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 No other provisions of the Penal Code are repealed; and those expressly mentioned are repealed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.