Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1908 > March 1908 Decisions > G.R. No. L-4352 March 24, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. RICARDO BAYOT

010 Phil 518:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-4352. March 24, 1908. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RICARDO BAYOT, Defendant-Appellant.

Carlos Ledesma and Ramon Fernandez, for Appellant.

Attorney-General Araneta, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. FALSIFICATION OF A PUBLIC DOCUMENT; PUBLIC FUNCTIONARY. — The guilt of a public official charged with the falsification of a public document does not depend upon the advantage or profit which he may have obtained thereby.

2. ID.; MARKS UPON A PAY ROLL. — Upon the evidence adduced in this case: Held, That the vertical lines placed upon the day roll opposite certain names thereon did not mean that such persons were present the entire day, but that they performed all the work required on the day.


D E C I S I O N


WILLARD, J. :


During the month of April, 1907, and for several years prior thereto, the defendant was and had been the janitor of the city hall in the city of Manila. He had under his charge 12 or 15 men whose business it was to take care of and clean the building. In the month of April, one of these men was Manuel Manalo. The work assigned to him was the cleaning of the water-closets. The work done by all of these laborers had to be performed before the offices opened in the morning or after they were closed at night. The water-closets were cleaned only once a day and that work was done by Manuel Manalo in the morning before 8 o’clock. During the month of April he went to the building every day about half past 6 and performed this work, which was all the work that was assigned to him, and which was all the work which he had to perform during the entire day. He was not in the building any day after 9 a. m. There was evidence, however, that it was the duty of these men to remain in the building so that if any extraordinary work should be required of them they would be there to perform it. The evidence shows that some of the men were allowed to go away, and others stayed there and that those that stayed there did nothing except to perform the regular work assigned to them.

On the 1st of May, 1907, a pay roll was made out for the month of April. It contained the names of all the workmen and a square against each name for each day in the month. All of the square against each name of Manuel Manalo contain a vertical line. The defendant signed the following certificate upon this pay roll: "I certify that I have been in charge of the men whose names appear on the above roll during the period indicated, that the roll is correct, and that the labor has been performed as stated." Manuel Manalo received pay at the rate of 70 cents a day and for the month of April he was paid P21.

A complaint was filed against the defendant charging him, as a public official, with the falsification of a public document, to wit, this pay roll, it being alleged that the certificate which he attached thereto was false. He was convicted in the court below of the crime charged against him and has appealed.

To our minds the only question in the case is as to the meaning of the vertical lines placed in the square opposite the names of these laborers. It is claimed by the appellant that they only mean that the persons to whom the lines referred had performed upon the days mentioned the services which had been required of each one. If this is the correct meaning of these lines, then the certificate signed by the defendant was true, because it was proven that Manuel Manalo had performed during the month of April all the work which was assigned to him. It is claimed by the Government, however, that these lines indicate, not that Manuel Manalo performed all the work that was required of him during the day, but that he was present in the building during all the day and it relies upon the following statement made at the top of the payroll: "Mark the time each day in ink under the proper date, using full or fractional marks for part of a day as earned." The Attorney-General insists that, inasmuch as Manuel Manalo was not present all of the day, the time during which he was present all of the day, the time during which he was present should have been indicated by a fractional mark. There are no fractional marks upon this time roll. Mr. Dorrington, the then superintendent of public buildings and a witness for the Government, was asked: "What mark is generally made on the labor pay rolls to indicate a man has worked one-half a day?" and he answered: "I do not know what would be put there in a case of that kind." He further testified: "Q. Have you ever seen on the pay roll a man’s name for one half a day’s work? — A. Not that I recall; it may be possible in some cases; I do not recall."cralaw virtua1aw library

If that part of the certificate signed by the defendant which states that he had been in charge of the men was correct, and that part which states that the labor had been performed was correct, the only question is, Is that part of the certificate which says "that the roll is correct," false or true? After considerable hesitation we have come to the conclusion, in view of all the testimony in the case, that it can not be said that this statement was false; in other words, that the vertical lines do not necessarily mean that the person against whose name they appear was present in the building during every hour of the day. The defendant, therefore, can not be convicted of the crime of falsification of a public document by a public official.

There are some additional facts in the case not before stated, which to our mind have no bearing upon the precise question in this case, namely, whether the defendant is guilty of the crime charged against him, for the crime thus charged does not depend upon the advantage of profit which the defendant may obtain from the falsification. A defendant may be guilty of this crime without in any way profiting thereby. The additional facts referred to are the following:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

It was proven by the Government and admitted by the defendant, that during the month of April, and for sometime before, Manuel Manalo was and had been the defendant’s cook; that after he had finished his work at the city hall in the morning the defendant gave him money and sent him to the market where he bought provisions; and that he returned to the city hall, stayed there until about 9 o’clock, and then went to the defendant’s house where he worked as cook until about 2 o’clock in the afternoon and then went to his own house. For these services as a cook the defendant paid nothing, although he claims that he was educating the minor child of Manuel Manalo. That this conduct of the defendant in availing himself of the services of Manuel Manalo under the circumstances was grossly irregular and that it perhaps constitutes a crime under the provisions of the Penal Code is not to our minds decisive of the question here raised. However delinquent the defendant may have been, the question here is, Did his delinquency amount to the crime of the falsification of a public document? If it did not, he must be acquitted of the present charge and we can not inquire under this complaint as to what other offense he may have committed.

The judgment of the court below is reversed and the defendant is acquitted, with the costs of both instances’ de oficio.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa and Tracey, JJ., concur.

Johnson and Carson, JJ., dissent.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





March-1908 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-3457 March 2, 1908 - YU BUNUAN ET AL. v. ORESTES MARCAIDA

    010 Phil 265

  • G.R. No. L-4065 March 2, 1908 - BRUNO VILLANUEVA v. MAXIMA ROQUE

    010 Phil 270

  • G.R. No. L-3717 March 5, 1908 - FELIX VELASCO v. MARTIN MASA

    010 Phil 279

  • G.R. No. L-4237 March 5, 1908 - SERAFIN UY PIAOCO v. JOSE MCMICKING

    010 Phil 286

  • G.R. No. L-4447 March 6, 1908 - MURPHY v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS

    010 Phil 292

  • G.R. No. 4438 March 7, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JACINTO SUNGA, ET AL

    011 Phil 601

  • G.R. No. L-3811 March 7, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO BLANCO

    010 Phil 299

  • G.R. No. L-4026 March 7, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PASCUAL DULAY

    010 Phil 302

  • G.R. No. L-3880 March 9, 1908 - TEOPISTA CASTRO v. ANTONIO MARTINEZ GALLEGOS

    010 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. 4131 March 9, 1908 - SERAPIO AVERIA v. LUCIO REBOLDERA

    010 Phil 316

  • G.R. No. 4347 March 9, 1908 - JOSE ROGERS v. SMITH

    010 Phil 319

  • G.R. No. 3279 March 11, 1908 - CITY OF MANILA v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT ET AL.

    010 Phil 327

  • G.R. No. L-2129 March 12, 1908 - C. HEINZEN & CO. v. JAMES J. PETERSON, ET AL.

    010 Phil 339

  • G.R. No. L-3523 March 12, 1908 - CARIDAD MUGURUZA v. INT’L. BANKING CORP.

    010 Phil 347

  • G.R. No. L-3855 March 12, 1908 - EUFEMIA LORETO v. JULIO HERRERA

    010 Phil 354

  • G.R. No. L-3907 March 12, 1908 - ROMAN ABAYA v. DONATA ZALAMERO

    010 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. L-4085 March 12, 1908 - CARLS PALANCA TANGUINLAY v. FRANCISCO G. QUIROS

    010 Phil 360

  • G.R. No. L-4087 March 12, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. AMADOR BARRIOS

    010 Phil 366

  • G.R. No. L-4341 March 12, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. MARCOS ROJO

    010 Phil 369

  • G.R. No. L-469 March 13, 1908 - T. H. PARDO DE TAVERA v. HOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

    010 Phil 371

  • G.R. No. L-3848 March 13, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. ANDRES GIMENO

    010 Phil 380

  • G.R. No. 4146 March 13, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PETRA DE GUZMAN

    010 Phil 382

  • G.R. No. L-3951 March 14, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. FELICIANO GARCIA

    010 Phil 384

  • G.R. No. L-4169 March 14, 1908 - WILHELM BAUERMANN v. MAXIMA CASAS

    010 Phil 386

  • G.R. No. L-4205 March 16, 1908 - JULIAN CABAÑAS v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    010 Phil 393

  • G.R. No. L-4077 March 17, 1908 - MACARIA MATIAS v. AGUSTIN ALVAREZ

    010 Phil 398

  • G.R. No. L-4127 March 17, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CHARLES J. KOSEL

    010 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. 4051 March 18, 1908 - CATALINA BERNARDO v. VICENTE GENATO

    011 Phil 603

  • G.R. No. L-3606 March 18, 1908 - IGNACIO ACASIO v. FELICISIMA ALBANO

    010 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. L-3699 March 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. BENITO CUSI

    010 Phil 413

  • G.R. No. L-4007 March 18, 1908 - WARNER BARNES & CO. v. E. DIAZ & CO.

    010 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. L-4213 March 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. POTENCIANO REYES

    010 Phil 423

  • G.R. No. L-4233 March 18, 1908 - EXEQUIEL DELGADO v. MANUEL RIESGO

    010 Phil 428

  • G.R. No. L-4318 March 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. GENEROSO ACADEMIA

    010 Phil 431

  • G.R. No. L-4147 March 19, 1908 - AGRIPINO DE LA RAMA v. CONCEPCION SANCHEZ, ET AL.

    010 Phil 432

  • G.R. No. L-4209 March 19, 1908 - INTERNATIONAL BANKING CORP. v. PILAR CORRALES

    010 Phil 435

  • G.R. No. L-3904 March 20, 1908 - KO POCO v. H. B. McCOY

    010 Phil 442

  • G.R. No. L-4104 March 20, 1908 - JAO IGCO v. W. MORGAN SHUSTER

    010 Phil 448

  • G.R. No. L-4155 March 20, 1908 - RUPERTO BELZUNCE v. VALENTINA FERNANDEZ

    010 Phil 452

  • G.R. No. L-4158 March 20, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. MATEO CARIÑO

    010 Phil 456

  • G.R. No. L-4196 March 20, 1908 - BENWIT ULLMANN v. FELIX ULLMANN and CO.

    010 Phil 459

  • G.R. No. L-4241 March 20, 1908 - AGUSTIN G. GAVIERES v. ADMIN. F THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF LUISA

    010 Phil 472

  • G.R. No. L-4399 March 20, 1908 - BENITO LEGARDA v. S. L. P. ROCHA Y RUIZDELGADO

    010 Phil 474

  • G.R. No. L-4436 March 20, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO CASTRO DI TIAN LAY

    010 Phil 476

  • G.R. No. 4109 March 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JULIANA TORRES

    011 Phil 606

  • G.R. No. L-3968 March 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. MARCOS LOPEZ

    010 Phil 479

  • G.R. No. L-3975 March 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. ANGEL MARIN

    010 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. L-4167 March 21, 1908 - RAFAELA SALMO v. LUISA ICAZA

    010 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. L-4300 March 21, 1908 - MARIA BARRETTO v. LEONA REYES

    010 Phil 489

  • G.R. No. L-4324 March 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CASIMIRO OLLALES

    010 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. L-3550 March 23, 1908 - GO CHIOCO v. INCHAUSTI & CO.

    010 Phil 495

  • G.R. No. L-3780 March 23, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO SELLANO

    010 Phil 498

  • G.R. No. L-4132 March 23, 1908 - IN RE: MARIA SIASON Y MADRID DE LEDESMA

    010 Phil 504

  • G.R. No. L-4215 March 23, 1908 - LUCIO I. LIMPANGCO v. JUANA MERCADO

    010 Phil 508

  • G.R. No. L-4274 March 23, 1908 - JOSE ALANO v. JOSE BABASA

    010 Phil 511

  • G.R. No. L-4352 March 24, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. RICARDO BAYOT

    010 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. L-2674 March 25, 1908 - JOAQUIN JOVER Y COSTAS v. INSULAR GOV’T., ET AL.

    010 Phil 522

  • G.R. No. L-3357 March 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. A. W. PRAUTCH

    010 Phil 562

  • G.R. No. L-4012 March 25, 1908 - MAXIMO CORTES Y PROSPERO v. CITY OF MANILA

    010 Phil 567

  • G.R. No. L-4063 March 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN MARIÑO, ET AL.

    010 Phil 571

  • G.R. No. L-4091 March 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. BERNABE BACHO

    010 Phil 574

  • G.R. No. L-4354 March 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CANDIDO POBLETE

    010 Phil 578

  • G.R. No. L-4418 March 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. ANDRES V. ESTRADA

    010 Phil 583

  • G.R. No. L-3339 March 26, 1908 - ROSA LLORENTE v. CEFERINO RODRIGUEZ

    010 Phil 585

  • G.R. No. L-3812 March 26, 1908 - PHIL. SUGAR ESTATES DEV’T. CO. v. BARRY BALDWIN

    010 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. L-4100 March 26, 1908 - MARIA SINGAYAN v. CALIXTA MABBORANG

    010 Phil 601

  • G.R. No. L-4121 March 26, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO GARCIA

    010 Phil 603

  • G.R. No. L-4175 March 26, 1908 - A. W. BEAN v. B. W. CADWALLADER CO.

    010 Phil 606

  • G.R. No. L-4207 March 26, 1908 - JUAN VALLE v. SIXTO GALERA

    010 Phil 619

  • G.R. No. L-4265 March 26, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. LUIS PASCUAL

    010 Phil 621

  • G.R. No. L-4322 March 26, 1908 - INOCENTE MARTINEZ v. G. E. CAMPBELL

    010 Phil 626

  • G.R. No. L-4376 March 26, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. LIM SIP

    010 Phil 627

  • G.R. No. L-4420 March 26, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. NARCISO CAGUIMBAL

    010 Phil 630

  • G.R. No. 4160 March 26, 1908 - ANGEL GUSTILO, ET AL. v. FEDERICO MATTI, ET AL.

    011 Phil 611

  • G.R. No. 3539 March 27, 1908 - MANUEL RAMIREZ, ET AL. v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    011 Phil 617

  • G.R. No. 4372 March 27, 1908 - ENRIQUE M. BARRETTO v. CITY OF MANILA

    011 Phil 624

  • G.R. No. L-3612 March 27, 1908 - DOMINGO LIM v. JOSE LIM

    010 Phil 633

  • G.R. No. L-3762 March 27, 1908 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. ALEJANDRO AMECHAZURRA

    010 Phil 637

  • G.R. No. L-4037 March 27, 1908 - LIM JAO LU v. H. B. McCOY

    010 Phil 641

  • G.R. No. L-4200 March 27, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. SEGUNDO SAMONTE

    010 Phil 642

  • G.R. No. L-4203 March 27, 1908 - MANUEL CRAME SY PANCO v. RICARDO GONZAGA

    010 Phil 646

  • G.R. No. L-4469A March 27, 1908 - FELIPE G. CALDERON v. JOSE MCMICKING

    010 Phil 650

  • G.R. No. L-4017 March 28, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO MARIÑO

    010 Phil 652

  • G.R. No. L-3007 March 30, 1908 - ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH v. MUNICIPALITY OF BADOC

    010 Phil 659

  • G.R. No. L-4198 March 30, 1908 - JUAN MERCADO v. JOSE ABANGAN

    010 Phil 676

  • G.R. No. L-4222 March 30, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. BASILIO CERNIAS

    010 Phil 682

  • G.R. No. L-4281 March 30, 1908 - JOSE GARRIDO v. AGUSTIN ASENCIO

    010 Phil 691

  • G.R. No. L-4377 March 30, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE GARCIA GAVIERES

    010 Phil 694

  • G.R. No. L-3469 March 31, 1908 - JOSEFA AGUIRRE v. MANUEL VILLABA

    010 Phil 701

  • G.R. No. L-4078 March 31, 1908 - CONCEPCION MENDIOLA v. NICOLASA PACALDA

    010 Phil 705

  • G.R. No. L-4257 March 31, 1908 - SIMON MOSESGELD SANTIAGO v. RUFINO QUIMSON ET AL.

    010 Phil 707