G.R. No. L-443, November 13, 1901
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellant, vs. IRA VAN CAMP, defendant-appellee.

FACTS:
Ira Van Camp, an employee of the Pacific Oriental Trading Company, was ordered on May 28, 1901, to collect a debt from a certain Buford in Tarlac. He collected 1,900 pesos from Buford and returned to Manila that same day. Upon arrival at the company office, he delivered only 1,600 pesos to a Mr. Rogers, stating that this was the amount collected. The following day, this 1,600 pesos was credited to Buford’s account. Van Camp retained the 300-peso balance. When questioned, he claimed he used the money because he believed it was equivalent to the salary and expenses the company owed him. Evidence showed his monthly salary was 250 pesos plus a daily expense allowance, and he had already received payments for salary and expenses for the period. Later, he paid 33 pesos in cash and had 167 pesos from his credit transferred to Buford’s account, totaling 200 pesos applied to the debt. The Court of First Instance convicted Van Camp of embezzlement but imposed only a fine, interpreting the Penal Code as allowing such a penalty.

ISSUE:
Whether the Court of First Instance erred in its application of the penalty for the crime of embezzlement under Article 535 of the Penal Code.

RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court held that the facts constituted the crime of embezzlement under Article 535, paragraph 5, of the Penal Code. The trial court erred in applying the last paragraph of Article 535, which provides for a fine, to the entire article. The Supreme Court clarified that this final paragraph modifies only paragraph 9 of Article 535 (which pertains to crimes involving deceit) and not the other paragraphs, including paragraph 5 on embezzlement. Since the amount embezzled (300 pesos) exceeded 250 pesetas but did not exceed 6,250 pesetas, the proper penalty under the law was arresto mayor in its medium degree to prision correccional in its minimum degree. The Court modified the penalty and sentenced Van Camp to four months and one day of arresto mayor. The judgment of the Court of First Instance was reversed insofar as the penalty was concerned but affirmed in all other respects. The case was remanded to the trial court for execution.