GR 1013; (April, 1903) (Digest)
G.R. No. 1013 : April 8, 1903
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. SIMPLICIO SENSANO, defendant-appellant.
FACTS:
Simplicio Sensano, the municipal treasurer of Rosales, Pangasinan, was charged with the embezzlement of $320 in public funds under Article 390, No. 2 of the Penal Code. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the testimony of John Douglas, a deputy provincial treasurer. Douglas was sent to remove Sensano from office and take possession of the municipal safe. On February 1, 1902, Douglas made an initial, incomplete count of the cash in the safe, finding $1,155.01. He locked and sealed the safe. Sensano left town the next day and did not return as agreed to finalize the count. On February 10, Douglas conducted a full, detailed count and found only $1,033. Comparing this with the treasurer’s books, which showed a balance of $1,303.40, and after accounting for $50 allegedly paid to teachers but later paid by Douglas, a shortage of $320.40 was alleged. The trial court found Sensano guilty and sentenced him to three years and two months of imprisonment at hard labor. After the conviction, Sensano moved for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence: a notarial act showing that on June 9, 1902, when the safe was turned over to his successor, it contained $1,348.23an amount exceeding the book balance by $6.55, with the seal appearing unbroken.
ISSUE:
Whether a new trial should be granted based on the newly discovered evidence presented by the accused.
RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of conviction and ordered a new trial. The Court found it just and proper to grant the accused an opportunity to present the newly discovered evidence regarding the contents of the safe on June 9, 1902. The Government would also have the opportunity to present evidence to show whether the safe’s seal had been broken or if the safe was accessible to the accused or others between February 23 and June 9. The Court noted that evidence of false entries in the treasurer’s books regarding payments to teachers, if substantiated, could constitute the separate offense of falsification of an official document under Articles 300 and 301 of the Penal Code, but this was not the charge in the instant case. The judgment was reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs de oficio.