THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. LEON AQUINO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

The accused Leon Aquino was charged in the Court of First Instance
of Pangasinan with malversation of public funds for having on or about
July 16, 1951, misappropriated public funds amounting to P20,944.27
entrusted to his care in his capacity as municipal treasurer and
postmaster of Mabini, Pangasinan, and “ex-officio in-charge of the
properties and funds of the National Rice and Corn Corporation
(NARIC).” Pleading guilty to the charge, the accused was, in accordance
with article 217, paragraph 4, of the Revised Penal Code and the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, sentenced as follows:

“(a) In accordance with the Indeterminate Sentence
Law and article 217, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code, and taking
into account his plea of guilty, to suffer a penalty of Eight years and
one day of prision mayor as a minimum, and twelve years and one day of ‘reclusion temporal‘ as a maximum;

“(b) To suffer the penalty of perpetual special disqualification;

“(c) To pay a fine of P10,472.13, without subsidiary imprisonment because of the principal penalty imposed;

“(d) To indemnify the National Rice and Corn Corporation in the amount of P12,656.83;

“(e) To indemnify the Government of the Republic of the Philippines in the amount of P2,910.44;

“(f) To indemnify the Bureau of Posts or the Government of the Republic of the Philippines in the further amount of P5,377;

“(g) To pay the costs of this case.”

From this sentence the accused has appealed, and his attorney in
this instance contends that the lower court should have applied
paragraph 3 instead of paragraph 4 of the article mentioned. In support
of this contention attention is invited to the fact disclosed in the
information that P12,656.83 of the funds malversed belonged to the
NARIC, and, on the theory that NARIC funds are not public funds because
the NARIC is a corporation separate and distinct from the Government,
counsel argues that with respect to that sum the accused cannot be held
guilty of malversation of public funds. With that sum excluded, the
amount of public funds malversed, so counsel contends, would only be
P8,287.44 and would come under paragraph 3 of the article in question,
which provides for a penalty higher than that prescribed in paragraph 4.

The contention is without merit Even supposing that funds belonging
to the NARIC are not public funds, they become impressed with that
character when they are entrusted to a public officer for his official
custody (People vs. De la Serna, 40 Off. Gaz. [Supp. 12] 159). Thus
this Court has held that Red Cross, Anti-Tuberculosis, and Boy Scouts
funds delivered to an assistant cashier of a provincial treasurer for
his custody acquire the attributes of public funds (People vs.
Velasquez, 72 Phil., 98).

We find the sentence appealed from in accordance with law. We, therefore, confirm it with costs.against the appellant.

Paras, C. J., Pablo, Bengzon, Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, and Concepcion, JJ., concur.