G.R. No. 18688. February 10, 1923

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of
Pangasinan convicting the defendant of the crime of unfaithfulness in the
custody of public documents, and sentencing him to suffer one year, eight months
and twenty-one days of prision correccional, with the corresponding
accessory penalties prescribed by law, to pay a fine of 325 pesetas, with
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and with disqualification for
public office for the term of eleven years and one day.

The information alleges “that on or about the 30th day of June, 1920, in the
town of Bayambang, Province of Pangasinan, the municipal treasurer of said
municipality sent by means of a messenger to the herein accused, Eusebio C.
Camacho, as municipal president, for his examination, certification and
signature, the municipal pay roll of said municipality for the payment of the
salaries due the municipal functionaries and employees for the month of June,
1920, and that said accused, upon obtaining possession of said public document,
voluntarily, illegally, and criminally put aside, concealed and destroyed said
document, which had been entrusted to him by reason of his office, with the
purpose of not paying or reimbursing a certain sum for which he was in duty
bound to reimburse the municipal treasury, said sum consisting in per diems
illegally collected, with grave injustice to the public interests as well as to
the persons interested in said municipal pay roll, in violation of article 360
of the Penal Code.”

The evidence shows that the municipal pay roll alleged to have been destroyed
was prepared in the office of the municipal treasurer and that the clerk who
prepared it took it to the office of the accused, as municipal president, for
his approval. The roll was not signed or certified to by any of the officials
whose signatures were required before payments of salaries could be hgally made,
but it appears that notwithstanding this fact the municipal treasurer had
already paid the salary of the municipal secretary when the roll was presented
to the president for approval.

As to what occurred in the office of the president when the pay roll was
shown to him, the evidence is conflicting. That of the prosecution is to the
effect that the president, upon being handed the roll, became angry because it
was accompanied by a memorandum requiring him to reimburse the municipality for
the sum of P33 alleged to have been overdrawn by him by way of per diem
allowances, and that he therefore tore the roll into pieces. The defendant
denies that any demand was made upon him for a reimbursement or that he, for
that reason, destroyed the pay roll.

The witnesses for the defense, among them the clerk who prepared the pay roll
and brought it to the president for approval, testify that the president, upon
ascertaining that the municipal secretary had already been paid, notwithstanding
the fact that the pay roll had not been approved and that no deductions had been
made for alleged absences, manifested his displeasure therewith and told the
municipal secretary that he would not approve the roll; that the secretary, who
appeared to be intoxicated, then became incensed and attempted to take the pay
roll away from the president, and that in the ensuing struggle the pay roll was
torn.

It appears from the record that there was considerable ill-feeling between
the president and the secretary due to political rivalry and that the treasurer
also was hostile to the president. In view of the fact that no deduction was
made upon the pay roll for the P33 alleged to have been overdrawn by the
president, the reason given by the prosecution for the destruction of the pay
roll does not appear very probable and considering the enmity existing between
the parties it seems more likely that the president, finding that the salary of
the secretary had been paid without his approval, felt that he and his office
had been slighted by the treasurer and that, losing control of his temper, he,
and not the municipal secretary, was principally responsible for the damage to
the roll.

But from the point of view we take of the case, the facts in dispute are not
of controlling importance in its final determination and the result will be the
same whether we adopt the version given by the witness for the prosecution or
whether we accept that of the defense.

The alleged public document, with the destruction of which the defendant is
charged, is in the evidence before us. It consists of a printed blank form
called “Municipal Pay Roll” filled in with the names of the municipal officials
and employees to whom salaries were due, together with their designations and
the amounts due them. At the foot of each page there is a blank space for its
approval by the municipal president and in addition thereto the following form
for a certificate appears:

“I hereby certify on my official oath that the above Pay Roll is correct and
that the services have been duly rendered as stated.

_____________________________	(as to office of President and police force).
(Municipal President)
_____________________________	(as to office of Secretary).
(Municipal Secretary)
_____________________________	(as to office of Treasurer).
(Municipal Treasurer)
_____________________________	(as to office of ________)”

Neither the certificate nor the space for the approval of the roll have been
signed. The only signature on the roll is that of “A. Garcia” appearing by way
of receipt for the salary of the municipal secretary. In the absence of the
approval of the president, the payment of that salary was contrary to law
(Administrative Code, sec. 2300), and being thus completely unauthorized,
neither the payment nor the receipt therefor, nor the signature signifying such
receipt can be considered of official character. In that incomplete state of the
pay roll, the signature “A. Garcia” had no legitimate place thereon and for the
purpose of determining the character of the instrument may be entirely
disregarded.

A document is a writing or instrument by which a fact may be proven and
affirmed (2 Escriche Dic. de Leg. y Jurisprudencia, 714). The writing
here in question proves nothing and confirms nothing; it is not a document but
merely a draft of one. Until approved or certified to by one or more of the
proper officials, it would not be entitled to filing in any public office or
archive and might be disapproved or even destroyed by the official whose
approval was necessary to give it effect, without giving rise to criminal
liability on his part.

The Attorney-General, in his brief, cites the case of United States
vs. Asensi (34 Phil., 750), as authority for the contention that the
writing in question is a public document. It is true that in a dictum in
the decision in that case the court, citing United States vs. Carrington
(5 Phil., 725), said “We have also held that the blank forms prepared by the
Auditor of the Philippine Islands, in accordance with Act No. 90 of the
Philippine Commission, are public documents.” An examination of the Carrington
case shows that what the court there held, and what it evidently meant to say in
the Asensi case, was that documents executed on blank forms prepared by the
Auditor of the Philippine Islands in accordance with Act No. 90 of the
Philippine Islands, are public documents. To hold that a mere blank in itself
alone is a public document would lead to the absurdity that a person might be
criminally prosecuted under article 360 of the Penal Code for the destruction of
a printed blank form containing no other writing whatever. (For a discussion of
what constitutes a public document within the meaning of the Penal Code, see
sentence of the supreme court of Spain of May 27, 1882.)

Counsel for the defendant argues that there in the present case was no
destruction of the alleged document in so far as it, with slight repairs, might
have been made serviceable. There is some force in this contention, but, in view
of our conclusions as to the character of the writing, the point need not be
discussed.

For the reasons stated, the judgment appealed from is reversed and the
defendant will stand acquitted of the offense charged in the information. So
ordered.

Araullo, C.J., Malcolm, Avanceña, Villamor, Johns, and
Romualdez, JJ., concur.
Street, J., concurs in the
result.