Practice question
An accountable mayor deliberately diverts supplies bought for a feeding program, specifically appropriated by ordinance, to a different public housing program. No lawful augmentation or other authority permits the diversion. She receives no private benefit and argues that helping another public program necessarily defeats Article 220. Under Ysidoro, which answer is correct?
- Public benefit automatically makes the diversion lawful.
- No personal benefit is needed for technical malversation; the proved unauthorized diversion to another public use may satisfy Article 220.
- Any ordinance becomes irrelevant once an official acts.
- The case must be treated as a private debt only.
- Technical malversation exists only if the supplies are sold for personal gain.
Legal references
- Revised Penal Code, Act No. 3815, specified articles, as amended: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/28/20426; Articles 203, 210–212, 217, 220 and 222, as amended.
- RA 10951, current amended RPC provisions and monetary thresholds: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2017/ra_10951_2017.html; Section 40, Article 217.
- Ysidoro v People, G.R. No. 192330, November 14, 2012, main decision, technical malversation: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/nov2012/gr_192330_2012.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.