GR L 13371; (October, 1959) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-13371; September 23, 1959
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Agaton Salazar, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
The accused, Agaton Salazar, was the Deputy Provincial and Municipal Treasurer of Balayan, Batangas. He was charged with malversation of public funds under an information alleging that on or about May 14, 1957, he willfully, unlawfully, feloniously, and with grave abuse of confidence misappropriated, misapplied, embezzled, and converted to his personal use and benefit public funds amounting to P13,897.77. Initially, he pleaded not guilty but later withdrew this plea and voluntarily pleaded guilty. The trial court, considering his voluntary surrender and plea of guilty, sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty, perpetual special disqualification, a fine, and indemnification. The accused appealed, contending the lower court erred by not recommending executive clemency due to a lack of malice, claiming the funds were lost while he was drunk and not used for personal benefit.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in not recommending executive clemency based on the appellant’s claim of lack of malice (i.e., that the funds were lost while he was drunk and not converted to personal use).
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, rejecting the appellant’s contention. The Court held:
1. The record contained no evidence supporting the claim that the funds were lost while the appellant was drunk. Contrary evidence showed that after a demand for the missing funds, the appellant claimed some vouchers might be missing, asked to leave due to a stomach ache, and then disappeared without providing an explanation despite being required to do so. He also failed to attend the preliminary investigation and did not raise this claim during his plea or when testifying about his voluntary surrender.
2. By pleading guilty, the appellant admitted not only his guilt but also all material facts alleged in the information, including that he “willfully” misappropriated and converted the funds to his personal use. The Court defined “willfully” in penal statutes as meaning with evil intent, legal malice, or a bad purpose. Thus, his plea carried an admission of malice.
3. The penalty imposed was not clearly excessive to justify the application of Article 5 of the Revised Penal Code. The decision was affirmed with costs.