People v. Lafuente
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The municipal council of Loon, Bohol, enacted an ordinance providing for the sale of fishing privileges at public auction. During the auction on April 26, 1916, conducted by the municipal president with the assistance of other officials, the municipal secretary (the accused) acted as secretary of the committee. After the auction, bidders were instructed to deposit their bids with the municipal secretary due to the municipal treasurer's busyness. Eighteen persons deposited a total of P53.22 for fishery privilege licenses, and one person paid a land tax. The complainants did not receive their licenses, their money was not returned, nor was it remitted to the municipal treasurer. The accused embezzled the money for his personal use. Procedural History: The accused was charged with nineteen distinct offenses of estafa. The lower court rendered a judgment against the accused. The Petition: The defendant appealed the judgment of the lower court.
Issue(s)
Whether the information is defective for multiplicity of offenses. Whether the defendant committed the crime of estafa or misappropriation of public funds. Whether a court can order indemnification to the Government in judgments convicting of misappropriation of public funds.
Ruling
The judgment of the lower court is reversed. The defendant and appellant is sentenced to imprisonment for six months, to pay a fine of P53.22, to indemnify the municipality of Loon, Bohol, in the amount of P53.22, or to suffer subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs of both instances. He is also declared forever disqualified from holding any public office or employment of any nature whatsoever.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of multiplicity of offenses: The information charged nineteen distinct estafas. However, since no objection was made to the information on the ground of multiplicity in the court below, such objection is not available on appeal. Furthermore, even if the question could be raised, the different sums should be considered as part of the same transaction and treated as one offense included in one information. On whether the defendant committed estafa or misappropriation of public funds: The defendant, acting in his official capacity as municipal secretary and as a member of the auction committee, received the money under authority of law. It was his duty to receive and turn over the money, and to safeguard it for the Government. The money became municipal funds the instant it came into his hands. By embezzling the money for his personal use instead of returning it or issuing the licenses, the defendant committed the crime of misappropriation of public funds, as he had charge of the money by reason of his office and employment. This distinguishes the case from United States vs. Radaza, where the municipal councilor did not receive the money in his official capacity. On the power of a court to order indemnification to the Government: This Court, in considering Act No. 1740 in relation to the Penal Code, expressly held in the affirmative in United States vs. Velasquez. Although Act No. 1740 has since been repealed, its basic sections have been carried into the Administrative Code. The right to indemnification exists in misappropriation of public funds cases.
Main Doctrine
A municipal secretary who receives public funds in his official capacity, as part of a public auction for fishery privileges, and subsequently embezzles said funds, is guilty of misappropriation of public funds, not estafa, as the money was taken charge of by reason of his office.