Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1909 > January 1909 Decisions > G.R. No. 4676 January 19, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO TOGONON

012 Phil 516:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 4676. January 19, 1909. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PEDRO TOGONON, Defendant-Appellee.

Attorney-General Araneta, for Appellant.

No appearance for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. FAILURE TO ACCOUNT FOR PUBLIC FUNDS OR PROPERTY. — Defendant, as municipal president, received from the lessee a certain sum of money as rent for a house belonging to the municipality and failed or refused to account for the money so received: Held, That the act of the municipal president falls under the provisions of section 1 of Act No. 1740, an Act providing for the punishment of public officials and employees who fail or refuse to properly account for public funds or property entrusted to their care.


D E C I S I O N


ARELLANO, C.J. :


A criminal complaint was filed against the accused for the reason that in the months of October, November, and December, 1907, being at that time municipal president of the town of Corella, Province of Cebu, he received from W. Jayne Fosbury, superintendent of schools, the sum of P60 as rent for a house owned by the municipality which the said teacher had occupied during the quarter ending December 1907. That by reason of his office, it was the duty of the said Pedro Togonon to take charge of the amount received by him as rental from municipal property and to deposit the same, as required by law, at the treasury of the said municipality, but that he willfully, unlawfully and feloniously refused and failed to account for it, and applied said amount to his own use. All contrary to law.

The complaint was demurred to on the ground that the facts alleged therein did not constitute a violation of Act No. 1740. The Court of First Instance of Cebu, before whom the complaint was presented, sustained the demurrer on the 24th of March, 1908, thereupon the fiscal appealed to this court. The appeal having been heard it appears:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

That the trial court sustained the demurrer and ordered the complaint dismissed for the following reasons: That Act No. 1740 punishes persons who misappropriate funds that are in their hands by reason of their office; but that the court was not aware of any law by which it may be considered that the money received by the accused president, in the manner in which it was received, passed into his hands by reason of his office. That in a demurrer, nothing but the facts contained in the complaint are admitted and that the allegation made therein that the said funds which passed into the possession of the accused under the circumstances set forth, were in his hands by reason of his office, is not a fact stated in the complaint, but the expression of an opinion of the fiscal, a thing which is not admitted by the demurrer in question. That the facts set forth in the complaint may serve as the basis for the presentation of a complaint under the Penal Code in force, but it is not for the court to determine which of its provisions are applicable to the case. For this reason the fiscal was ordered to file a complaint in accordance with the law and the facts set forth. In this instance the fiscal alleges that the complaint presented is in accordance with the law and the facts set forth, and cites section 1 of Act No. 1740 which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Any bonded officer or employee of the Insular Government, or of any provincial or municipal government, or of the city of Manila, and and other person who, having charge, by reason of his office or employment, of Insular, provincial or municipal funds or property, or of funds or property of the city of Manila, or of trust or other funds by law required to be kept or deposited by or with such officer, employee, or other person, or mayor with any public office, treasury, or other depositary, fails or refuses to account for the same, or makes personal use of such funds or property, or of any part thereof, or abstracts or misappropriates the same, or any part thereof, or is guilty of any malversation with reference to such funds or property, or through his abandonment, fault, or negligence permits any other person to abstract, misappropriate, or make personal use of the same, shall, upon conviction, be punished by imprisonment for not less than two months nor more than ten years and, in the discretion of the court, by a fine of not more than the amount of such funds and the value of such property,"

and the question is, he says, whether the words "any other person who, having charge, by reason of his office or employment, of municipal funds, or of other funds by law required to be kept or deposited by or with such officer, employee, or other person who refuses or fails to account for the same, or makes personal use of such funds or property," may be applied to a municipal president who, as such president, receives the rentals of property owned by the municipality and fails or refuses to account for, or makes personal use, of the said funds. And his opinion is that they may be so applied.

There is no question but that they are applicable in the same manner and for the same reason that the provision, of articles 390, 391, and 392 of the Penal Code, which the said Act of the Philippine Commission has amended and repealed, would apply. The purpose of the Act was the formal repeal of article 392 as to the distinctions and subdistinctions stated in said article, and maintains the leading idea of the crime, distinguishing it from that of estafa committed by a private person. It being charged in the complaint that the accused, by reason of his office as municipal president, received money that belonged to and was owing the municipality, it is properly alleged that he received and kept it in his possession by reason of his office. And if, as averred in the complaint, he made personal use of such money without accounting for or delivering it as provided by law, it follows that the unlawful personal use made of the money so received comes within the meaning of, and the penalty imposed for, the crime of malversation defined in section 1 of Act No. 1740, the same as in articles 390, 391, and 392 of the Penal Code.

Therefore, the order of the court below sustaining the demurrer is hereby reversed, the dismissal of the complaint is set aside, and the trial shall proceed in accordance with the law. No special ruling is made as to costs.

Torres, Mapa, Johnson, Carson, Willard and Tracey, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





January-1909 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 4000 January 5, 1909 - ANDRES ELUMBARING v. HERMOGENES ELUMBARING

    012 Phil 384

  • G.R. No. 4001 January 5, 1909 - SILVESTRA LUBRICO v. LEONA ARBADO

    012 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. 4393 January 8, 1909 - LA COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS v. CITY OF MANILA

    012 Phil 397

  • G.R. No. 4648 January 8, 1909 - CLAUS SPRECKELS, ET AL. v. D. H. WARD, ET AL.

    012 Phil 414

  • G.R. No. 4762 January 8, 1909 - ALBERTO LAGAHIT v. SIMEON NENGASCA, ET AL.

    012 Phil 423

  • G.R. No. 4841 January 8, 1909 - JAMES F. MACLEOD v. PHILIPPINE PUBLISHING COMPANY

    012 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. 5120 January 8, 1909 - TIMOTEO GONZALEZ v. GEORGE N. WOLFE

    012 Phil 436

  • G.R. No. 4680 January 9, 1909 - ROBERTO MORENO v. AGO CHI

    012 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. 4350 January 11, 1909 - MONICA CASON v. F. W. RICKARDS, ET AL.

    012 Phil 444

  • G.R. No. 4627 January 11, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. EL CHINO QUE-QUENCO

    012 Phil 449

  • G.R. No. 4634 January 11, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. UY-KUE-BENG

    012 Phil 451

  • G.R. No. 4089 January 12, 1909 - ARTURO PELAYO v. MARCELO LAURON, ET AL.

    012 Phil 453

  • G.R. No. 4604 January 12, 1909 - GUTIERREZ HERMANOS v. ANTONIO DE LA RIVA

    012 Phil 458

  • G.R. No. 4849 January 12, 1909 - TIMOTEO CASTRO, ET AL. v. ADOLPH WISLIZENUS, ET AL.

    012 Phil 468

  • G.R. No. 4596 January 13, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. ESTEBAN FORTALEZA

    012 Phil 472

  • G.R. No. 4810 January 13, 1909 - VICTORIA GARCIA v. B. MONTAGUE

    012 Phil 480

  • G.R. No. 4495 January 14, 1909 - TY SUE, ET AL. v. JOHN S. HORD

    012 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. 5050 January 14, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. GO-SIACO

    012 Phil 490

  • G.R. No. 4461 January 16, 1909 - MACARIO SAMSON v. VICENTE SALVILLA, ET AL.

    012 Phil 497

  • G.R. No. 3187 January 19, 1909 - MICHAEL SANDELIZ v. PAZ REYES

    012 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. 3966 January 19, 1909 - JUAN LEANO I, ET AL. v. AGAPITO LEANO

    012 Phil 508

  • G.R. No. 3988 January 19, 1909 - GUILLERMO YACAPIN v. JULIAN JIBERO

    012 Phil 510

  • G.R. No. 4563 January 19, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. GARINO SORIANO, ET AL.

    012 Phil 512

  • G.R. No. 4676 January 19, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO TOGONON

    012 Phil 516

  • G.R. No. 4720 January 19, 1909 - CARLOS GSELL v. VALERIANO VELOSO YAP-JUE

    012 Phil 519

  • G.R. No. 4750 January 19, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. RICARDO F. GUTIERREZ

    012 Phil 529

  • G.R. No. 4766 January 19, 1909 - ANG QUIAN CIEG, ET AL. v. JUAN TE CHICO, ET AL.

    012 Phil 533

  • G.R. No. 4915 January 19, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. VY CAN SIU

    012 Phil 540

  • G.R. No. 5049 January 19, 1909 - ALFREDO CHANCO v. ANACLETA MADRILEJOS, ET AL.

    012 Phil 543

  • G.R. No. 4765 January 20, 1909 - ANG SENG QUEN, ET AL. v. JUAN TE CHICO, ET AL.

    012 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 4291 January 21, 1909 - GUTIERREZ HERMANOS v. CUSTODIO DAUDEN

    012 Phil 551

  • G.R. No. 5101 January 21, 1909 - TEODORO M. BEECH v. A. S. CROSSFIELD, ET AL.

    012 Phil 555

  • G.R. No. 4721 January 23, 1904

    RICARDO v. BASILIO MAJINAY

    012 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. 4813 January 23, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. POTENCIANO SIAMSICO

    012 Phil 571

  • G.R. No. 3714 January 26, 1909 - ISABELO M. MONTANO v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT, ET AL.

    012 Phil 572

  • G.R. No. 3783 January 26, 1909 - DAMASO SANTIAGO, ET AL. v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    012 Phil 593

  • G.R. No. 4194 January 26, 1909 - KO BENGCO v. SHERIFF OF THE PROVINCE OF ILOILO, ET AL.

    012 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. 4374 January 26, 1909 - RUFINA ROCES v. FRANCISCO JALANDONI, ET AL.

    012 Phil 599

  • G.R. No. 4710 January 26, 1909 - LEON AGCAOILI v. BENITO ACASIO

    012 Phil 602

  • G.R. No. 4715 January 26, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. EL CHINO CHIA-TUA

    012 Phil 605

  • G.R. No. 4474 January 27, 1909 - BERNABE ALCERA v. SATURNINO NERY

    012 Phil 608

  • G.R. No. 4706 January 27, 1909 - RAMON PAPA v. FRANCISCO MARTINEZ

    012 Phil 613

  • G.R. No. 4816 January 27, 1909 - FRANCISCO Q. GONZALEZ v. CARLOS PALANCA TAN-GUINLAY

    012 Phil 617

  • G.R. No. 4725 January 28, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. JACINTO DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL.

    012 Phil 622

  • G.R. No. 4832 January 28, 1909 - MUÑOZ & CO. v. JOHN S. HORD

    012 Phil 624

  • G.R. No. 3016 January 29, 1909 - ROMAN CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH v. MUNICIPALITIES OF CALOOCAN, ET AL.

    012 Phil 639