Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1910 > February 1910 Decisions > G.R. No. 5337 February 10, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. MACARIO SAGUN

015 Phil 178:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 5337. February 10, 1910. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MACARIO SAGUN, Defendant-Appellant.

A. Cruz Herrera, for Appellant.

Solicitor-General Harvey, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. MISAPPROPRIATION; DUTY OF OFFICIALS TO TREAT GOVERNMENT FAIRLY, AND NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF MISTAKES. — The accounts of the defendant, a justice of the peace, were examined by an employee of the office of the local treasurer, who informed the defendant, as a result of such examination, that he should turn into the treasury a certain sum of money which appeared to be the amount due the Government from fees, fines, and costs collected by him. As a matter of fact, the total amount of such collections was much larger, and the defendant knowingly and improperly retained the balance until afterwards notified of the mistake: Held, That it is the duty of officials to act fairly in their dealings with the Government, and that one who, having the custody of public funds, takes advantage of a mistake in the examination of his accounts to retain in his possession funds which he should turn in to the treasury, converts to his own use the money thus improperly retained and is guilty of the crime of misappropriation.


D E C I S I O N


MORELAND, J. :


In this case the following information was filed against the accused:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In or about the month of April, 1908, the said accused, being a justice of the peace of Camiling, and as such, by reason of his office, having in his possession public moneys, maliciously and criminally failed to give account thereof and sought to appropriate to his own use the sum of P166 out of P223.50 which he had collected in his court during the month of January, February, and March of the same year, paying over only the sum of P57.50."cralaw virtua1aw library

It appears that the accused, being justice of the peace of the municipality of Camiling, Province of Tarlac, on or about the 1st of April, 1908, presented to the treasury of said municipality, for the purposes of a settlement, his accounts for fees, fines, and costs collected by him during the months of January, February, and March of said year, a written statement of the various fines he had received during said months; that said written statement was a correct statement of the moneys received; that said treasurer was very busy at the time of the presentation of said statement and the matter was turned over to a clerk in his office, Cecilio Torres, for a settlement of the same; that the latter, after having examined the accounts, came to the conclusion that the accused was indebted to the treasurer, for moneys in his hands belonging to the Government, in the sum of P57.50; that thereupon said accused paid over said sum and took a receipt therefor. A few days later the clerk of the accused called his attention to the fact that an error had been made by the treasurer in settling the accounts of the said accused. The accused immediately sent word to the treasurer and asked that his accounts be again examined. The clerk of the treasurer stated that he was very busy at that time but he would reexamine the accounts and inform the accused later if he discovered any errors. A few days afterwards, and on or about the 20th of April, the defendant was notified that, according to the result of the reexamination of the accounts, the accused still owed the treasurer the sum of P166. The accused immediately paid over that amount to the treasurer. These facts are undisputed.

Upon these facts the defendant was found guilty and condemned to six months’ imprisonment in the provincial jail of Tarlac and to pay the costs of the action.

We are of the opinion that the conclusion of the court that the defendant was guilty of the crime charged is sustained by the proofs. It is unquestioned that the defendant had collected during the months of January, February, and march the sum of P223.50. During the month of January he collected P182.50, the principal part of which was made up of two fines imposed and collected by him, one of P105 and the other of P60. The items constituting the account of the justice of the peace for these three months were very few in number. It is unbelievable that the accused, when he paid over to the treasurer the sum of P57.50, did not then know perfectly well that he owed the Government a much larger sum. In this particular case it is of no consequence that the treasurer did no ask more than P57.50. All public officials who have in their hands public moneys owe a duty to the Government, namely, the duty to pay over, not a portion, but all of said moneys. They owe the further duty of being fair to the Government, a duty which the accused failed to discharge in this case. He stood by and saw the receiving official make a clerical mistake in calculating the amount due from him to the Government, and took advantage of that mistake, advantage thereof was unfair and unjust. A different question would be presented if the accounts were long and intricate. In that case an honest mistake might be made by the accounting officer in the sum which should be paid to the receiving official. An honest mistake by an official when rendering his account and paying over money is not criminal. Under the circumstances of this case, however, by reason of the fewness of the items, the largeness of the sum in his hands, and the simplicity of the accounts, it is impossible to believe otherwise than that the accused knew at the time that he was not paying to the Government all the money that was due it. Thus willfully failing to live up to his known duty and obligation to the public he appropriated such money to his own use.

In view of the fact, however, that the money was later repaid upon the instance of the accused himself and without any request upon the part of the treasurer, we are of the opinion that the minimum penalty ought to be imposed.

The judgment of the court below is hereby modified and the defendant is sentenced to two months of imprisonment in the provincial jail of Tarlac and to pay the costs of this action. So ordered.

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




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






February-1910 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 5155 February 2, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. GABRIEL DIAZ

    015 Phil 123

  • G.R. No. 5312 February 2, 1910 - ENRIQUE MENDIOLA v. SIMEON A. VILLA

    015 Phil 131

  • G.R. No. 5160 February 3, 1910 - ENRIQUE F. SOMES v. RAFAEL MOLINA Y SALVADOR

    015 Phil 133

  • G.R. No. 5623 February 3, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE FELICIANO

    015 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. 5624 February 3, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. MARIANO FELICIANO

    015 Phil 144

  • G.R. No. 4150 February 10, 1910 - FELIX DE LOS SANTOS v. AGUSTINA JARRA

    015 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. 5025 February 10, 1910 - JOSE T. PATERNO v. CATALINA SOLIS

    015 Phil 153

  • G.R. No. 5097 February 10, 1910 - UNITED STATE v. PEDRO EDUARDO

    015 Phil 161

  • G.R. No. 5188 February 10, 1910 - LINO ALINDOGAN v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    015 Phil 168

  • G.R. No. 5197 February 10, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE GENATO

    015 Phil 170

  • G.R. No. 5337 February 10, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. MACARIO SAGUN

    015 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 5390 February 10, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. MIGUEL M.A DE TORO

    015 Phil 181

  • G.R. No. 5565 February 10, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. ALEXANDER McCORMICK

    015 Phil 185

  • G.R. No. 5588 February 10, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO BUGARIN

    015 Phil 189

  • G.R. No. 5412 February 12, 1910 - ANGEL ORTIZ v. RAMON GARCIA

    015 Phil 192

  • G.R. No. 5418 February 12, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. CECILIO TANEDO

    015 Phil 196

  • G.R. No. 3983 February 15, 1910 - SALVADOR OCAMPO v. TOMAS CABAÑGIS

    015 Phil 626

  • G.R. No. 4950 February 15, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO ALCANTARA

    015 Phil 202

  • G.R. No. 5219 February 15, 1910 - JOSE McMICKING v. PEDRO MARTINEZ

    015 Phil 204

  • G.R. No. 5566 February 15, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. BLAS MORO

    015 Phil 206

  • G.R. No. 5593 February 15, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. FELIX LARIOSA

    015 Phil 208

  • G.R. No. 3821 February 16, 1910 - LUCIA PEREZ v. DOMINGO CORTES

    015 Phil 211

  • G.R. No. 5193 February 16, 1910 - FERNANDO FERRER v. DOROTEA DIAZ

    015 Phil 219

  • G.R. No. 5252 February 16, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO MALIGALIG

    015 Phil 222

  • G.R. No. 5266 February 16, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. TORIBIO ABANTO

    015 Phil 223

  • G.R. No. 5516 February 16, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO SAMEA

    015 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 4320 February 10, 1910 - FRANCISCA PALET Y DE YEBRA v. ALDECOA & CO.

    015 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. 5168 February 19, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. NICOMEDES MORALES

    015 Phil 236

  • G.R. No. 5496 February 19, 1910 - MERCEDES MARTINEZ Y FERNANDEZ v. HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORP.

    015 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. 5161 February 21, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. MIKE BEECHAM

    015 Phil 272

  • G.R. No. 5577 February 21, 1910 - J. W. MEYERS v. WILLIAM THEIN

    015 Phil 303

  • G.R. No. 5359 February 23, 1910 - JOSE COJUANGCO v. MANUEL RODRIGUEZ

    015 Phil 311

  • G.R. No. 5439 February 23, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. PONCIANO SALAZAR

    015 Phil 315

  • G.R. No. 5162 February 26, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. MIKE BEECHAM

    015 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 5319 February 26, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. SABAS BAOIT

    015 Phil 338

  • G.R. No. 5478 February 26, 1910 - SERAFIN BELARMINO v. MIGUEL BAQUIZAL

    015 Phil 341

  • G.R. No. 5461 February 28, 1910 - PETRONILO DEL ROSARIO v. VICENTE QUIOGUE

    015 Phil 345