GR L 47741; (April, 1941) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-47741; April 28, 1941
EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS, querellante y apelado, vs. SANTIAGO S. VELASQUEZ, acusado y apelante.
FACTS
From September 9, 1937, to December 6, 1938, the appellant, Santiago S. Velasquez, was a public official serving as an auxiliary cashier in the provincial treasury of Pangasinan, with his office in the municipality of Lingayen. During this period, in his official capacity, he received from the municipal treasuries of Malasiqui, Tayug, Binalonan, San Quintin, Rosales, and Manaoag various sums of money totaling P1,701.26, for which no official receipts were issued. These funds belonged to the Red Cross, the Anti-Tuberculosis Society, and the Boy Scouts. On December 6, 1938, delegated auditors Blas Giron and Pedro Velasco, upon examining and auditing the funds under the appellant’s custody, discovered a deficit of P1,701.26, which the appellant could not explain. Subsequently, from December 9, 1938, to January 30, 1939, the appellant made several payments to the provincial treasury of Pangasinan to restitute the amount.
ISSUE
The sole legal question is whether, based on the facts admitted by the appellant, he can be found guilty of the crime of malversation of public funds as defined and penalized under Article 227 of the Revised Penal Code.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the appellant is guilty of malversation of public funds. The Court held that the funds received by the appellant in his official capacity as a public official are considered public funds for which he is accountable, pursuant to Article 609 of the Revised Administrative Code, which states that all funds officially received by a public official in any capacity must be accounted for as government funds. The Court cited previous decisions (People vs. Castro, G.R. No. 41747 , August 30, 1935; People vs. Sibulo, G.R. No. 40714, August 7, 1939) establishing that when a public official receives money for safekeeping, it acquires the character of public funds. Consequently, the appellant’s failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for the deficit when audited made him liable for malversation. The Court considered the restitution of the amount as a special mitigating circumstance with no aggravating circumstances to offset it. Therefore, the appellant was sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of six months and one day to four years, two months, and one day of prision correccional. The appealed judgment was affirmed in all other respects, with costs against the appellant.