G.R. No. 1721 : March 29, 1905
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. CHARLES H. OSBORN, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
The defendant, Charles H. Osborn, served as a Constabulary supply officer in San Fernando, Union, from September 1902 to July 5, 1903. He was responsible for disbursing government funds and managing a commissary, the proceeds of which were to be turned over to the government. An examination of the accounts he himself maintained revealed that as of July 5, 1903, he should have had on hand a total of $8,549.47 in local currency. However, he only had $3,125 in cash, resulting in an actual deficit of $5,424.47. The government waived a minor discrepancy of $191.67. During an earlier examination on May 28, 1903, Osborn used a $3,000 check from the provincial treasurer, Dean Tompkins, to make his accounts appear balanced, knowing the check did not represent a valid transaction and returning it for cancellation shortly after. He was charged with misappropriation of public funds.

ISSUE:
Whether the evidence is sufficient to convict the defendant of misappropriation of public funds under the Penal Code.

RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the judgment regarding the amount misappropriated and the penalty. The Court found conclusive evidence of misappropriation based on the defendant’s own accounts showing the $5,424.47 deficit, which he failed to repay. His fraudulent use of the $3,000 check during the May 1903 examination demonstrated a conscious intent to conceal the deficit and proved the funds were intentionally misapplied, negating any claim of theft or loss without his fault. The Court excluded consideration of an alleged $539.76 shortage in commissary supplies due to insufficient evidence, as the inventory was taken a month after his arrest and he lacked exclusive control of the goods during that period. The amount misappropriated was fixed at $5,424.47 (local currency), for which he was held civilly liable. The penalty of inhabilitacion temporal especial was set at twelve years. The judgment of the lower court was affirmed in all other respects.