THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. ANTONIO P. CID, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

In four separate cases, Antonio P. Cid was charged with, prosecuted for
and convicted of malversation of public funds through falsification of
public documents, and sentenced later by the Court of First Instance of
Ilocos Norte, as follows:

1. To an indeterminate penalty of from six months and one day of prision correccional to six years and one day of prision mayor,
   to pay a fine of P500, to indemnify the municipal government of Batac,
   Ilocos Norte, in the sum of P741.24, and to pay the costs of the trial
   in the first case (criminal case No. 6716 of the lower court; G. R. No.
   45649).

2. To an indeterminate penalty of from six months and one day of prision correccional to six years and one day of prision mayor,
   to pay a fine of P500, to indemnify the municipal government of Batac,
   Ilocos Norte, in the sum of P1,811.10, and to pay the costs of; the
   trial in the second case (criminal case No. 6717 of the lower court; G.
   R. No. 45650).

3. To an indeterminate penalty of from six months and one day of prision correccional to six years and one day of prision mayor,
   to pay also a fine of P500, to indemnify the municipality of Batac,
   Ilocos Norte, in the sum of P788.89 and to pay the costs of the trial
   in the third case (criminal case No. 6718 of the lower court; G. R. No.
   45651), and finally,

4. To a likewise indeterminate penalty of from six months and one day of prision correccional to six years and one day of prision mayor,
   to pay another fine of P500, to indemnify the municipality of Batac,
   Ilocos Norte, in the sum of P1,598.83 and to pay the costs of the trial
   in the fourth case (criminal case No. 6719 of the lower court; G. R.
   No. 45652).

On February 26, 1937, before the trial
of his four cases, the accused, through his attorneys, asked that, as
the four charges imputed against him are so closely related to one
another, the acts constituting the same should be considered as one
continuous act, or that the crime committed by him was a continuous
one, and therefore said charges should be ordered consolidated into
only one charge. The record is silent and the lower court fails to make
any mention in its decision and judgment of the nature of its
resolution on the petition of the accused. It is stated therein,
however, that the plea entered by the accused when the four
informations filed against him were read to him one after another, was
that of guilty.

Not agreeing to the sentences imposed upon
him, the accused appealed therefrom and now contends that the lower
court erred in not finding him guilty of only one crime of malversation
with falsification of public documents.

In order to have an
exact idea of the facts, it should be stated that the allegations of
the information heading the first case (G. R. No. 45649) are as follows:

“That
on or about and within the period comprised between May 1, 1936, and
October 3, 1936, in the municipality of Batac, Province of Ilocos
Norte, Philippine Islands, the above-named accused, being municipal
treasurer of said municipality and deputy provincial treasurer of
Ilocos Norte, duly appointed and qualified as such, and being a bonded
official besides, voluntarily, unlawfully and criminally, and taking
advantage of his position, malversed and misappropriated the sum of
P741.24 belonging to the public funds, by falsifying a public document
that he caused to pass for a payroll (Provincial Form No. 38-A), which
is voucher No. 365, making it appear therein that Severina R. Cabanag,
Antonia Isaguirre, Juana Lumang, Dorico A. Gumtang, Remedios R.
Gumtang, Juana Mangapit, Caridad Garganta, Maria R. Rigonan, Marcela
Rigonan, Cresenciana Mangapit, Doroteo M. Torres, Petra A. Layawan,
Nicolasa Ulit, Maria Naanep, Andrea G. Gumtang, all municipal teachers
of Batac, received their corresponding salaries as such teachers for
the period from May 1, to July 6, 1936, which salaries amounted to
P741.24, and falsified or caused to be falsified, imitated or forged on
the aforesaid document the signatures of the above-named teachers as
well as that of Rosendo R. Paguyo, School Supervisor of Batac, whose
duty was to approve and sign the teachers’ payrolls, when in fact said
teachers did not receive either wholly or in part the sums indicated as
received by them in said document, nor was said document signed or
approved by School Supervisor Rosendo R. Paguyo; and later, on October
3, 1936, in the above-stated municipality of Batac, said accused
voluntarily, unlawfuly and criminally entered said document in his cash
book which is another public document, as a legal and valid payroll
paid by him as voucher No. 365, thereby falsifying the statement of
facts in said cash book, and appropriating for his personal use and
benefit said sum of P741.24, the amount of the supposed payroll in
question. Contrary to law.”

In the second case (G. R. No. 45650), the allegations of the information admitted by the accused are as follows:

“That
on or about and within the period comprised between July 1, 1936, and
October 3, 1936, in the municipality of Batac, Province of Ilocos
Norte, Philippine Islands, the above-named accused, being municipal
treasurer of said municipality and deputy provincial treasurer of
Ilocos Norte, duly appointed and qualified as such, and being a bonded
official besides, voluntarily, unlawfully and criminally, and taking
advantage of his position, malversed and misappropriated the sum of
P1,811.10 belonging to the public funds, by falsifying a public
document that he caused to pass for a payroll (Provincial Form No.
38-A), which is voucher No. 363, making it appear therein that Basilia
A. Franco, Magdalena L. Calzado, Severa R. Cabansag, Carlos Malabed,
Pacifica Quiaoit, Santiago Narciso, Antonia Isaguirre, Dorico A.
Gumtang, Remedios R. Cuanang, Juana Mangapit, Angela Bactat, Pio Sabas,
Maria Rabanal, Flora Quiaoit, Leona Barroga, Andres G. Gumtang, Leonor
Abellon, Sinforoso Lagadi, Victorina C. Quiaoit, Juana Lumang, Damaso
Magno, Leonardo Laforga, Paz Crisostomo, Simeona S. Asuncion, Juana R.
Ariola, Ruperto Quilal-lan, Dionisio Castro, Caridad Garganta, Marcela
Rigonan, Doroteo M. Torres, Maria G. Rigonan, Cresenciana Mangapit,
Modesto Calzado, Cecilia Asuncion, Trinidad Braceros, Trinidad Rosario,
Rosario Galano, Maria M. Naanep, Tereza Lopez, Josefa Quiaoit, Gliceria
Racpan, Petra A. Layaoen, Nicolas Ulit, Amparo Mendoza, Estrella G.
Arcangel, Simeon Alonzo, all municipal teachers of Batac, except Simeon
Alonzo who had ceased to be so since March 28, 1936, and Remedios R.
Cuanang who was then on leave, received their corresponding salaries as
such teachers for the period from July 1, 1936, to July 31,1936, which
salaries amounted to P811.10, and falsified or caused to be falsified,
imitated or forged on the aforesaid document the signatures of the
above-named teachers as well as that of Rosendo R. Paguyo, School
Supervisor of Batac, whose duty was to approve and sign the teachers’
payrolls, when in fact said teachers did not receive either wholly or
in part the sums indicated as received by them in said document, nor
was said document signed or approved by School Supervisor Rosendo R.
Paguyo; and later, on October 3, 1936, in the above-stated municipality
of Batac, said accused voluntarily, unlawfully and criminally entered
said document in his cash book which is another public document, as a
legal and valid payroll paid by him as voucher No. 363, thereby
falsifying the statement of facts in said cash book, and appropriating
for his personal use and benefit said sum of P1,811.10, the amount of
the supposed payroll in question. Contrary to law.”

In the third case (G. R. No. 45651), the allegations of the information
imputing to the accused the crime of malversation with falsification of
public documents, are couched in the following language:

“That
on or about and within the period comprised between June 1, 1936, and
October 3, 1936, in the municipality of Batac, Province of Ilocos
Norte, Philippine Islands, the above-named accused, being municipal
treasurer of said municipality and deputy provincial treasurer of
Ilocos Norte, duly appointed and qualified as such, and being a bonded
official besides, voluntarily, unlawfully and criminally, and taking
advantage of his position, malversed and misappropriated the sum of
P788.89 belonging to the public funds, by falsifying a public document
that he caused to pass for a payroll (Provincial Form No. 38-A), which
is voucher No. 364, making it appear therein that Severina R. Cabanag,
Antonia Isaguirre, Juana Lumang, Dorico A. Gumtang, Remedios R.
Guanang, Juana Mangapit, Simeona S. Asuncion, Flora Quiaoit, Dionisio
Gastro, Caridad Garganta, Maria G. Rigonan, Marcela Rigonan,
Gresenciana Mangapit, Doroteo M. Torres, Modesto Calzado, Trinidad
Braceros, Petra A. Layaoen, Nicolasa Wit, Maria R. Naanep, Andres G.
Gumtang, all municipal teachers of Batac, received their corresponding
salaries as such teachers for the period from June 1, 1936, to June 30,
1936, which salaries amounted to P788.89, and falsified or caused to be
falsified, imitated or forged on the aforesaid document the signatures
of the above-named teachers as well as that of Rosendo R. Paguyo,
School Supervisor of Batac, whose duty was to approve and sign the
teachers’ payrolls, when in fact said teachers did not receive either
wholly or in part the sums indicated as received by them in said
document, nor was said document signed or approved by school supervisor
Rosendo R. Paguyo; and later, on October 3, 1936, in the above-stated
municipality of Batac, said accused voluntarily, unlawfully and
criminally entered said document in his cash book which is another
public document, as a legal and valid payroll paid by him as voucher
No. 364, thereby falsifying the statement of facts in said cash book,
and appropriating for his personal use and benefit said sum of P788.89,
the amount of the supposed payroll in question. Contrary to law.”

And the allegations of the information in the fourth case (G. R. No. 45652), are literally as follows:

“That
on or about and within the period comprised between August 1, and
October 3, 1936, in the municipality of Batac, Province of Ilocos
Norte, Philippine Islands, the above-named accused, being municipal
treasurer of said municipality duly appointed and qualified as such,
and being a bonded official besides, voluntarily, unlawfuly and
criminally, and taking advantage of his position, malversed and
misappropriated the sum of P1,598.83 belonging to the public funds, by
making it appear in his cash book which is a public document, that the
payroll of the public school teachers of Batac, corresponding to the
month of August, 1936, was paid twice by him, entering a copy of said
payroll in his cash book, as voucher No. 307 on August 31, 1936, and
again entering another copy thereof as voucher No. 366 on October 3,
1936, so that his cash book shows that he paid said payroll twice and
that the teachers included in said payroll of August 1936 received
their salaries twice, when in fact he paid said payroll only once and
that the above-stated teachers collected their salaries for said month
of August only once; and due to the double entry of said payroll in his
cash book, the accused succeeded in appropriating and appropriated for
his personal use the sum of P2,033.83, minus the sum of P425 which was
recovered from his possession by the provincial auditor, thereby making
the net amount embezzled P1,598.83. Contrary to law.”

By reading the four informations inserted above, it clearly appears
that the alleged acts of falsification and malversation imputed to the
accused-appellant were committed by him, being municipal treasurer and
bonded official of the municipality of Batac of the Province of Ilocos
Norte, on entirely distinct occasions. The malversation alleged in the
first information took place in May, 1936, and to conceal the same the
appellant had to falsify the payroll, provincial form No. 38-A, of said
month, executing therefor the acts stated in the information, which
culminated in the falsification of his cash book on October 3, 1936.
The malversation alleged in the second information, in turn, took place
in July, 1936, and to conceal it, he likewise had to falsify the
payroll, provincial form No. 38-A, of said month, executing therefor
the acts stated in the information, which culminated in the
falsification of voucher No. 365 of the office of said appellant in
October, 1936. The malversation alleged in the third information took
place in June, 1936, and to conceal it from the officials assigned to
examine his accounts, he falsified the official document known in the
record as voucher No. 364. The malversation alleged in the fourth
information took place in August, 1936, and, likewise, to conceal and
hide said criminal act, the appellant falsified the official documents
enumerated in said information, together with the official vouchers
Nos. 307 and 366. It may therefore be said that the malversations as
well as the falsifications imputed to the accused in the four cases
under consideration were not the result of only one purpose or of only
one resolution to embezzle and falsify, but of four or as many
abstractions or misappropriations had of the funds entrusted to his
care, and of as many falsifications also committed to conceal each of
said acts. There is nothing of record to justify the inference that the
intention of the appellant when he committed the malversation in May,
1936, was the same intention which impelled him to commit the other
malversations in June, July and August. On the contrary, the
allegations of each of the four informations above-stated warrant the
conclusion that when the appellant committed the first malversation he
did not yet have the intention to commit the other malversations. He
did not commit them successively but at intervals of one month, after
he had found out that there was no remedy for the bad act committed by
him, having expected perhaps that he could remedy it. As may be seen,
he was mistaken in his calculations. For these reasons, the
accused-appellant is guilty of four malversations and of four
falsifications because the latter were not a necessary means for the
commission of the former, but were committed only to conceal them. This
is so because when the appellant voluntarily pleaded guilty upon
arraignment in connection with the four informations filed against him,
he, in fact, admitted all the material facts alleged in each of them
(U. S. vs. Barba, 29 Phil., 206; U. S. vs. Santiago, 35 Phil., 20; U. S. vs. Burlado, 42 Phil., 72; People vs.
De Jesus, 35 Off. Gaz., 205); and, as already stated, the
falsifications were committed by him after having consummated the
malversations, only for the purpose of concealing or covering the
latter (U. S. vs. Geta, 43 Phil., 1009; People vs.
Villanueva, 58 Phil., 671). It is clear, therefore, that the accused
and appellant committed a crime of malversation and a crime of
falsification in the first case, that is, G. R. No. 45649; another
malversation and another falsification in the second case, that is, G.
R. No. 45650; another malversation and another falsification in the
third case, that is, in that docketed as No. 45651, and finally a
malversation and another falsification in the last case, that is, G. R.
No. 45652. Taking into consideration the sums of money embezzled in
said cases, to wit: P741.24 in the first; P1,811.10 in the second;
P788.89 in the third; and P2,033.83 in the last case, of which sum P425
were recovered, the penalty that may be imposed upon the appellant for
each malversation in the four cases in question, is the indeterminate
penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, that is, from six months and one day to four years and two months, to prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor
in its minimum period, that is, from four years, two months and one day
to eight years, plus a fine not to exceed P6,000 (article 217, No. 2,
of the Revised Penal Code; Act No. 1403 as amended by Act No. 4225);
and the penalty that should be imposed for falsification of official
documents in each of said four cases is the indeterminate penalty of prision correccional in its full extent to prision mayor
also in its full extent, plus a fine not to exceed P5,000 (article 171
of the Revised Penal Code; Acts Nos. 4103 and 4225). The above-stated
penalties should be imposed upon said accused-appellant, without
prejudice to his right recognized by article 70 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 217, that is, that he should
not be sentenced to more than threefold the length of time
corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed upon him.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgments appealed from are modified by
imposing upon the accused-appellant the indeterminate penalty of from
six months and one day of prision correccional to six years and one day of prision mayor for
each of the falsifications committed by him in the three cases G. R.
Nos. 45649, 45650 and 45651, plus the fine of P500 in each of said
cases, and to indemnify the municipal government of Batac of the
Province of Ilocos Norte in the sums of P741.24, P1,811.10 and P788.89,
respectively. This court refrains from imposing upon him the penalties
incurred by him for the malversations of which he pleaded guilty in the
first three cases above-stated because the penalties prescribed for
each of said crimes are less than those prescribed for the
falsifications. This court likewise refrains from imposing upon him the
penalties incurred by him for the malversation and falsification
alleged in the fourth case (G. R. No. 45652), because it is so
prescribed by said article 70 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
Commonwealth Act No. 217. In this last case, however, the appellant is
sentenced by this court to indemnify the municipal government of Batac
of the Province of Ilocos Norte in the sum of P1,598.83. Modified as
above indicated, the four judgments appealed from in the above-cited
four cases are hereby affirmed in all other respects, with the costs to
the appellant. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Imperial, Laurel, and Concepcion, JJ., concur.