People v. Concepcion
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The accused, Marcelo F. Concepcion, while serving as the treasurer of Guindulman, Province of Bohol, falsified a municipal payroll on August 9, 1906. He certified under oath that salaries listed on the payroll had been paid to the officers and employees, when in fact, several had not received the amounts indicated. This act constituted the crime of falsification of a public document by perverting the truth, as defined in the Penal Code. 2. Procedural History: The case originated from the accused's actions as municipal treasurer. Following an examination of his accounts by the district auditor, a deficit of P275.74 was discovered, directly linked to the falsified payroll. The accused was subsequently tried and convicted in a lower court for the crime of falsification. 3. The Petition: The defendant appealed the judgment of the lower court. While the appeal acknowledged the conviction for falsification and the associated penalty, it challenged the portion of the judgment ordering the accused to indemnify the individual employees. The appellant argued that the municipality, not the employees, was the aggrieved party, as the employees retained their right to claim their full salaries from the municipality. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and penalty but modified the judgment to direct the indemnity payment to the municipality of Guindulman.
Issue(s)
Whether the accused is guilty of the crime of falsification of a public document by perverting the truth in the statement of facts. Whether the employees are the proper parties to receive indemnity for the falsified payroll, or if it should be the municipality.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the accused for falsification of a public document. However, it modified the judgment regarding the indemnity, ruling that the municipality of Guindulman, not the individual employees, is the proper party to receive the indemnity for the deficit caused by the falsification.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the accused is guilty of the crime of falsification of a public document by perverting the truth in the statement of facts: The Court found that the accused, as the municipal treasurer, committed falsification of a public document by perverting the truth in the statement of facts, as defined in Article 300, No. 4 of the Penal Code. It was fully proven that the accused prepared a payroll and certified under oath that the listed amounts had been paid to the officers and employees. However, this certification was untrue, as several employees had not received the sums stated. This act of making a false statement of fact in a public document, which was submitted as a voucher to his accounts, constitutes the crime charged. Therefore, the judgment of the lower court, which qualified the guilt of the accused as the author of said crime, was found to be in accordance with the law and the merits of the case. The penalty imposed, fourteen years eight months and one day of cadena temporal and a fine of 1,250 pesetas, was also deemed in accordance with the law. On Whether the employees are the proper parties to receive indemnity for the falsified payroll, or if it should be the municipality: The Court held that the part of the judgment ordering the accused to indemnify the employees was incorrect. The employees were not the parties injured by the falsification; they retained their right to recover the full amount of their salaries from the municipality. The falsification of the payroll, under the pretext of making payments, affects only the municipality that owns the funds, not its employees, as they are not involved in the custody, management, or responsibility of the municipal treasury. Consequently, they should not suffer the consequences of any shortage. The municipality, being the only party aggrieved by the deficit in its funds, is the only party entitled to the indemnity. The deficit found in the municipal treasury, as a result of the audit, amounted to P275.74. Therefore, the judgment was affirmed with the modification that the payment of the indemnity, amounting to P275.74, shall be made in favor of the municipality of Guindulman.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for falsification of a public document under Article 300, No. 4 of the Penal Code, finding that the accused, a municipal treasurer, falsified a payroll by certifying under oath that payments were made when they were not. The Court modified the judgment regarding indemnity, ruling that the municipality, as the entity defrauded by the shortage in its funds, is the proper party to receive restitution, not the individual employees who retained their right to claim their full salaries from the municipality.