[ G.R. No. 5180. August 04, 1911 ] 19 Phil. 391
[ G.R. No. 5180. August 04, 1911 ]
THE UNITED STATES; PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. MAGDALENO SABERON, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE. D E C I S I O N
MAPA, J.:
A complaint of the following tenor was filed against the defendant:
“The provincial fiscal of Cebu charges Magdaleno Saberon with the crime of malversation, that is, of a violation of section 1 of Act No. 1740, committed as follows: “On or about the 28th of January, 1908, and within the territorial limits of the municipality of Talisay, of this province and judicial district, the said accused Magdaleno Saberon, being, as he was, a public officer, inasmuch as he was the municipal treasurer of Talisay and deputy to the provincial treasurer of Cebu in the said municipality, and having charge, by reason of his office as such municipal treasurer of% the said municipality of Talisay, of public funds, or property, and having been required by the provincial treasurer of Cebu, an officer authorized by law, to render account of the funds in his possession as such municipal treasurer of Talisay and deputy of the said provincial treasurer, did, maliciously and with criminal intent, fail to render an account of the disposition of the sum of one thousand two hundred and seventy-five pesos and sixteen centavos (Pl,275.16) which was missing from the cash which should have been on hand under his charge in the municipal safe of the aforesaid pueblo of Talisay; with violation of section 1 of the Act before mentioned.”
The defendant filed a demurrer to this complaint, on the following grounds:
“(1) The facts alleged therein do not constitute a crime; “(2) The complaint is not drawn up in conformity with the requirements of the law; and, “(3) There is another complaint pending concerning the same facts and charging a different crime.”
The court sustained the demurrer by an order, which literally, in part, read as follows:
“The defendant in this cause is charged with a violation of section 1 of Act No. 1740, the said violation consisting, according to the complaint, in the fact that the defendant, while municipal treasurer of Talisay, Province of Cebu, and as such having in his charge public funds, and notwithstanding his having duly been required by the provincial treasurer to render account of the funds in his possession as such municipal treasurer, did fail to render account of the disposition of the sum of P1,275.16 which was missing from the cash which should have been on hand in the municipal safe of the said pueblo of Talisay. “Against the complaint a demurrer was filed which places in doubt the constitutionality of that part of the said Act which brought about the filing of this complaint, as being in conflict with section 5 of the Act of Congress of July 1, 1902, relative to the Philippine Islands, which provides: ‘That no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself;’ and likewise in conflict with section 57 of General Orders, No. 58, which contains the provision: ‘A defendant in a criminal action shall be presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved;’ and also with section 59 of the same general order, which provides that the burden of proof of guilt shall be upon the prosecution. “The precedent established by the Supreme Court in the case of the United States vs. Navarro (3 Phil. Rep., 143) is binding upon this court in deciding the question raised. Accepting, for the purposes of the present demurrer, the facts set forth in the present complaint, and supposing there- fore, as it may well be supposed, that the defendant did commit some defalcation of the funds which were in his keeping, the tendency of the said law would be forcibly to oblige the defendant to testify to facts which might give rise to the filing of an information against him for malversation. In view of the constitutional guaranties, this court finds no more reason for a law which compels public officers to give information in writing on facts that might originate a complaint for malversation, than that which could exist in favor of a law compelling a person who kills another to give a written account to the prosecution of all the facts connected with the victim’s death. The mere fact that a defendant is a public officer should not deprive him of the constitutional rights guaranteed to all by the fundamental laws. “The demurrer is sustained, and the defect in the complaint, being one affecting its essentiality and not correctible by amendment, the court orders the final dismissal of the case and the annulment of the bond given in favor of the defendant.”
From this order the prosecution appealed and the case has been raised to this court for the decision of the appeal. Section 1 of Act No. 1740, a violation of which is charged against the defendant, literally provides as follows:
“Any bonded officer or employee of the Insular Government, or of any provincial or municipal government, or of the city of Manila, and any other person who, having charge, by reason of his office or employment, of Insular, provincial, or municipal funds or property, or of funds or property of the city of Manila, or of trust or other funds by law required to be kept or deposited by or with such officer, employee, or other person, or by or with any public office, treasury, or other depositary, fails or refuses to account for the same, or makes personal use of such funds or property, or of any part thereof, or abstracts or misappropriates the same or any part thereof, or is guilty of any malversation with reference to such funds or property, or through his abandonment, fault, or negligence permits any other person to abstract, misappropriate, or make personal use of the same, shall, upon conviction, be punished by imprisonment for not less than two months nor more than ten years and, in the discretion of the court, by a fine of not more than the amount of Such funds and the value of such property.”
It is alleged that these provisions are contrary to section 5 of the Act of Congress of July 1, 1902, which prescribes that “no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself” since it tends, according to the trial court, forcibly to oblige the defendant to testify to facts which might give rise to the filing of an information against him for malversation. The lower court is under the impression, apparently, that any public officer who fails or refuses to account, when duly required to do so, for the funds or property of which he may have charge, by reason of his employment, is unquestionably guilty of malversation, and that it is under this construction that the law punishes the said act; for, were it not so, if the refusal to render an account of the funds did not necessarily imply, in the mind of the court, a defalcation or misappropriation of such funds, then there would be no basis or foundation for the statement that the imposition of a penalty for such a refusal is for the purpose of obliging or tends to oblige an officer to testify to facts which may give rise to a complaint against him for the crime of malversation. Such an opinion does not appear to us to be correct. True it is that the unjustified refusal to render an account may produce a suspicion that there are at least irregularities in the officer’s bookkeeping, but neither is this in itself conclusive proof of misappropriation, nor does the law in imposing punishment in any wise take into account the more or less correct condition of the funds which may be in his charge. The law makes the mere fact of that refusal a crime and punishes it as such, in absolute distinction from the other fact, entirely immaterial to the case, as to whether or not the funds in the safe entrusted to the officer are intact. So true is this .that, although such funds are found to be intact and the official having them in charge is found not to have committed the smallest or most insignificant defalcation, still he would not be exempt from the criminal liability established by law if he refused or failed to render an account of said funds on being requested to do so by competent authority. The reason for this is that Act No. 1740, in so far as its provisions bearing on this point are concerned, does not so much contemplate the possibility of malversation as the need of enforcing by a penal provision the performance of the duty incumbent upon every public employee who handles government funds, as well as every depositary or administrator of another’s property, to render on account of all he receives or has in his charge by reason of his employment. Moreover, it may be said, looking at the matter from another point of view, that the design of the Act before mentioned was to impart stability to the good order and discipline which should prevail in the organization and workings of the public service by punishing the employee who should disobey an order or a demand, lawfully made by a competent officer, for the rendition of accounts - a disobedience which it would be absurd to suppose could be supported and protected, directly or indirectly, by any of the fundamental laws of the Philippines - in the same manner that it would be absurd also to suppose that our constitution protects or could protect, under the mantle of impunity, the public officer who should refuse to comply with a duty that was inherent in the very nature of his office, to render an account of the funds or property received by him for deposit or administration. And if this is true, as it undoubtedly is, then it can in no wise be said that the law which punishes those acts is contrary to section 5 of the Philippine Bill, or is in any other respect anti-constitutional. The doctrine laid down by this court in the case of the United States vs. Navarro (3 Phil. Rep., 143), cited in the order appealed from, has no application to the present case. In that case the majority of this court held that article 483 of the Penal Code had been repealed by the Philippine Bill, because in their opinion, it imposed upon the accused the necessity of testifying as a witness in his own defense, which certainly may not be said of Act No. 1740 in the part thereof alleged to have been violated by the defendant. Sections 57 and 59 of General Orders, No. 58, are also cited in the order appealed from, as being contrary to the Act referred to. The first of these sections prescribes that a defendant in a criminal action shall be presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proyed; and the second, that the burden of proof of guilt shall be upon the prosecution. As it is seen, these provisions establish rules of procedure, while Act No. 1740, in the part thereof under review, is restricted solely to defining and punishing as a crime the act of refusal of a public employee to render an account of the funds and property in his charge, when duly required to do so by a competent.officer; for which reason there does not exist, nor can there exist, any opposition or antagonism between the aforesaid legal provisions, because they treat of entirely different matters which have no points of contact between them. It is obvious that the prosecution must prove, else the accused could not be convicted of the said crime, that the latter was required to render an account by a competent officer, and that he then refused to do so, and when such proof has been produced the provisions of the before-cited sections of General Orders, No. 58, that relate to the prosecution’s proving the defendant’s guilt in order to obtain the conviction of the latter at trial, have been complied with. From the foregoing, the conclusion is drawn that, in our opinion, the act charged against the defendant consisting, according to the complaint, in his having refused or failed to render an account of the funds which he had under his charge, and this notwithstanding his having been required to do so by an officer authorized by law for such purpose, does not constitute, technically speaking, the crime of malversation, though penalized in the same law (Act No. 1740) which punishes this crime, for malversation consists, properly, in the abstraction of the funds or in their application to improper uses, either by the officer himself in charge thereof or by any other person voluntarily permitted by him, through his negligence or abandonment, to abstract or misappropriate the same. And although in the complaint the act charged is specified as a crime of malversation, this circumstance does not alter and can not alter the true legal nature of the said act, neither can it affect the judgment to be rendered in due season and in which the crime described in the complaint must be denominated in accordance with the law, and not in accordance with the designation thereof given by the accused or the complainant. (U. S. vs. Treyes, 14 Phil. Rep., 1270; and U. S. vs. Gellada, 15 Phil. Rep., 120.) For the foregoing reasons, and with a reversal of the order appealed from, the demurrer filed against the complaint is overruled, and it is directed that the case be remanded to the court of its origin in order that it may proceed to the proper trial thereof in accordance with law, Arellano, C. J., Torres, Johnson, and Carson, JJ., concur.