G.R. No. L-5952, October 24, 1911
THE UNITED STATES vs. RUFINO PONTE, ET AL.

FACTS

Rufino Ponte, the municipal treasurer of Calabanga, Ambos Camarines, was charged with malversation of public funds under Act No. 1740 for misappropriating P3,795.93. The other defendantsPedro Pedraza (janitor) and five municipal policemen (Juan Alamida, Ignacio Narvades, Agapito Cada, Alejandro Metram, and Esteban Verata)were charged with directly aiding Ponte by taking the safe containing the funds from the municipal treasury and carrying it to another location. The policemen demurred to the information, arguing that as mere accomplices, they could not be liable under Act No. 1740 , which they claimed only penalized the bonded officer or employee who had charge of the funds. The trial court sustained the demurrer, holding that the policemen, not having legal charge of the funds by reason of their office, could not commit malversation; instead, their acts might constitute robbery or another property crime.

ISSUE

Whether the municipal policemen, who directly participated in removing the safe containing public funds, may be held liable as principals in the crime of malversation under Act No. 1740 , despite not having official custody of the funds.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s order sustaining the demurrer. The Court held that the information charged the policemen as coprincipals, not mere accomplices, because they directly aided in the commission of the crime, which could not have been accomplished without their participation. Citing commentaries on the Spanish Penal Code (which is analogous to Act No. 1740 ), the Court ruled that all persons who participate in the crime of malversationwhether as principals, accomplices, or abettorsare liable for the same offense, even if they do not personally hold the public office that gives custody of the funds. The crime is defined by the act of misappropriating public funds, and those who collaborate in its execution are equally guilty. Thus, the demurrer was overruled, and the case was remanded for trial.