Practice question
An accountable public officer, through proved negligence, allows another person to take public money under his custody. He argues that Article 217 cannot apply because he did not personally receive the money. Which is correct?
- Personal receipt by the officer is indispensable in every malversation case.
- Negligence can never be relevant to malversation.
- Article 217 includes permitting another to take accountable public funds through abandonment or negligence.
- Only technical malversation can cover any missing public money.
- The money loses its public character when taken.
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.