THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. ADOLFO SACRAMENTO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

Adolfo Sacramento appeals to this court from the judgment of the
Court of First Instance of Manila finding him guilty, as charged in the
information, of embezzlement of government funds, and sentencing him to
five years’ imprisonment, to pay a fine of P2,500 with subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to perpetual disqualification
for holding1 any public office.

In support of his appeal, the appellant assigns the following
alleged errors as committed by the trial court in its judgment, to wit:

“1. The lower court erred in not finding that the
defendant has already been convicted of the crime with which he is
charged, that is, that he is twice in jeopardy.

“2. The lower
court erred in finding the defendant guilty of the crime charged, and
sentencing him to five years’ imprisonment, to pay a P2,500-fine, with
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to perpetual
disqualification for holding any public office”

The following facts were proved at the trial beyond a reasonable doubt:

On or about September 22, 1919, the defendant herein, being then cashier of the Bureau of Commerce and Industry, received from Madrigal y Cia.
by reason of his office, the check Exhibit A in the amount of
P14,663.04, in payment of the freight of the Steamship Nipsic for the
period from September 11 to October 10, 1919, and on September 21 of
the same year he issued original receipt No. 2001696-A, Exhibit C, to
said company as a voucher for the payment of said sum, but leaving the
duplicate and triplicate copies of said receipt in blank. The defendant
did not record the amount of said check in the books of his office, but
in the amount he turned over to the Insular Treasurer as collections
made by his office during the month of September, 1919, he included
said check Exhibit A, which was remitted to the National Bank to be
credited to the former’s account, which bank, in turn, forwarded it to
the International Banking Corporation against which it was drawn, and
this last-named bank paid the amount thereof to the credit of said
National Bank. As cashier of the Bureau of Commerce and Industry, the
defendant collected the total amount of P301,338.71 during the month of
September, 1919, but he only deposited in the Insular Treasury the sum
of P286,675.67, that is, P14,663.04 less, equivalent to the value of
the check Exhibit A.

The defense confined itself to a presentation of Exhibit 1 as
evidence, consisting of certified copies of the information’s filed
against the defendant in criminal cases Nos. 20143, 19946, and 31634 of
the Court of First Instance of Manila, and the decisions rendered in
the first two cases.

The defendant-appellant maintains, in support of his first
assignment of error, that having been charged with and convicted in
criminal case No. 20143 of embezzling P7,248.62 during the months of
August, September, and October of the year 1919, while he was employed
in the Bureau of Commerce and Industry, and the crime of embezzlement
of P14,633.04 with which the information charges him herein having been
committed on September 22, 1919, as per said information, he is thus
twice in jeopardy, citing in his support the doctrine laid down in the
case of United States vs. Walsh (6 Phil., 349), which is as follows;

“EMBEZZLEMENT; DOUBLE JEOPARDY.—A conviction of a
public officer for embezzlement of Government property under article
390 of the Penal Code, founded on a shortage of money, bars a second
prosecution of the same man for the same offense, in the same office,
during the same period, founded on a shortage of stores and supplies.
The second trial puts him twice in jeopardy.”

In the case of United States vs. Eguia Lim Buanco and De los Reyes (14 Phil., 484), this court laid down the following doctrine:

“ID.; ACTS CONSTITUTING SEPARATE CRIMES.—In
pursuance of the arrangement between the two defendants as above
stated, checks were drawn at different times, for different amounts,
were certified, and thereafter paid by the. bank. The obtaining of
money from the bank upon a particular check through this method was a
separate and distinct crime, and conviction therefor cannot be pleaded
in bar to another prosecution against the same parties for obtaining
money fraudulently upon another check by means of the same methods.
Each separate fraudulent obtaining of money from the bank by .means of
said methods constituted a distinct crime, and the preparation,
approval, and payment of numerous checks under such circumstances
cannot be considered as one continuing offense.”

This last doctrine is the one applicable to the case at bar by reason of the similarity of the facts.

Therefore, the first assignment of alleged error is unfounded.

As to the second assignment of error, inasmuch as it has been proved
beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant appropriated and embezzled
the amount of P14,663.04, corresponding to the amount of the check
issued by Madrigal y Cia. in favor of the Bureau of Commerce and Industry for the freight of Steamship Nipsic, said second assignment of error is, likewise, unfounded.

The defendant should also have been sentenced to indemnify the
Government of the Philippine Islands in the amount embezzled, since it
does not appear that the Government has recovered said sum.

By virtue whereof, and in accordance with the recommendation of the
Attorney-General, the judgment appealed from is modified, and the
defendant is sentenced further to indemnify the Insular Government in
the amount of P14,663.04, and in all other respects the appealed
judgment is affirmed, with costs against the appellant. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Johnson, Street, Villamor, and Johns, JJ., concur.