G.R. No. L-9550; February 28, 1958
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. VICENTE ANGCO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Vicente Angco, a Traveling Sales Agent of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office with headquarters in Tuguegarao, Cagayan, was charged in the Court of First Instance of Manila with malversation of public funds. The information alleged that during 1950 and 1951, he received and sold sweepstakes tickets valued at P5,377.95 for the February 25, 1951 draw, with the obligation to remit the proceeds to the Treasurer in Manila. He only accounted for P1,417, leaving a balance of P3,960.95 unaccounted for and unremitted despite demands. After trial, where the prosecution presented evidence, the court found him guilty and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty, indemnification, and costs. The defendant appealed, contending the Manila court lacked jurisdiction because the alleged malversation occurred in Cagayan, and that he was deprived of his right to present evidence and to have counsel de oficio.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of First Instance of Manila had jurisdiction over the crime of malversation.
2. Whether the trial court erred in not receiving evidence for the accused and not providing him with counsel de oficio.

RULING

1. Yes, the Court of First Instance of Manila had jurisdiction. The information alleged that the accused was a Traveling Sales Agent of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office “in said City” (Manila), with the obligation to turn over the proceeds to the Treasurer in Manila. These allegations, coupled with the trial court’s findings that his obligation was to remit to Manila and that he failed to account for and pay the proceeds there, were sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the Manila court to the exclusion of the Court of First Instance of Cagayan.
2. No, the trial court did not err. The record showed that the appellant was represented by counsel of his choice at arraignment and trial. After the prosecution rested, the court set multiple hearing dates to allow the defense to present evidence. The appellant and his counsel repeatedly sought postponements on various grounds (counsel’s other engagements, appellant’s illness). The court eventually issued an order deeming the right to present evidence waived after continued non-appearance and set the case for judgment. The steps taken by the trial court safeguarded the appellant’s rights, and the repeated failures to appear constituted a deliberate attempt to delay proceedings. Thus, he was not deprived of his right to counsel or to present evidence.
The crime committed is malversation under Article 217, No. 2 of the Revised Penal Code. The Supreme Court modified the penalty. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum penalty imposed by the trial court was affirmed, but the maximum penalty was corrected to be within the medium period of prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum. The judgment was affirmed with modifications: the maximum penalty is set at 5 years, 5 months, and 11 days of prision correccional, with the additional penalties of a fine equal to one-half of the sum embezzled and perpetual special disqualification.