FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES

1. ARTICLE 220
ILLEGAL USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR PROPERTY

2. Article 220. Illegal use of public funds or property. - Any public officer who
shall apply any public fund 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 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 per cent of the sum misapplied.

3. 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 or property 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.

4. There is no technical malversation if there is no law or ordinance appropriating
public funds or property for a particular purpose. The Court has unequivocably ruled
in Parungao vs. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 96025, May 15,1991 that in the absence of a law or ordinance appropriating
the public fund allegedly technically malversed (in that case, the absence of any law
or ordinance appropriating the CRBI fund for the concreting of Barangay Jalung
Road), the use thereof for another public purpose (there, for the payment of wages of
laborers working on projects other than the Barangay Jalung Road) will not make the
accused guilty of violation of Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code. (Abdulla vs.
People, G.R. No. 150129, April 6, 2005)

5. The public funds or property must be appropriated by law or ordinance for a particular
purpose.
The resolution of the authorities of the Mindanao Agricultural college, a public entity, that the
amounts paid by the students, to answer for the payment of the instruments or equipment broken by
them, should be later refunded, nowhere implied that the repayment was to be made precisely out of the
money received, and as the refund could be made out of any available funds of the college, there was no
appropriation for a particular response that was violated by the accused. (People vs. Montemayor, et al.,
G.R. No. L-17449, Aug. 30, 1962)
Can the accused be held liable for malversation under Art. 217, if the funds applied to a public use are
not appropriated by law or ordinance?
Yes. That is appropriating public funds under Art. 217, because he disposed of the same without
right.

6. Example of illegal use of public funds.
When the school teachers and other municipal officers were unable to receive
their salaries because the treasurer applied the funds, appropriated from the
payment of said salaries, to another public use, there is detriment and
hindrance to the public service. (U.S. vs. Ejercito, 6 Phil. 80)

7. llegal use of public funds or property distinguished from malversation
under Art. 217.
(1) The offenders are accountable public officers in both crimes.
(2) The offender in illegal use of public funds or property does not derive any
personal gain or profit; in malversation, the offender in certain cases profits
from the proceeds of the crime.
(3) In illegal use, the public fund or property is applied to another public use;
in malversation, the public fund or property is applied to the personal use and
benefit of the offender or of another person.

8. Technical malversation is not included in nor does it necessarily include the crime of
malversation of public funds.
A comparison of Art. 217 and Art. 220 reveals that their elements are entirely distinct
and different from the other. In malversation of public funds, the offender misappropriates
public funds for his own personal use or allows any other person to tale such public funds for
the latter’s personal use. In technical malversation, the public officer applies public funds
under his administration not for his or another's personal use, but to a public use other than
that for which the fund was appropriated by law or ordinance. Technical malversation is,
therefore, not included in nor does it necessarily include the crime of malversation of public
funds charged in the information. Since the acts constituting the crime of technical
malversation were not alleged in the information, and since technical malversation does not
include, or is not necessarily included in the crime of malversation of public funds, he cannot
resultantly be convicted of technical malversation. (Parungao vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R.
No. 96025, May 15, 1991)