRUCTION OF THE TERM “ADMINISTRATOR”

• Subsumed under the term “administrator” are the following persons:
1. Sheriffs
a. In the Philippines, being a sheriff primarily entails the job of serving all writs,
executes all processes, and carries into effect all decisions and orders issued by our
judicial courts;
b. The sheriff is primarily responsible for the speedy and efficient service of all
court processes and writs originating from his court and the branches thereof, and
those that may be delegated to him from other courts. (Administrative Circular No. 12, SC
Circulars and Orders – Subject: GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURE IN THE SERVICE AND
EXECUTION OF COURT WRITS AND PROCESSES IN THE REORGANIZED COURTS)

2. Receivers
a. A receiver is an indifferent person between the parties to a cause, appointed by
the court to receive and preserve the property or fund in litigation pendente lite, when
it does not seem reasonable to the court that either party should hold it.
b. He is not the agent or representative of either party to the action, but is
uniformly regarded as an officer of the court, exercising his functions in the interest
of neither plaintiff nor defendant, but for the common benefit of all parties in interest.

2. Receivers
c. Being an officer of the court, the fund or property intrusted to his care is
regarded as being in custodial legis for the benefit of whoever may finally establish
title thereto, the court itself having the care of the property by its receiver, who is
merely its creature or officer, having no powers other than thos e conferred upon him
by the order of his appointment, or such as are derived from the established practice of
courts of equity.
(Teal Motor Inc. v. CFI of Manila, L-29119, February 18, 1928)

• Not included in the term “administrator”:
1. Judicial Administrator of an estate of a deceased person.
a. Section 2. Powers and duties of special administrator. — Such special
administrator shall take possession and charge of the goods, chattels, rights, credits,
and estate of the deceased and preserve the same for the executors or administrator
afterwards appointed, and for that purpose may commence and maintain suits as
administrator. He may sell only such perishable and other property as the court
orders sold. A special administrator shall not be liable to pay any debts of the deceased
unless so ordered by the court.
(Sec.2, Rule 80, Rules of Court)
NOTE: Conversion of the properties held in trust of a Judicial Administrator makes him liable instead
for ESTAFA.
IV. PRIVATE PROPERTY IS INCLUDED PROVIDED IT IS ATTACHED, SEIZED, OR

DEPOSITED BY PUBLIC AUTHORITY
1. “Even if such property belongs to private individual” is a sweeping and all embracing
statement so as to include a case where private funds or property are involved, as long as
such funds or property are placed in the custody of accountable officers. (People v. Dela
Cerna, CA, 40 OG., Supp.12,159);

2. Writ of Attachment - A writ of preliminary attachment is a provisional remedy issued

upon order of the court where an action is pending to be levied upon the property or
properties of the defendant therein, the same to be held thereafter by the Sheriff as
security for the satisfaction of whatever judgment might be secured in said action by the
attaching creditor against the defendant. It is governed by Rule 57 of the Revised Rules
of Court. (Lorenzo Shipping v. Villarin, GR No. 175727);

3. Sequestration or Judicial Deposit (Art. 2005-2008, NCC)- The deposit of a thing in

litigation in the hands of a third person, during the settlement of issues between those who
allege rights to the thing. (De Leon, Comments and Cases in Credit Transactions, 14th ed., pp. 218);
V. SANDIGANBAYAN IS DEPRIVED OF JURISDICTION OVER A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL

IF THE INDIVIDUAL IS NOT IMPLICATED AS CO-PRINCIPAL, ACCOMPLICE, OR
ACCESSORY TO A PUBLIC OFFICER;
VI. PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL FOR PURPOSES OF ART. 222 IS NOT DEEMED A PUBLIC
OFFICER.
From the foregoing discussion, it is evident that the petitioner did not cease to be a
private individual when he agreed to act as depositary of the garnished dump truck.
Therefore, when the information charged him and Jaime Ancla before the Sandiganbayan
for malversation of public funds or property, the prosecution was in fact charging two
private individuals without any public officer being similarly charged as a co-
conspirator. Consequently, the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over the controversy
and therefore all the proceedings taken below as well as the Decision rendered by
Respondent Sandiganbayan, are null and void for lack of jurisdiction. (Azarcon v.
Sandiganbayan, GR. No. 116033, February 26, 1997);
VII. Illustration of a private individual implicated for malversation.
US V. Rastrollo, GR. No. 202, September 21, 1901

FACTS: In civil proceedings instituted to obtain a preventive attachment to secure a debt
contracted by Carlos Rastrollo in favor of D. Emeterio Ruiz, 1,121 feet of hose, among other
property belonging to said Rastrollo, was attached at the instance of Attorney Florencio
Gonzales on behalf of Don Gerardo Urbina. The attached property remained in the
possession of the debtor, Rastrollo, who, with the consent of the attorney for the plaintiff,
sold the same to the Manila Fire Department. Rastrollo failed to deliver the proceeds of the
sale, which took place late in March of this year, to the attorney for the plaintiff, and only
deposited the same in the court on the 4th day of June of this year, the day following the
filing of the complaint charging him with the crime of embezzlement (estafa).
HELD: If the acts of which the accused is charged constitute any crime whatever it would
be that of malversation of property attached by judicial order — the crime defined and
punished in article 395 in connection with articles 390 and 392 of the Penal Code. The act
could not be regarded as constituting estafa under paragraph 5 of article 535 of the Code,
because the property alleged to have been misapplied was not the subject of a mere private
bailment but of a judicial deposit. This gives the depositary a character equivalent to that of
a public official, and a breach of his obligation is similar to the violation of the obligations
imposed by public office.
HELD: However, as the accused, Rastrollo, in selling the said hose, acted with the
knowledge and consent of the attorney for his creditor, since it is proved that the said
attorney agreed with the depositary that the proceeds of the sale should be delivered to
him, and inasmuch as there is no proof, on the other hand, that the depositary, Rastrollo,
appropriated or applied the proceeds of the sale of the hose to his own use or that of others,
but has deposited the same in court, although somewhat tardily, it is evident that the
defendant has contracted no criminal liability. His act does not include all of the elements
which constitute the crime of malversation, or of any other crime, and the irregularity noted
in his conduct is chargeable to the attorney for the creditor who might have been prejudiced
thereby.

Sulapas Report - Art. 219220221222 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sulapas Report - Art. 219220221222 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRIMINAL LAW II: Crimes Committed by Public Officers

ART. 219, 220, 221,

Presented by: REYNAN R. SULAPAS

Art. 219. Failure of a responsible public officer to render

1. That the offender is a public officer;

I. Purpose of the Law

II. Construction of “Any public officer who unlawfully leaves”

1. That the offender is a public officer;

I. Illegal use of Public Funds or Property is also known as

II. Variation of Penalty under Art. 220 is contingent upon the

III. Technical Malversation presupposes existence of a law or

IV. Criminal Intent is NOT an element of Technical Malversation. (Reyes,

• HELD: Mayor Ysidoro is GUILTY of technical malversation.

Points of Distinction Technical Malversation (Art. 220) Malversation (Art. 217)

1. FAILURE TO MAKE PAYMENT

2. REFUSING TO MAKE DELIVERY

1. That the public officer has Government funds in his possession;

1. Malice is material. (Reyes, RPC Annotated, 21st Ed., pp. 553)

Article 222. Officers included in the preceding provisions. - The

I. PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS DEEMED LIABLE UNDER ART. 217-221.

2. Administrator or depository of funds or property attached, seized, or deposited by

II. PURPOSE OF ART 222

• To extend the provisions of the Code on malversation to private individuals. (People v.

III. CONSTRUCTION OF THE TERM “ADMINISTRATOR”

III. CONSTRUCTION OF THE TERM “ADMINISTRATOR”

III. CONSTRUCTION OF THE TERM “ADMINISTRATOR”

III. CONSTRUCTION OF THE TERM “ADMINISTRATOR”

IV. PRIVATE PROPERTY IS INCLUDED PROVIDED IT IS ATTACHED, SEIZED, OR

IV. PRIVATE PROPERTY IS INCLUDED PROVIDED IT IS ATTACHED, SEIZED, OR

2. Writ of Attachment - A writ of preliminary attachment is a provisional remedy issued

IV. PRIVATE PROPERTY IS INCLUDED PROVIDED IT IS ATTACHED, SEIZED, OR

3. Sequestration or Judicial Deposit (Art. 2005-2008, NCC)- The deposit of a thing in

V. SANDIGANBAYAN IS DEPRIVED OF JURISDICTION OVER A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL

VII. Illustration of a private individual implicated for malversation.

US V. Rastrollo, GR. No. 202, September 21, 1901

VII. Illustration of a private individual implicated for malversation.

VII. Illustration of a private individual implicated for malversation.

You might also like