Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-10935 February 1, 1916

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
CASIMIRO E. VELASQUEZ, defendant-appellant.

Silvestre Apacible for appellant.

Attorney-General Avanceña for appellee.

MORELAND, J.:

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 that portion of
the judgment requiring the return to the Province of Rizal of the sum of 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 authorized what is termed in the Penal Code an indemnity by way of the
restriction to the municipality injured of the sum of which is 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
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provisions of the Penal Code are repealed; and those expressly mentioned are repealed only in so far as they may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 decisions of this court be called a restitution or an indemnity, the
result is the same year. 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 required a direct decision thereon; but precisely the 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 the 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.