G.R. No. L-14956 - Arcel vs. Osmena, Jr.

Cayetano Tobias served as the auxiliary justice of the peace in the municipality of San Antonio, Province of Nueva Ecija during October 1907.
As an auxiliary justice, he was entrusted with the custody of judicial documents and records as part of his official duties.

A civil action was pending before Tobias involving a dispute between Arcadio Aguirre (plaintiff) and Alejo Anupol (defendant).
In handling the case, Tobias rendered a decision in favor of Aguirre and against Anupol.

Following the decision, Alejo Anupol appealed to the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija.
To perfect his appeal, Anupol complied with the formalities by depositing a sum of P16 with Tobias along with a bond, as required under section 38 of Act No. 1627.
Tobias was thereby obligated to forward both the appellate record and the P16 to the clerk of the Court of First Instance.

It was alleged that Tobias, maliciously and criminally, concealed and destroyed the cause pertaining to the civil dispute instead of sending it to the appropriate court.
The defendant attempted to assert that he had delivered a certified copy of the record and the P16 to a certain Nazario Cando, who was to forward them to the clerk.
However, Nazario Cando denied receiving such documents or money, and Tobias failed to produce any receipt or satisfactory explanation for this alleged delivery.

An inquiry initiated by Alejo Anupol, upon learning that his appeal had not been received, led to an administrative investigation conducted by the Court of First Instance.
The investigation revealed that neither the required documents nor the deposit were ever received by the clerk.
Furthermore, at the termination of his service as auxiliary justice, Tobias submitted a list of pending cases to the clerk which notably omitted the cause between Aguirre and Anupol, thereby raising significant concerns about his conduct.

Judge Julio Llorente, during the trial, observed that Tobias testified falsely regarding the delivery of the documents and money.
The trial judge opined that the disappearance of the case file was a deliberate act by Tobias aimed at covering up his failure to forward the documents, thus betraying public trust.

Groizard’s Commentaries on the Penal Code were cited, outlining that the crime of “faithlessness in the custody of documents” requires:

The agent being a public officer.
The abstraction, concealment, or destruction of documents.
The documents being entrusted to the officer by virtue of his official position.
Injury resulting to a third party or the public.

Viada’s explanation of the same provision emphasized that if the documents were not so entrusted by reason of the officer’s public function, the act would instead constitute estafa, not the crime charged.

Whether Cayetano Tobias, as a public officer, committed the crime of “faithlessness in the custody of documents” by failing to deliver the appellate record and the P16 deposit to the Court of First Instance.

Did Tobias’s actions meet all the essential elements defined for the crime, specifically that the documents were entrusted to him by virtue of his office?
Was there sufficient evidence to conclude that his conduct resulted in injury to the parties and to the public?

Whether the defendant’s attempt to justify his actions by alleging delivery through an intermediary (Nazario Cando) is credible, given the absence of any documentary proof or receipt of such delivery.

Whether the nature of the crime charged should be construed as one of “faithlessness in the custody of documents” rather than as a crime of estafa, based on the definitions and essential elements provided in legal commentaries.

Whether the lower court’s sentence, which imposed imprisonment and various penalties but omitted the prescribed fine, requires modification to include a fine as mandated by article 360 of the Penal Code.