GR L 13371; (September, 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, and feloniously misappropriated, 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 prison term, perpetual special disqualification, a fine, and indemnification of the government. 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, as the funds were allegedly lost while he was drunk and not converted to his personal use.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. The appellant’s contention was untenable. First, the record did not support his claim that the funds were lost while he was drunk. The Provincial Auditor’s supplemental report indicated the appellant, when demanded to produce the missing funds, claimed some vouchers might be missing, asked to leave due to a stomach ache, and then disappeared without providing an explanation. He also failed to respond to a written demand to explain the shortage or attend the preliminary investigation. Second, by pleading guilty, the appellant admitted not only his guilt but also all material facts in the information, including that he acted “willfully” and converted the funds to his personal use. In penal statutes, “willfully” implies evil intent or legal malice. Therefore, his plea of guilty constituted an admission of malice. The Court found no reason to deem the penalty excessive or to justify applying Article 5 of the Revised Penal Code for clemency. The appealed decision was affirmed.