Case Summary (G.R. No. 10935)
Legal Issue Presented
The primary issue concerns whether Act No. 1740 authorizes the imposition of indemnity, specifically requiring restitution or reimbursement by the accused to the province for the amount of public funds misappropriated. The appellant moved for modification of the Court's prior decision that ordered him, in addition to his penal sentence, to indemnify the Province of Rizal the sum of P 597, arguing that Act No. 1740 does not authorize such indemnification or restitution.
Statutory Interpretation of Act No. 1740
Act No. 1740, titled “An Act providing for the punishment of public officers and employees who fail or refuse to account for public funds or property or who make personal use of such funds or property," explicitly repeals articles 390, 391, and 392 of the Penal Code, but only insofar as they conflict with the provisions of the said Act. No other Penal Code provisions are repealed. Importantly, the general principles found in Articles 119, 120, and 121 of the Penal Code remain in full force and effect. These articles embody the foundational criminal law principles concerning damages and restitution for injurious acts.
Indemnity and Restitution under the Penal Code
The Court reasoned that whether characterized as "restitution" or "indemnity," the obligation to repair damage persists under Articles 119, 120, and 121 of the Penal Code. These provisions mandate that an offender compensate for the damage caused by their illegal acts. Hence, the accused’s obligation to reimburse the province for the misappropriated funds is consistent with overarching penal principles, regardless of whether such specific remedy was detailed in Act No. 1740.
Precedential Authority
The Supreme Court referred to a prior decision, United States vs. Meneses (14 Phil. Rep., 357), which involved facts parallel to the present case. In Meneses, the accused was convicted for misappropriating public funds and was ordered to indemnify the province for the exact amount confiscated. In affirming that decision, the Court held that it properly exercised its discretion in imposing both penal and indemnity sanctions. The affirmation in Meneses thus supports the present ruling that a convicted public officer must make good the loss caused by his illegal acts, even outside the explicit provisions of Act No. 1740.
Court’s Ruling on the Motion for Modification
The Court denied the appellant’s motion to strike the indemnity portion of the judgment. It confirmed that the obligation to indemnify the province
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 10935)
Background and Procedural History
- The case involves a motion for modification of a previous decision by the Supreme Court of the Philippines.
- Defendant-appellant Casimiro E. Velazquez was convicted of the crime of misappropriation of public funds.
- The original decision imposed the penalty determined by the trial court and additionally required the appellant to indemnify the Province of Rizal the sum of P 597, equivalent to the misappropriated amount.
- The appellant filed a motion seeking to have the indemnity portion of the judgment—requiring return of the P 597—stricken from the judgment.
Grounds for the Motion
- The appellant’s primary argument centered on the interpretation of Act No. 1740, the law under which he was convicted and sentenced.
- He contended that Act No. 1740 does not authorize restitution or indemnity by way of returning to the injured municipality the exact sum of money illegally taken.
- Act No. 1740, titled "An Act providing for the punishment of public officers and employees who fail or refuse to account for public funds or property or who make personal use of such funds or property, etc.," expressly repeals Articles 390, 391, and 392 of the Penal Code but only insofar as they conflict with the Act.
- No other Penal Code provisions are repealed; particularly, general principles embodied in Articles 119, 120, and 121 of the Penal Code remain valid and applicable.
- The appellant’s argument posits that since Act No. 1740 repealed conflicting articles but did not repeal provisions on indemnity or restitution, the latter are not mandated.
Court’s Analysis on Legal Provisions
- The Supreme Court examined whether the indemnit