THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. VIRGILIO L. VILLANUEVA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

On December 7, 1931, there was sent from Honokaa, Hawaii, a postal
money order for the sum of P200 in favor of Irene Sanchez, resident of
Santa Lucia, Ilocos Sur. On January 14, 1932, there were likewise sent
from Watsonville, California, five postal money orders, four of which
were for the sum of P200 each and one for the sum of P100, in favor of
Feliciano Isidro resident of the same municipality of Santa Lucia,
Ilocos Sur. The postal money order in favor of Irene Sanchez was sent
her by her son Conde E. Aceta and the ones sent to Feliciano Isidro, by
his son Victor. In or about the month of March, 1932, Irene Sanchez and
Feliciano Isidro, who had been informed by letter that the money orders
in Question had been sent them, went to the post office of Santa Lucia
to make inquiries regarding the matter. The defendant Virgilio
Villanueva who was then the postmaster of Santa Lucia, informed them
that the money orders had not yet been received. Irene Sanchez and
Feliciano Isidro returned to the same office twice to make the same
inquiry but they were given the same information that the money orders
had not yet been received. In April of the same year, when Feliciano
Isidro went there again, the defendant informed him that he had already
received the money orders and that he had appropriated the amount
thereof. Consequently, through the intervention of Pedro Callejo,
principal of the Santa Lucia Primary School, the defendant signed two
documents (Exhibits B and D) wherein he admitted having received the
money orders, forged the signatures of Irene Sanchez and Feliciano
Isidro thereon, collected and appropriated the respective amounts
thereof. Furthermore, we find that this admission by the defendant was
made voluntarily.

By way of defense, the defendant attempted
to prove that he paid the interested parties the amount of the money
orders, that he signed Irene Sanchez’s name on the money order sent her
because her daughter, who presented it and to whom he paid the
corresponding amount, did not know how to sign her name; that he signed
the name of Feliciano Isidro on the money orders because the latter had
authorized him to do so. These allegations, however, were not proven
during the trial and are contradicted by the admission made by the
defendant in Exhibits B and D. On the other hand, the fact that the
defendant did not enter the receipt of the money orders in question in
the book for registered matter (Exhibit J), undoubtedly to conceal it,
and that the defendant further affixed the name of Irene Sanchez to the
money order drawn in her favor and that of Feliciano Isidro to those
sent him, in different handwritings, show the defendant’s intent to
conceal the crime he was committing. Furthermore, Irene Sanchez and
Feliciano Isidro have denied all such allegations of the accused.

Even if the signatures of Irene Sanchez and Feliciano Isidro had not
been imitated on the money orders, the fact that they were signed
thereon in order to make it appear that they intervened in the
execution thereof in the sense that they received the corresponding
amounts, when they did not in fact intervene nor receive the amounts in
question, is sufficient to qualify the crime of falsification of public
documents (U. S. vs. Cinco and Redoña, 42 Phil., 839).

The amount of these money orders had the nature of a public fund while
it was under the custody of the defendant as postmaster of Santa Lucia,
and the appropriation thereof by the said defendant constitutes the
crime of malversation of public funds.

The falsification of
each of these six money orders committed separately by means of
different acts constitutes independent crimes of falsification (U. S. vs.
Infante and Barreto, 36 Phil., 146), and the appropriation of the
respective amounts thereof by the defendant, likewise constitutes
different crimes of malversation. In the record of payments then kept
by the defendant, it appears that the respective amounts of the money
orders had been paid on different dates, proving that the appropriation
thereof was made on different occasions. Furthermore, no objection had
been filed to any of the informations presented in the trial court.

We agree with the opinion of the defense that falsification was not a
necessary means for the commission of the crime of malversation,
inasmuch as the amounts embezzled were in the possession of the
defendant and he could have appropriated them just the same without the
necessity of falsifying the money orders, and that if the defendant
also committed falsification, it was done for the sole purpose of
concealing the crime of malversation.

We are of the opinion
that the defendant is guilty of six crimes of malversation in the sum
of P200 in each and every one of the cases Nos. 39047, 39048, 39049,
39050 and 39051 and in the sum of P100 in case No. 39052 and of six
crimes of falsification of public documents in each and every one of
the aforesaid cases.

Wherefore, with the understanding that
the accused is sentenced in each and every one of the six aforesaid
cases for the crime of falsification of public documents to eight years
and one day of prision mayor and for malversation of public funds to one year, eight months and twenty-one days of prision correccional, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed in all other respects, with the costs.

However, considering the penalty herein imposed as excessive, we hereby
recommend to His Excellency the Governor-General, such clemency as he
may deem just. So ordered.

Street, Abad Santos, Vickers, and Butte, JJ., concur.