People v. Sacramento
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The defendant, Adolfo Sacramento, while serving as cashier of the Bureau of Commerce and Industry, received a check for P14,663.04 from Madrigal y Cia. for freight payments. He issued a receipt but left duplicate and triplicate copies blank. He did not record this amount in his office books. However, he included this check in the total collections remitted to the Insular Treasurer for September 1919. The check was paid, and the amount was credited to the Bureau's account. The total collections for September were P301,338.71, but only P286,675.67 was deposited, resulting in a shortage of P14,663.04, equivalent to the value of the check. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Manila found the defendant guilty of embezzlement of government funds and sentenced him to five years' imprisonment, a fine of P2,500 with subsidiary imprisonment, and perpetual disqualification from public office. The Petition: The defendant appealed, assigning two main errors: (1) that he was twice in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense, and (2) that the court erred in finding him guilty of the crime charged.
Issue(s)
Whether the appellant is twice in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. Whether the appellant is guilty of embezzlement of government funds.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court with modification, sentencing the defendant further to indemnify the Insular Government in the amount of P14,663.04.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of double jeopardy: The Court held that the appellant was not twice in jeopardy. The appellant argued that he had been convicted in a previous case for embezzling P7,248.62 during the months of August, September, and October 1919, and that the current charge for embezzling P14,663.04 on September 22, 1919, constituted the same offense. However, the Court distinguished this case from the principle of double jeopardy by applying the doctrine in United States vs. Eguia Lim Buanco and De los Reyes. The Court reasoned that each separate fraudulent obtaining of money from the bank constituted a distinct crime. The preparation, approval, and payment of numerous checks under such circumstances could not be considered one continuing offense. Therefore, the embezzlement of P14,663.04 on September 22, 1919, was a separate and distinct offense from any previous embezzlement. On the issue of guilt for embezzlement: The Court found that the evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant appropriated and embezzled the amount of P14,663.04. The facts established that the defendant, as cashier, received the check, failed to record it properly, and that this amount was part of the shortage in his collections deposited with the Insular Treasury. The Court concluded that the elements of embezzlement were present, namely, that the defendant received the money by reason of his public office and that he appropriated it for his own use or benefit, to the prejudice of the government. The Court also noted that the defendant should be sentenced to indemnify the Government for the embezzled amount, as it had not been recovered.
Main Doctrine
Each separate fraudulent obtaining of money from the bank by means of illicit methods constitutes a distinct crime, and the preparation, approval, and payment of numerous checks under such circumstances cannot be considered as one continuing offense for purposes of double jeopardy.