Case Digest (G.R. No. 9230)
Facts:
The United States v. Jose Corrales, G.R. No. 9230, November 10, 1914, the Supreme Court, Carson, J., writing for the Court.
The plaintiff-appellee was The United States; the defendant-appellant was Jose Corrales, then clerk of the Court of First Instance of Misamis. Corrales was tried and convicted in the court below of misappropriation of public funds and sentenced to nine months' imprisonment and to pay the costs of the trial.
On June 6, 1913, Corrales received P321.88 from a Chinaman named Melliza as the amount of a fine and costs imposed upon Melliza. Instead of issuing the prescribed official receipt, Corrales gave Melliza a copy of the judgment of conviction bearing the handwritten note “Multa y costas pagadas” (fine and costs paid). On June 13, 1913, the district auditor examined Corrales’ property and the accounts of his office; Corrales had submitted his property, books, and accounts for inspection. The P321.88 collected from Melliza was not turned over to the auditor, was not found among Corrales’ funds or property, nor was there any reference to its payment developed during the inspection.
Before noon on June 14 an information was filed charging Corrales with misappropriation. A few hours after the information was filed, Corrales went to the auditor’s house and told him the amount in question was in the office safe in the drawer containing his personal funds. At trial Corrales admitted the basic facts of receipt and later delivery of a paper receipt, but claimed he had put the money in the safe drawer with his personal funds because he was busy and intended to record the transaction later, forgot it, and never withdrew the money; upon recollection after the inspection he prepared an official receipt for Melliza and informed the auditor.
The auditor, however, testified that Corrales admitted to him that he had put the money in the safe at about 5:30 p.m. on June 13, i.e., after the inspection was completed. The trial judge rejected Corrales’ explanation as false and found him guilty. Corrales appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging princ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was Corrales’ out-of-court statement to the auditor admissible evidence despite counsel’s contention that it was not shown to have been made freely and voluntarily and was not made under oath?
- Did the evidence, including that statement and surrounding circumstances, establish beyond reasonable doubt that Corrales mis...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)