FACTS:
Jose Feliciano, municipal treasurer and deputy provincial treasurer of Pasig, Rizal, was charged with having appropriated and applied to his own use the sum of P84.90, which was deposited with him. He pleaded guilty, explaining that upon examination of his accounts, he realized the P84.90 was missing and immediately procured its return by depositing the money in the safe. He also stated that this amount was part of a larger sum (P274.40) from bidders’ deposits, which he had not entered in the books as cash, following a practice of his predecessor. The lower court found him guilty of misappropriation of public funds and sentenced him to two months’ imprisonment, a fine of P20, and costs. Feliciano appealed.

ISSUE:
Does the subsequent reimbursement of missing public funds negate the crime of misappropriation, considering the interplay between Article 392 of the Penal Code and Act No. 1740?

RULING:
The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the lower court’s judgment.
The Court held that Act No. 1740 is the applicable law. Section 4 of Act No. 1740 explicitly repeals Articles 390, 391, and 392 of the Penal Code “in so far as the same may be in conflict with this Act.” Under Act No. 1740, the failure or inability of an official to produce public funds upon demand by an auditor or examiner is prima facie evidence of misappropriation and that the funds have been put to personal use.

The Court emphasized that the crime of misappropriation is established the moment the funds are missing from the depository and the official is unable to produce them upon demand. A subsequent act, such as reimbursement, cannot in any way affect the existence of the crime. The penalty imposed by the lower court was found to be in accordance with the law.

G.R. No. L-5623, THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSE FELICIANO, defendant-appellant., February 3, 1910