Palma Gil v.

People
GR No. 73642
1 September 1989
Crimes Committed by Public Officers (Art. 203 to 245)
Art. 220 – Illegal Use of Public Funds
Facts:
That on or about the 3rd day of July, 1981, in the municipality of Caraga, Davao Oriental,
Restituto Palma Gil, a Municipal Mayor of Caraga, Davao Oriental and Eusebio G. Pantillo, a
Municipal Treasurer of said municipality and as such, taking advantage of their public positions
and in relation thereto, and without authority of law, diverted and applied a public fund under
their administration, which was appropriated for the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) of the
Municipality of Caraga in the fiscal year 1981, in the amount of P 78,000.00 to a public use,
other than that for which said fund was appropriated by law.
Issue:
NO. Whether or not there a case of technical malversation is present.
Ruling:
In convicting Mayor Palma Gil and Municipal Treasurer Eusebio G. Pantillo of the crime of
technical malversation and Mayor Palma Gil and Municipal Secretary Nestor Pelayo of the
crime of falsification of document, the Sandiganbayan relied on the supposed several flaws in
the claims of the defense which engendered in the mind of the Court serious doubts as to the
truth of the testimonies of the witnesses.
This is incorrect.
The well-entrenched principle is that the prosecution must rely on the strength of its evidence
and not on the weakness of the defense. Following this principle, we find, on the contrary, that
there are flaws in the evidence of the prosecution which engender reasonable doubt in our
minds as to the culpability of the petitioners.
The Sangguniang Bayan found that the mayor actually advanced his personal money to begin
these other projects which were completed and that the reverted CIP funds were used to
reimburse the mayor for some of his expenses.
Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code provides 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. In this instant case, this requirement is not present because as
explained by Governor Rabat, CIP funds by nature are not earmarked for a particular project but
are for community improvement purposes.