Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1908 > October 1908 Decisions > G.R. No. 4778 October 9, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONINO ESPIÑOSA

011 Phil 432:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 4778. October 9, 1908. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANTONINO ESPIÑOSA, Defendant-Appellant.

Felix Ferrer for Appellant.

Attorney-General Villamor for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS; SUFFICIENCY OF PROOF. — Where a conviction rests upon the testimony of an official expert witness, it is, necessary that his evidence be direct and positive.


D E C I S I O N


TRACEY, J. :


On the 19th of March, 1906, the appellant was on trial for malversation of public moneys while holding his office of treasurer of Concepcion, Tarlac, when the Government building burned, and with it all the papers in the case, including the evidence. At a retrial in September, 1907, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to a fine of P101.67, or 10 per cent of the amount of the defalcation, with subsidiary imprisonment.

On the 28th of April, 1905, Mariano Aguilar, agent of the provincial treasurer, on searching the safe in the barrio treasury, discovered a shortage of P1,016.68. On notifying the provincial treasurer of the shortage he was directed to take charge of the treasury, which Espiñosa was ordered to turn over to him. According to the accused and his witnesses, when the count of the money in the safe was finished at noon he informed the agent that there was nothing missing and that the balance was in his drawer, and asked him if he wished to count it, to which the agent replied that he would do so after dinner. Returning at 2 o’clock, the agent declined to undertake the recount, including the additional money, and at 3 o’clock telephoned the provincial treasurer, and received from him the instruction to take charge. The rest of the afternoon was spent in inventorying and turning over the property, and the next day the agent awaited the coming of the fiscal to advise him whether to accept the balance of the money, which had not been in the safe, which was finally turned over to him about 5 o’clock.

The reason assigned for having a part of the money in the drawer, instead of the safe, where the law requires it to be regularly kept, was that when the agent arrived a count and verification of it was going on, and the uncounted portion was temporarily placed in the drawer for safety, the counted packages being secured in the safe.

The testimony of the accused as to the occurrence is supported in important particulars by that of one of the Government witnesses, Benito Suarez, the former municipal president, as well as by Iñigo Espiritu, one of the office clerks who was present at the transaction, while the prosecution rests virtually upon the narrative of Aguilar alone, who admitted that he had never asked or required of Espinosa a return of the money claimed to be missing. that he could not remember whether he had asked him where was the missing fund which he had noted but "that he had the idea that the money was missing,’’ and finally, positively, that he had not asked him for its whereabouts and he was unable to remember whether or not Espinosa had ever told him that the missing money was in another part of the office.

In our opinion, the prosecution in this case has failed, less on account of the affirmative defense, which, however, is tenable, than because of its own inherent weakness. It is impossible to sustain a conviction upon the testimony of a single witness, who admits his own want of recollection as to the most important particulars of the disputed transaction, such as lay particularly within his notice as an official charged with the duty of acting upon them and reporting them. The testimony of such expert official witnesses should be definite and precise.

The judgment of the Court of First Instance is reversed and the accused is absolved. So ordered.

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

Separate Opinions


WILLARD, J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I think that the judgment of conviction should be sustained. Aguilar testified that when he finished counting the money in the safe, he asked the defendant if he had any more money, and the defendant stated that he had not. The document which the defendant signed shows that there was a shortage of P1,016. This money was not delivered until the afternoon of the following day. The provincial fiscal had gone to Concepcion and was engaged that day in preparing a criminal complaint against the defendant.

To my mind, the testimony of the defendant and his brother-in-law, who was his clerk, is not worthy of belief. It seems incredible that Aguilar, who had gone there for the express purpose of counting the money, should, after he had counted a part of it, refuse to receive other money which the treasurer then ordered to him. No reason of any kind appears in the case why he should have refused to receive money which was there in the room and which, according to the defendant, was then shown to him. The municipal president and the defendant’s brother-in-law testified that the money which they saw in the defendant’s desk was apparently copper coins in sacks and the defendant himself at one time testified that he kept the money that was wanting in his desk because the safe was not large enough to hold it. When he finally turned over the money, the amount of copper coin delivered was less than a peso.

As the Attorney-General says, if, during the counting, the defendant offered to turn over to Aguilar this money, it is difficult to understand why he should have signed without protest Exhibit A, which showed that the amount of money on hand was less than the amount which should have been on hand. That the subsequent delivery on the 29th of the P919, which appears as a note to Exhibit A, was made at a time different from the time of the signing of the body of Exhibit A, appears from the fact that the witnesses to the separate signatures are different.

It seems clear to me that there was a deficit in the defendant’s accounts on the 28th and that the provincial fiscal being in to town on the 29th preparing papers for the defendant’s prosecution, he was able on that day to raise the money which was wanting, and then paid it over.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






October-1908 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 2525 October 1, 1908 - MODESTO PARAS v. INSULAR GOV’T., ET AL.

    011 Phil 378

  • G.R. No. 2527 October 1, 1908 - LUCAS V. CARRILLO v. THE INSULAR GOV’T., ET AL.

    011 Phil 379

  • G.R. No. 4316 October 1, 1908 - FROELICH & KUTTNER v. COLLECTION OF CUSTOMS

    011 Phil 380

  • G.R. No. 4452 October 1, 1908 - JUANA PICHAY v. EULALIO QUEROL, ET AL.

    011 Phil 386

  • G.R. No. 4453 October 1, 1908 - IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE FLORA MARTINEZ

    011 Phil 389

  • G.R. No. 4893 October 1, 1908 - PASAY ESTATE CO. v. HON. SIMPLICIO DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

    011 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. 4187 October 5, 1908 - VICENTA LIMJUCO v. MAURICIA GANARA

    011 Phil 393

  • G.R. No. 3551 October 6, 1908 - VICTOR SANCHEZ v. CIRILO PASCUAL

    011 Phil 395

  • G.R. No. 4066 October 6, 1908 - ALIPIA DUMLAO v. CANDIDO POBRE II

    011 Phil 400

  • G.R. No. 4463 October 6, 1908 - LUIS R. YANGCO v. ARSENIO CRUZ HERRERA, ET AL.

    011 Phil 402

  • G.R. No. 3354 October 8, 1908 - ROMAN CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH v. MUN. OF CEBU

    011 Phil 405

  • G.R. No. 4033 October 8, 1908 - MIGUEL BOGA TAN CHIAO BOC, ET AL. v. GREGORIO SAJO VECINA

    011 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. 4267 October 9, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. GAUDENCIO CABUNCAL

    011 Phil 415

  • G.R. No. 4309 October 9, 1908 - DAVID CLETO v. JULIANA SALVADOR, ET AL.

    011 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. 4527 October 9, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CLEMENTE ROQUE

    011 Phil 422

  • G.R. No. 4561 October 9, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. FORTUNATO MEÑEZ

    011 Phil 430

  • G.R. No. 4778 October 9, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONINO ESPIÑOSA

    011 Phil 432

  • G.R. No. 4541 October 12, 1908 - N. T. HASHIM CO. v. ESTATE OF JOHN KERNAN

    011 Phil 435

  • G.R. No. 4590 October 12, 1908 - MARIANO LIMJAP v. TOMASA VERA MOGUER

    011 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. 4483 October 14, 1908 - IGNACIO SAN JOSE, ET AL. v. PEDRO ORTEGA, ET AL.

    011 Phil 442

  • G.R. No. 4432 October 15, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. AGRIPINO MACASAET

    011 Phil 447

  • G.R. No. 4736 October 15, 1908 - JEREMIAH J. HARTY v. FRANCISCO SANDIN, ET AL.

    011 Phil 450

  • G.R. No. 4480 October 16, 1908 - KER & CO. v. ANASTASIA DE LA RAMA

    011 Phil 453

  • G.R. No. 4608 October 16, 1908 - MURPHY, MORRIS & CO. v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    011 Phil 456

  • G.R. No. 3356 October 21, 1908 - ROMAN CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH, ET AL. v. MUN. OF LANGARAN, ET AL.

    011 Phil 460

  • G.R. No. 4772 October 21, 1908 - DAVID FRANK v. GEO. N. WOLFE

    011 Phil 466

  • G.R. No. 4781 October 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. BALTASAR SARMIENTO

    011 Phil 474

  • G.R. No. 4342 October 22, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. MERCEDES ALABANZA

    011 Phil 475

  • G.R. No. 4532 October 22, 1908 - B. H. MACKE v. JOSE RUBERT

    011 Phil 480

  • G.R. No. 4793 October 22, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. LIM SUCO

    011 Phil 484

  • G.R. No. 4801 October 22, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. MARTIN GABOYA

    011 Phil 489

  • G.R. No. 4406 October 23, 1908 - ANTONIA O. VALENCIA v. JUAN M. JIMENEZ, ET AL.

    011 Phil 492

  • G.R. No. 4571 October 24, 1908 - IRINEO DE GUZMAN v. PASCUAL BALARAG

    011 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. 4525 October 27, 1908 - FELICIANA BANTUG v. AMBROSIO DEL ROSARIO

    011 Phil 511

  • G.R. No. 4691 October 27, 1908 - REGOLETA ALTMAN v. COMMANDING OFFICER

    011 Phil 516

  • G.R. No. 4833 October 27, 1908 - RAFAEL LINSANGAN v. SIMEON LINSANGAN

    011 Phil 521

  • G.R. No. 4441 October 28, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. EUSEBIO BELLO

    011 Phil 526

  • G.R. No. 4539 October 28, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. NICOLAS ARCEO

    011 Phil 530

  • G.R. No. 4543 October 29, 1908 - MIGUEL SAMSON v. PAULINO DIONISIO, ET AL.

    011 Phil 538

  • G.R. No. 4812 October 30, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. ROMUALDO MENA

    011 Phil 543

  • G.R. No. 4687 October 31, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CIRIACO MANLIMOS

    011 Phil 547