People v. Velasquez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Casimiro E. Velasquez was convicted of the crime of misappropriation of public funds. Procedural History: The trial court convicted the accused. The Supreme Court, on appeal, affirmed the conviction and, in addition to the penalty imposed by the trial court, ordered the accused to indemnify the province to which the money misappropriated belongs in the sum of P597. The Appeal: The accused filed a motion for modification of the decision, specifically praying that the portion of the judgment requiring the return to the Province of Rizal of the sum of P597 be stricken from the judgment. The ground for the motion was that Act No. 1740, under which the accused was convicted, does not authorize indemnity to the municipality injured by the illegal deprivation of funds.
Issue(s)
Whether Act No. 1740, under which the accused was convicted of misappropriation of public funds, precludes the imposition of civil indemnity to the injured province.
Ruling
The motion for modification is denied. The Supreme Court affirmed its previous decision ordering the accused to indemnify the province.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that Act No. 1740, while penalizing public officers for failing to account for or making personal use of public funds, expressly repeals only Articles 390, 391, and 392 of the Penal Code "in so far as the same may be in conflict with this Act." It does not repeal other provisions of the Penal Code, and those expressly mentioned are repealed only to the extent of the conflict. Therefore, the general principles embodied in Articles 119, 120, and 121 of the Penal Code, which require the accused to repair the damage caused and make good the loss sustained by the injured party, remain in force and are applicable to crimes committed under Act No. 1740. Whether the payment is termed restitution or indemnity, the result is the same: the accused must compensate the province for the loss it suffered due to his illegal acts. The Court cited its own ruling in United States vs. Meneses, where a similar order of indemnity was affirmed, reinforcing the principle that criminal conviction for malversation does not preclude civil liability for restitution.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed that Act No. 1740, while penalizing the misappropriation of public funds, does not repeal or conflict with the general principles of civil liability found in Articles 119, 120, and 121 of the Penal Code. Consequently, an accused convicted under Act No. 1740 can still be ordered to indemnify the province for the loss sustained due to the misappropriation, as this obligation to repair damage and make good losses remains in force.