SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

G.R. No. L-5337 February 10, 1910
UNITED STATES vs. MACARIO SAGUN -->

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-5337 February 10, 1910

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

A. Cruz Herrera, for appellant.
Office of the Solicitor-General Harvey, for appellee.

MORELAND, J.:

In this case the following information was filed against the accused:

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 this court during the months of January, February, and March of the same year, paying over only the sum of P57.50.

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 treasurer 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.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

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.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

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 not 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, knowing that it was a mistake and realizing that to take 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 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 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.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

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.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

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.