Page 1 of 2

FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 10935. February 1, 1916.]
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CASIMIRO E. VELASQUEZ, defendant-appellant.
Silvestre Apacible for appellant.
Attorney-General Avancea for appellee.
SYLLABUS
1.

MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS: ARTICLES 119-121, PENAL CODE. Act No.

1740, entitled "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." does not repeal articles 119, 120 and 121 of the Penal Code and said articles
are still in force and applicable to all crimes committed under said Act.
DECISION
MORELAND, J p:
This is a motion for a modification of the decision of this court wherein the accused and
appellant, after having been convicted of the crime of misappropriation of public funds, was
sentenced by this court in addition to the penalty imposed by the trial court, to indemnify the
province to which the money misappropriated belongs in the sum of P597, the amount
misappropriated by the accused. The prayer of the moving party is that portion of the
judgment requiring the return to the Province of Rizal of the sum P597 be stricken from our
judgment. The ground on which that motion is based is that under Act No. 1740, the Act
under which the accused was convicted, and sentenced, does not authorize what is termed in
the Penal Code an indemnity by way of the restitution to the municipality injured of the sum of
which it has been illegally deprived.
Act No. 1740, entitled "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 "in so
far as the same may be in conflict with this Act." No other provisions of the Penal Code are
repealed; and those expressly mentioned are repealed only in so far as they may be in conflict
with the Act. The general principles embodied in articles 119, 120, and 121 of the Penal Code
are not disturbed by Act No. 1740, and are still in force and applicable to all crimes committed
under the Act. Whether the payment to the province of P597 under the decision of this court
be called a restitution or an indemnity, the result is the same. The articles just referred to
require the accused to repair the damage caused the province and to make good the loss which
it has sustained by reason of his illegal acts. This question has not been directly presented to
this court heretofore in such a way as to require a direct decision thereon; but precisely the

Page 2 of 2

same kind of case has already been under consideration by this court in which the court
affirmed a judgment holding that the accused must indemnify the province. In the case of the
United States vs. Meneses (14 Phil. Rep., 357), the accused misappropriated P2,713,68
belonging to the Province of Albay, and was sentenced by the trial court to eight years'
imprisonment, to the payment of a fine of P1,000, and to indemnify the province in the sum of
P2,713. The accused appealed from the judgment of conviction and the sentence imposed
thereunder alleging particularly that the punishment was excessive. The Supreme Court in
dealing with that question said:
"We think this was a sound exercise of the discretion conferred upon the trial court in
imposing the penalty prescribed in Act No. 1740, and we find no error in the proceedings
prejudicial to the rights of the accused. The sentence imposed by the trial court should be and
is hereby affirmed."
The motion is denied. So ordered.
Arellano, C. J., Torres, Johnson, Carson, Trent, and Araullo, JJ., concur.