Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 71 views

    Abdulla Vs People

    Uploaded by

    Janusz Paolo Larin
    Petitioner Norma Abdulla was a public officer tasked with administering public funds for Sulu State College. She conspired with Mahmud Darkis to apply for payment of wages for casual employees, totaling 40,000 pesos, which was intended for teacher salary differentials. Abdulla was charged with technical malversation while Darkis and another were acquitted. The court found Abdulla not guilty as criminal intent was absent. The elements of illegal use of public funds were not met as the funds were from a lump sum appropriation and thus elements regarding specific fund appropriation by law were not present.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Abdulla Vs People

    Uploaded by

    Janusz Paolo Larin
    71 views1 page
    Petitioner Norma Abdulla was a public officer tasked with administering public funds for Sulu State College. She conspired with Mahmud Darkis to apply for payment of wages for casual employees, totaling 40,000 pesos, which was intended for teacher salary differentials. Abdulla was charged with technical malversation while Darkis and another were acquitted. The court found Abdulla not guilty as criminal intent was absent. The elements of illegal use of public funds were not met as the funds were from a lump sum appropriation and thus elements regarding specific fund appropriation by law were not present.

    Original Description:

    A sample digest for Crim 2

    Original Title

    Abdulla vs People

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Petitioner Norma Abdulla was a public officer tasked with administering public funds for Sulu State College. She conspired with Mahmud Darkis to apply for payment of wages for casual employees, totaling 40,000 pesos, which was intended for teacher salary differentials. Abdulla was charged with technical malversation while Darkis and another were acquitted. The court found Abdulla not guilty as criminal intent was absent. The elements of illegal use of public funds were not met as the funds were from a lump sum appropriation and thus elements regarding specific fund appropriation by law were not present.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    71 views1 page

    Abdulla Vs People

    Uploaded by

    Janusz Paolo Larin
    Petitioner Norma Abdulla was a public officer tasked with administering public funds for Sulu State College. She conspired with Mahmud Darkis to apply for payment of wages for casual employees, totaling 40,000 pesos, which was intended for teacher salary differentials. Abdulla was charged with technical malversation while Darkis and another were acquitted. The court found Abdulla not guilty as criminal intent was absent. The elements of illegal use of public funds were not met as the funds were from a lump sum appropriation and thus elements regarding specific fund appropriation by law were not present.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    NORMA ABDULLA VS.

    PEOPLE
    G.R. No.150129 APRIL 6,2005
    FACTS:
    Petitioners were working for the Sulu State College and were tasked and
    accountable for the public funds under their administration. They conspired and
    confederated with Mahmud Darkis to apply for the payment of wages of casuals to
    the tune of 40 000 pesos which was intended for the salary differentials of the
    secondary school teachers of the school. Both Darkis and Aguil were acquitted, but
    Abdulla was charged with technical malversation.
    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of the crime of illegal use of public
    funds
    HELD:
    No, Criminal intent is absent.
    Article 220 of the RPC provides for the elements:
    1.The offender is a public officer.
    2.That there is a public fund under his administration.
    3.That such public fund or property has been appropriated by law nor
    ordinance
    4.That he applies the same to a public use other than that for which
    such
    Fund or property has been approriated by law or ordinance.
    *Elements 2 and 3 are absent
    The fund is from the lump sum appropriation of RA 6688

    You might also like