Case Digest (G.R. No. L-2825)
Facts:
The United States v. Paul A. Weems, G.R. No. 2825, December 29, 1906, the Supreme Court, Carson, J., writing for the Court; Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Johnson, Willard, and Tracey, JJ., concur.The appellant, Paul A. Weems, was charged in the Court of First Instance of Manila with falsification of a public document by a public official. The information alleged that on or about June 22, 1904, Weems, who was serving as disbursing officer of the Bureau of Coast Guard and Transportation, falsified the Bureau's cashbook by making entries that purportedly showed full payment of two payroll vouchers (No. 29 for Capul, P204; No. 30 for Malabrigo, P408) when in fact he had not paid those amounts in full — except that he had paid P204 on voucher No. 30.
At trial the accused admitted making the entries but explained that on the pay trip of June 22, 1904 he discovered he had insufficient funds; he claimed the lighthouse employees agreed to accept partial payment and to have the balance held as a personal deposit to be paid later, and that he regarded himself as personally responsible for the unpaid balances. The prosecution called the chief lighthouse keepers of Capul and Malabrigo, who denied any such agreement and testified that the employees accepted the partial payment only because there was nothing else to be done and without surrendering their claim against the Government.
Additional prosecution evidence tended to show that shortly after the trip the accused sent cablegrams to the United States seeking remittances and, after institution of criminal proceedings, attempted surreptitious payments toward the unpaid balances; the Court found no need to rely on these proofs in light of the contradictory testimony of the keepers.
Weems' counsel demurred to the complaint and, on appeal, presented three principal assignments of error: (1) that the complaint was defective because it charged falsification of the cashbook of the "Bureau of Coast Guard and Transportation of the Government of the United States in the Philippine Islands" whereas, it was claimed, no such Bureau had been created (the proper entity being the Bureau of Coast Guard and Transportation of the Philippine Government); (2) that the accused was not a "public official" within the meaning of Article 401 of the Penal Co...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the demurrer to the complaint properly overruled given the alleged misnaming of the Bureau in the information?
- Was Paul A. Weems a "public official" within the meaning of Article 401 of the Penal Code at the time of the alleged falsification?
- Was the cashbook falsified by Weems a "public document" within the meaning of Article 300 of the Penal Code, and did the evidence establis...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)