G.R. No. 33176 / December 29, 1930
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS vs. BENIGNO MARINO

FACTS

The appellant, Benigno Marino, was a bonded warehouseman for the Bureau of Commerce and Industry from 1919 to January 1929, responsible for the custody of government property and materials on Engineer Island, Manila. His duties included filling requisition orders and managing a staff of about 25 subordinates. In January 1929, an investigative committee led by Auditor Federico Romero conducted a physical inventory of the materials under Marino’s custody. The investigation revealed a shortage of government property, primarily timber, valued at P95,965.70. Marino participated in and signed a statement acknowledging the inventory process. While there was no direct evidence that Marino personally misappropriated the missing materials, evidence indicated that the loss occurred due to his negligence and over-reliance on his subordinates. He had been aware of shortages for two years prior to the investigation but failed to take corrective action.

ISSUE

Whether the appellant is criminally liable under Section 2672 of the Administrative Code for the disappearance of government property in his custody, despite the absence of evidence showing personal misappropriation.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court held that Section 2672 of the Administrative Code penalizes not only the direct misappropriation of government property by the custodian but also makes the custodian criminally liable for losses resulting from their abandonment or negligence, which enables others to abstract the property. The Court found that the appellant’s negligence and failure to exercise due care in safeguarding the propertyevidenced by his over-reliance on subordinates and inaction despite prior knowledge of shortagesdirectly led to the substantial loss. The defense’s arguments regarding possible losses from sawing, waste, or classification errors were deemed insufficient to excuse his liability. The appellant’s guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The penalty imposed by the lower court (imprisonment, fine, indemnification, disqualification from public office, and costs) was upheld.