"x x x.
Second, we disagree with the Ombudsman’s insinuations that Dr. Apolonio’s acts may be considered technical malversation and, therefore, constitute a crime. InParungao v. Sandiganbayan, et al.,[59] the Court held that in the absence of a law or ordinance appropriating the public fund allegedly technically malversed for another public purpose, an accused did not commit technical malversation as set out in Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code.[60] In that case, the Court acquitted Oscar P. Parungao (then a municipal treasurer) of the charges of technical malversation even though he used funds allotted (by a Department of Environment and Natural Resources circular) for the construction of a road project and re-allocated it to the labor payroll of differentbarangays in the municipality. The Court held that since the budget for the construction of the road was not appropriated by a law or by an ordinance for that specified public purpose, the re-allocation of the budget for use as payroll was not technical malversation.
Similarly, in this case, the budget allocation for the workshop was neither appropriated by law nor by ordinance since DBM National Budget Circular No. 442 is not a law or an ordinance. Even if it had been, however, it must be noted that DBM National Budget Circular No. 442 only prescribed the amounts to be used for any workshop, conference or seminar. It did not appropriate the specific amounts to be used in the event in question.
Therefore, when Dr. Apolonio approved the purchase of the gift cheques using a portion of the workshop’s budget, her act did not amount to technical malversation. Moreover, if her acts did, in fact, constitute technical malversation, the Ombudsman ought to have filed a criminal case against her for violation of Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code.
x x x."
