65. U.S. vs.

TORRIDA
G.R. Nos.7450, 7451, 7452 Sept. 18, 1912

Facts: Torrida was a counsilor in town of Aparri, Province of Cagayan. Defendant

directed his subordinates that the death of large animals must be reported by the
owners and pays 5 pesos to him for each and every animal, which he will turn these
fees to the municipality. These orders were conveyed and obeyed by the owners
because of him being a councilman and believing that the municipality provided for
the payment for such fines. Santiago and Felipe Rante (complainants) contested, and
3 separate complaint were filed against defendant, they opposed that there was no
provision made by the municipality or any other entity for the imposition of such fines
and such orders clearly constitute the crime of estafa. It was also alleged in the
information of their complaint 3 aggravating circumstances as provided under Art.
10 of the Penal Code paragraphs 10, 11 and 18 read as follows:
10. That the act committed with abuse of confidence.
11. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position.
18. That the accused is a recidivist.
The trail court ruled in favor of the complainants also giving consideration to alleged
aggravating circumstances. Thus, the defendant appealed with the Supreme Court
that the trial court erred in its decision; and in imposing the penalty set forth in Art.
399 of the same code, which provides “ Any public officer who, taking advantage of
his official position, shall commit any of the crimes enumerated in chapter 4 of section
2 of title 13 of this book shall, in addition to the penalties therein prescribed, suffers
a penalty raging from temporary special disqualification in its maximum degree to
perpetual special disqualification.

Issue:
1. Whether or not the alleged aggravating circumstances under Art. 10 of Penal
Code should be given consideration.
2. Whether or not penalty provided under Art. 399 of the same code shall also be
applied.
Ruling:
1. The court modified the decision of the trail court on considering the
aggravating circumstances present in the alleged information of the case. Paragraphs
10 and 18 should not be given weight, because the information clearly shows that the
crime committed was nothing to do with abuse of confidence. There were no
confidential relationship between complainant and the accused and to constitute
such, the confidence between parties must be immediate and personal and such
would give the accused some advantage or make it easier for him to commit the
criminal act.
With regards to paragraph 18, three cases were filed against defendant and were
tried and rendered the judgements all in the same time. However, it does not
constitute the defendant of being a recidivist. A recidivist is one who at the time of
his trial for one crime shall have been convicted by final judgement of another crime
embraced in the same title of the Penal Code. At the time the trial court held that the
accused was twice a recidivist there was no final judgement against him. In fact, the
judgment imposed could not have been final until after the expiration of 15 days.
While on the other hand paragraph 11 should be considered to increase the penalty
for the accused. It was found present, the fact that the defendant was a councilman
at the time he committed the crime, constitute the abuse of public position by taking
advantage of it. If he was not a councilman at the time he committed such act, the
parties could have not been induced to pay the alleged fines.
2. The aggravating circumstance paragraph 11 was present for the purpose of
increasing the penalty; the disqualification mentioned in article 399 is a part of the
penalty to be imposed.