G.R. No. L-17233, September 29, 1962
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. TORIBIO C. TABANAO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Toribio C. Tabanao, a Clerk-Bookkeeper for the Municipal Treasurer of Moalboal, Cebu, was charged with malversation of public funds for misappropriating P2,376.43. Upon arraignment, he pleaded guilty to the charge. The trial court, appreciating his plea of guilty as a mitigating circumstance and noting the full restitution of the amount, found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. He was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 3 years of prision correccional as minimum to 7 years of prision mayor as maximum.
On appeal, Tabanao argued for a lower penalty. He contended that the fiscal had recommended considering his extreme poverty, allegedly caused by his son’s illness, as an additional mitigating circumstance. With two mitigating circumstances (plea of guilty and poverty) and no aggravating circumstances, he argued the penalty should be lowered by two degrees under the Revised Penal Code, resulting in a much lighter sentence under the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in not appreciating extreme poverty as an additional mitigating circumstance to warrant a further reduction of the penalty imposed.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The Court clarified the correct penalty range. For malversation of the amount involved, as amended by Republic Act No. 1060 , the prescribed penalty is prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods (6 years and 1 day to 10 years). With one mitigating circumstance (plea of guilty) and no aggravating circumstance, the proper maximum term imposable is the minimum period of the prescribed penalty (6 years and 1 day to 7 years and 4 months). The penalty next lower in degree is prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods (2 years, 4 months and 1 day to 6 years). The indeterminate sentence imposed (3 to 7 years) correctly set the minimum within the next lower degree and the maximum within the proper imposable period.
The Court rejected the claim for the mitigating circumstance of poverty. This circumstance was neither admitted by the prosecution nor found by the trial judge. The record showed only P50 of the malappropriated funds was used for his son’s illness. Furthermore, the Court held that “poverty” denotes a condition more severe than merely being “poor.” As a salaried government clerk, Tabanao could not be considered to be in a state of poverty. Therefore, no second mitigating circumstance existed to justify a further reduction of the penalty. The appealed decision was affirmed.