G.R. No. 4852 - People vs. Calimag

The defendant, Vicente Calimag, served as the municipal treasurer of Solana, Province of Cagayan, as well as the deputy provincial treasurer.
His compensation was fixed at ₱25 per month for his municipal position and an additional ₱10 per month for his role as deputy provincial treasurer.
It was established that the defendant did not have the proper authority to remunerate himself as deputy provincial treasurer, indicating an unauthorized personal benefit derived from public funds.

On December 2, 1907, during an examination of his accounts by the district auditor, a discrepancy amounting to ₱49.04 was discovered between the funds for which he was responsible and the actual cash on hand.
When questioned by the auditor regarding the shortfall, the defendant explained that the difference was due to an advance on his ₱10 monthly salary for the period from July to November, totaling ₱50.
Acting promptly on the auditor’s instruction, the defendant procured the ₱50 within ten minutes and presented it to the auditor before the examination concluded.
The auditor duly counted the ₱50 as part of the government funds and certified that the accounts were correct, effectively closing the immediate discrepancy.

The defendant was subsequently convicted in a lower court for violating Act No. 1740, which governs the handling of public funds and penalizes malversation or misappropriation by public officers.
At trial, evidence was presented that the defendant’s actions amounted to a personal use of government funds, a critical element in his conviction under the said Act.
Had the incident occurred prior to the enactment of Act No. 1740, the case would have fallen under article 392 of the Penal Code, with a penalty based on a fine calculated as a percentage of the misappropriated funds.
The key provisions of Act No. 1740, particularly Sections 1 and 4, were highlighted during the proceedings. Section 1 delineated the offense and prescribed a minimum imprisonment of two months (with no provision for lesser penalty on restitution), while Section 4 explicitly repealed conflicting provisions—namely articles 390, 391, and 392 of the Penal Code.
Comparative references were made to similar cases such as U. S. vs. Coates and U. S. vs. Valencia, reinforcing that misappropriation by a public officer was now governed solely by Act No. 1740.

The defendant contended that his statement to the auditor, which explained the origin of the discrepancy, should have been excluded as an involuntary confession under section 4 of Act No. 619.
Section 4 of Act No. 619 requires that any confession must be freely and voluntarily made, without coercion, violence, or the inducement of promises.
The court noted, however, that this provision applied exclusively to persons formally charged with a crime. Since the defendant’s statement was made before any formal charge was brought against him, the protection did not extend to his statement.

Whether the proper statutory penalty under Act No. 1740, specifically the mandatory minimum imprisonment of two months for personal use of public funds, was correctly imposed on the defendant.
Whether the repeal of article 392 of the Penal Code by Act No. 1740 is complete, thereby excluding any alternative penalty provisions that might have applied if the offense were to be evaluated under the older law.
Whether the defendant’s statement to the district auditor qualifies as a confession under section 4 of Act No. 619, and if so, whether it was admissible given that no formal charge had been made at the time of the statement.