G.R. No. L-4410; February 29, 1952
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JUANITO C. PECAÑA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The accused, Juanito C. Pecaña, was charged with malversation of public funds before the Court of First Instance of Laguna. The information alleged that he misappropriated the sum of P6,860.03 belonging to the municipality of Bay, Laguna, funds which were entrusted to his custody as municipal treasurer. Pecaña pleaded guilty to the charge. The trial court subsequently sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of 4 years, 1 month, and 1 day to 8 years of imprisonment. The court also ordered him to indemnify the municipality of Bay in the sum of P6,860.03, imposed perpetual disqualification from holding public office, levied a fine of P3,430.01, and ordered him to pay the costs. Pecaña appealed the sentence to the Supreme Court, contending that the trial court erred in fixing the amount of the indemnity and in imposing a fine equivalent to one-half of the amount malversed.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in not crediting the amount already reimbursed by the appellant when fixing the indemnity.
2. Whether the trial court erred in imposing a fine equivalent to one-half of the amount malversed.

RULING

1. On the issue of indemnity, the Supreme Court agreed with both the Solicitor General and the defense counsel that the appellant should be credited for the sum of P400.00, which he had already reimbursed. This reimbursement was evidenced by a receipt issued by the provincial treasurer and exhibited during the trial. Consequently, the Court modified the indemnity, reducing the actual amount to be paid to P6,460.03.
2. On the issue of the fine, the Supreme Court held that the fine imposed by the trial court (P3,430.01, equivalent to one-half of P6,860.03) was within the range prescribed by Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, which allows a fine from one-half to the total value of the funds embezzled. The Court found no reason to reduce or remit the fine, noting it was not excessive considering the nature of the offense. The Court stated that a plea of unreasonableness should be addressed to the legislature, as the judiciary’s role is to apply the law as written.
Additionally, the Supreme Court noted a correction regarding the penalty of imprisonment. It found that the trial court did not correctly fix the maximum term, which under the law should not be less than 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor.
The dispositive portion of the decision affirmed the appealed sentence with the following modifications: (1) the indemnity to be paid by the appellant is reduced to P6,460.03, and (2) the maximum term of imprisonment is corrected to 8 years and 1 day. The affirmance was made without costs in this instance.