People v. Feliciano
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The defendant, Jose Feliciano, was charged with misappropriating P84.90, which was deposited with him as municipal treasurer and deputy provincial treasurer of Pasig, Province of Rizal. The funds in question were part of a P274.40 deposit made by bidders on certain municipal contracts. Feliciano admitted to not entering this amount in the books as cash, following the practice of his predecessor. Procedural History: Upon being informed of the complaint, the defendant pleaded guilty. He testified that upon discovering the P84.90 was missing during an examination of his accounts, he immediately procured its return by depositing the money in the safe. The trial court found the accused guilty of misappropriation of public funds and sentenced him to two months' imprisonment, a fine of P20, and costs. The defendant appealed this judgment. The Petition: The defense contended that Article 392 of the Penal Code should apply, arguing that its provisions regarding the appropriation of public funds, if restored, were not repealed. However, the prosecution argued that Section 4 of Act No. 1740 expressly repealed conflicting provisions of Articles 390, 391, and 392 of the Penal Code.
Issue(s)
Whether the subsequent reimbursement of the misappropriated funds negates the crime of misappropriation of public funds. Whether Act No. 1740 repealed the relevant provisions of the Penal Code concerning misappropriation of public funds.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court, holding the accused guilty of misappropriation of public funds and imposing the penalty prescribed by law. The judgment of the lower court was affirmed with costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the subsequent reimbursement of the misappropriated funds negates the crime of misappropriation of public funds: The Court held that the failure or inability of an official in charge of public funds or property to produce them upon demand by an auditor or examiner of accounts is prima facie evidence that such missing funds or property have been put to personal uses or for personal ends. This constitutes prima facie evidence of misappropriation under Section 1 of Act No. 1740. The Court emphasized that from the moment there is prima facie evidence of the crime of misappropriation, and the taking for personal uses is presumed a crime, the subsequent act of reimbursement cannot affect the existence of the crime. The crime is apparent from the absence of the funds in the hands of the depository and the latter's inability to produce them at the time of demand by the inspector, auditor, or examiner of accounts. On whether Act No. 1740 repealed the relevant provisions of the Penal Code concerning misappropriation of public funds: The Court found that Section 4 of Act No. 1740 expressly provided that Articles 390, 391, and 392 of the Penal Code of the Philippine Islands, in so far as they may be in conflict with Act No. 1740, are repealed to that extent only. This interpretation was consistent with previous rulings in The United States vs. Vicente Calimag and The United States vs. Pedro Togonon. Therefore, Act No. 1740 superseded the conflicting provisions of the Penal Code, and the case was to be governed by the provisions of Act No. 1740.
Main Doctrine
The failure or inability of an official in charge of public funds to produce them upon demand by an auditor or examiner constitutes prima facie evidence of misappropriation. Subsequent reimbursement cannot affect the existence of the crime, which is consummated upon the failure to produce the funds.