FACTS
The appellant, Justo Dacuycuy, a municipal councilor, was accused of estafa for receiving P39 from 39 residents of his district in February 1906, for the purpose of purchasing cedulas for them. While Dacuycuy did obtain 16 cedulas, he failed to obtain the remaining 23 and instead misappropriated P23. The 23 residents were subsequently compelled to purchase their own cedulas at a surcharge due to the delay, causing them prejudice. The appellant confessed to receiving the money for the purchase of cedulas and admitted to only obtaining 16, keeping the remaining P23. His defense that he was unable to obtain the remaining cedulas due to a municipal treasury regulation prohibiting one person from taking out cedulas for another was deemed inadmissible, as he had already obtained 16 and the act of appropriating the funds remained prejudicial. The court noted that the crime was committed outside the exercise of his official duties.

ISSUE
Whether or not the appellant, Justo Dacuycuy, a municipal councilor, who misappropriated funds entrusted to him for the purchase of cedulas, should be punished as a public official or as a private individual for the crime of estafa.

RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that while the appellant was a municipal councilor, he committed the crime of estafa as a private individual, not in the exercise of his official functions. His reliance on his official capacity to inspire confidence among the residents to collect the money was a circumstance that aided in the commission of the estafa, but the act of misappropriation itself was not connected to his duties as councilor. Therefore, he should be punished with the penalty provided for a private individual guilty of estafa, which is arresto mayor in its minimum and medium degrees, applied in the medium period due to the amount misappropriated. The judgment was reversed, and the appellant was sentenced to two months and one day of arresto mayor, to make restitution of P46 to the prejudiced individuals, and to pay costs.