People v. Tabanao
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Appellant Toribio C. Tabanao, employed as Clerk-Bookkeeper of the Municipal Treasurer of Moalboal, Cebu, was charged with malversation of public funds. The information alleged that he willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously misappropriated for his own use and benefit the amount of P2,376.43, which was in his possession as part of his official duties, to the damage and prejudice of the government. Procedural History: The accused-appellant was charged in Criminal Case No. V-5773 before the Court of First Instance of Cebu. Upon arraignment, he pleaded guilty to the charge. The trial court, considering the plea of guilty as a mitigating circumstance and finding no aggravating circumstances, found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of 3 years of prision correccional as minimum to 7 years of prision mayor as maximum. No indemnity was decreed as the defendant had fully reimbursed the misappropriated amount. The Appeal: The appellant appealed the decision, claiming that extreme necessity due to his son's illness, which developed after the war, drove him to commit the offense. He argued that the amount taken was to finance his son's lingering illness and that his poverty should also be considered as a mitigating circumstance, in addition to his plea of guilty. The Solicitor General objected to these claims, stating they were not supported by the record. The appellant further argued that with two mitigating circumstances (plea of guilty and poverty), the penalty should be lowered by two degrees, resulting in a lesser indeterminate sentence.
Issue(s)
Whether the penalty imposed by the trial court was correct. Whether poverty should be considered as an additional mitigating circumstance to lower the penalty by two degrees.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court, finding no error in the sentence imposed. The judgment of conviction and the penalty were upheld.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court clarified the penalty range for malversation under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 1060. For amounts between P200.00 and P6,000.00, the penalty is prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods (6 years, 1 day to 10 years). The Court found that the trial court correctly imposed an indeterminate sentence, with the maximum term (7 years of prision mayor) being within the range of the penalty imposable considering the mitigating circumstance of a plea of guilty and no aggravating circumstances. The minimum term (3 years of prision correccional) was also correctly determined as it falls within the range of the penalty next lower in degree to that prescribed by the Code, which is prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods (2 years, 4 months, 1 day to 6 years). On Issue 2: The Court rejected the argument that poverty should be considered an additional mitigating circumstance. It noted that the record indicated only P50.00 of the misappropriated amount was used for the son's illness, not the entire sum as implied by the appellant. Furthermore, the Court reasoned that as a clerk receiving a salary, the appellant was not in a condition of absolute poverty, which is a prerequisite for such a mitigating circumstance. Therefore, the claim for an additional mitigating circumstance was not justified, and the penalty should not be lowered by two degrees.
Main Doctrine
The penalty for malversation of public funds, specifically for amounts between P200.00 and P6,000.00, is prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods. When a plea of guilty is present as a mitigating circumstance and no aggravating circumstances exist, the penalty imposable is within the prescribed range, and the Indeterminate Sentence Law should be applied by setting a minimum penalty from the next lower degree of the prescribed penalty.