Case Digest (G.R. No. 880)
Facts:
The United States v. Roman Sarmiento, G.R. No. 880, November 14, 1902, the Supreme Court (Willard, J., writing for the Court; Arellano, C.J., Torres, Cooper, Smith, and Mapa, JJ., concurring; Ladd, J., did not sit). The United States was the complainant and appellee; Roman Sarmiento was the defendant and appellant.On November 1, 1901, Sarmiento was a clerk at the Manila custom‑house. His official duty on receipt of a petition for a coastwise‑trade license was to make out a triplicate note showing the vessel's tonnage and the fee (at $1 per ton), have it approved by his superior, and forward it with the applicant's payment to the cashier; after payment one triplicate note and the cashier’s receipt were returned to the clerk, who issued the license and delivered the note and receipt to the applicant.
On November 4 or 5 a clerk named Juan Urnales, acting for one Zapirain, presented a petition and the old license for the vessel Dolores; the old license showed tonnage of 325.73. Instead of preparing the triplicate note showing dues of $325.73, the defendant made the note for $25.73. The Government's evidence, credited by the trial court, showed that, under the pretense the cashier would not take silver dollars, Urnales handed Sarmiento a bag containing $326; Sarmiento presented the triplicate note showing dues of $25.73, paid $25.73, altered the payee’s note by inserting a figure "3" before "25.73," and returned the note and license to Urnales. The fraud was discovered the same day.
The next morning Sarmiento went to his chief's hotel, promised to repay $300, left $300 in bills as security with his chief Mr. Mobley, and later caused $300 to be paid to the cashier. Sarmiento denied much of this testimony; the trial court found the Government witnesses credible and convicted him.
The defendant raised several defenses: that the act was an unintentional mistake; that part of the testimony was taken in English, rendering the trial void; and that the complaint improperly charged falsification together with est...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the complaint improperly charge falsification together with estafa in violation of Article 11 of General Orders No. 58?
- Was the trial void because part of the testimony was taken in English?
- Was Sarmiento a public functionary so that the offense was one of falsification by a public functionary under Article 300 rather than falsification by a private person under Article 301?
- Did the evidence establish that the falsification was knowing and intentional rather than an innocent mistake?
- Could Sarmiento's attempted repayment and deposit of money after discovery o...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)