THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. ANTONIO E. DALEON, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

In Criminal Case No. 11723 of the Court of First Instance of Quezon
charging Antonio E. Daleon with the crime of malversation of public
funds, the court, after trial, found the accused innocent of the charge
and acquitted him accordingly, ordering as well the payment of his
salary during his suspension from office and his reinstatement. The
dispositive portion of the judgment reads:

“Premised
on the foregoing considerations, the Court finds the accused Antonio E.
Daleon innocent of the charge of malversation of public funds and
hereby dismisses the information against him, with costs de oficio,
declaring the bail bond executed by him for his provisional release
from the custody of the law cancelled and of no further force and
effect, and ordering the payment of his salary during his suspension
from office as well as his reinstatement to his former position or to
such other position in the provincial government of the province of
Quezon as may be suitable to his civil service eligibility.”

From the above judgment, the prosecution appealed, assigning the following legal question:

“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ORDERING THE PAYMENT OF THE SALARY OF THE ACCUSED DURING THIS SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE.”

The question is not new. In at least three cases previously decided by this Court (People vs. Mañago, 69 Phil., 496; Pueblo vs. Lagutan, 70 Phil., 481; Manila Railroad Co. vs.
Baltazar, et al., 93 Phil., 715; 49 Off. Gaz., 3874), we have ruled
that the trial court, in a criminal action for malversation of public
funds wherein the accused is acquitted, is without power to order the
payment of his salary during the period of his suspension. The reason
is that the only issue joined by the plea of not guilty is whether or
not the accused committed the crime charged in the information, and in
such case, the only judgment that the court is legally authorized to
render is either one of acquittal or of conviction with the indemnity
to the injured party and the accessory penalties provided for by law.

Appellee Daleon cites several cases wherein we upheld the right of an
accused of the crime of malversation, in case of acquittal, to back
salaries and reinstatement, but these cases are not in point because
they involved appeals either from civil actions or from administrative
proceedings seeking such remedies. In other words, while an accused
acquitted of malversation may claim payment of back salaries during the
period of his suspension and reinstatement, his relief lies not in the
same criminal case wherein he is acquitted hut in the proper
administrative or civil action prescribed by law.

Wherefore,
the judgment appealed from is modified by eliminating therefrom that
portion which orders the payment of appellee Antonio E. Daleon’s salary
during the period of his suspension from office. Costs against appellee
Antonio E. Daleon.

Bengzon, Acting C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, and Dizon, JJ., concur.