THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. JUANITO C. PECAÑA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

People versus Pecaña

The Case

People versus Pecaña is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Juanito C. Pecaña, the municipal treasurer of Bay, Laguna, for malversation of public funds — the misappropriation of money that belonged to the municipality and had been entrusted to his custody. He pleaded guilty, was sentenced by the trial court, and appealed to the Supreme Court on two narrow points about the penalty. The case matters for the bar candidate because it is a clean illustration of the Court's self-restraint in sentencing: the judiciary applies the penalty that the statute prescribes, and a plea that a fine is unreasonable is addressed to the legislature, not to the courts.

Procedural History

The accused was charged with malversation of public funds in the Court of First Instance of Laguna. He pleaded guilty to the charge. On that plea the trial court sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of from four years, one month and one day to eight years of imprisonment; to indemnify the municipality of Bay in the sum of six thousand eight hundred sixty pesos and three centavos; to perpetual disqualification to hold public office; to a fine of three thousand four hundred thirty pesos and one centavo; and to pay the costs. From that sentence he appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assigning as errors the fixing of the amount of indemnity and the imposition of a fine equivalent to one-half of the amount malversed.

Facts

Juanito C. Pecaña was the treasurer of the municipality of Bay, Laguna. As treasurer, public funds of the municipality were entrusted to his custody. The sum of six thousand eight hundred sixty pesos and three centavos belonging to the municipality was in his charge, and he misappropriated it.

He was accordingly charged with malversation of public funds in the Court of First Instance of Laguna. He entered a plea of guilty. The trial court rendered judgment sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty, ordering him to indemnify the municipality, imposing perpetual disqualification to hold public office, and imposing a fine of three thousand four hundred thirty pesos and one centavo, plus the costs.

On appeal, it appeared from a receipt issued by the provincial treasurer and exhibited at the trial that the accused had already reimbursed four hundred pesos of the amount malversed. The Solicitor General and counsel for the defense both agreed that this amount should be credited to him.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in fixing the amount of indemnity without crediting the four hundred pesos already reimbursed by the accused.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in imposing a fine equivalent to one-half of the amount malversed, the defense contending that the fine was unreasonable and excessive.
• Whether or not the trial court correctly fixed the maximum term of the imprisonment imposed.

Applicable Provisions

Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, as discussed in the decision, prescribes the penalty for malversation of public funds, and the Court quotes its range for the fine:

Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, which is from one-half to the total value of the funds embezzled.

This range is the measure against which the Court tested the fine of three thousand four hundred thirty pesos and one centavo, which is exactly one-half of the amount malversed.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled for the accused. It agreed with the Solicitor General and with counsel for the defense that the appellant should be credited with the four hundred pesos he had already reimbursed, as shown by the receipt of the provincial treasurer exhibited at the trial, so that the actual indemnity should be reduced to six thousand four hundred sixty pesos and three centavos.

On the second issue, the Court ruled against the accused. The fine imposed was within the range prescribed by Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, and the Court saw no reason to reduce its amount, much less to remit it entirely. The fine was by no means excessive considering the nature of the offense, and the plea that it was unreasonable was one that should be addressed to the legislative branch of the Government. The Court put the point memorably:

All we can do is to apply the law as it is and not as it should be.

On the third issue, which the Court raised on its own, it found that the trial court did not correctly fix the maximum term of imprisonment. Under the law, that maximum should not be less than eight years and one day of prisión mayor, the penalty the Court named for the maximum period.

Doctrine

First, in malversation of public funds, the indemnity to the government is measured by the amount actually malversed and not yet reimbursed; any amount already restored to the government must be credited to the accused. Second, the fine for malversation must fall within the range fixed by Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, from one-half to the total value of the funds embezzled, and a fine within that range is left undisturbed; a claim that the fine is unreasonable or excessive is a matter of legislative policy, not a ground for judicial reduction, because the courts apply the law as it is and not as it should be. Third, the indeterminate sentence law requires that the maximum term be fixed within the range prescribed by the Code, here not less than eight years and one day of prisión mayor, and an error in the maximum term may be corrected by the appellate court even if the accused did not raise it.

Disposition

The sentence appealed from was affirmed, with the modification that the indemnity to be paid by the appellant be six thousand four hundred sixty pesos and three centavos and that the maximum term of imprisonment be eight years and one day, without costs.

Remember This

Memorize the line that the courts apply the law as it is and not as it should be, and pair it with the rule that a fine within the range of Article 217 cannot be reduced on a plea of excessiveness. Examiners use this case to test the separation of judicial and legislative power in sentencing, and to test whether a candidate remembers to credit amounts already reimbursed in fixing the civil indemnity for malversation.