RAFAEL REGIS, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT AND APPELLEE.

On
April 30, 1931 Genaro P. Nemenzo, as municipal president of
Pinamungahan, Cebu, Rafael Regis, as municipal treasurer, and Filomeno
P. Nemenzo, as witness, signed an official payroll in the amount of
P473.70, it being made to appear therein that certain persons worked as
laborers in the street project between Sibago and Sambagon-Poblacion.
On May 2, 1931 the same Genaro P. Nemenzo, as municipal president,
Rafael Regis, as municipal treasurer, and Melquiades Fuentes, as
witness, again signed another official payroll in the amount of P271.60
under similar circumstances, namely, that it was made to appear therein
that certain persons worked as laborers in the said street project. In
this way the two amounts of P473.70 and P271.60 were appropriated and
taken from the municipal funds. As a matter of fact, no such work was
done in said street project and the persons mentioned in both payrolls
had not performed any labor.

Two informations were filed as
a result of the foregoing facts: one against Rafael Regis, Genaro P.
Nemenzo and Filomeno P. Nemenzo, for malversation of the sum of P473.70
through falsification of a public document; and another against Rafael
Regis, Genaro P. Nemenzo and Melquiades Fuentes, also for malversation
of the amount of P271.60 through falsification of a public document.

Upon petition of the parties, only one trial was held for the two
informations with reference to the accused Genaro P. Nemenzo, Filomeno
P. Nemenzo and Melquiades Fuentes. Rafael Regis, at his request, was
tried separately. In the cases against Genaro P. Nemenzo, Filomeno P.
Nemenzo and Melquiades Fuentes, Rafael Regis was presented as a witness
for the prosecution.

The Court of First Instance that tried
these two cases held that the offense of malversation through
falsification of a public document was committed in both, in each of
which Rafael Regis, as principal, was sentenced to the corresponding
penalties. The other accused are not referred to, because the present
appeal concerns only Rafael Regis.

The Court of Appeals to
which the two cases were elevated held that the falsification and the
malversation referred to in the two informations constitute independent
offenses, the reason given being that the malversation could have been
committed, as in fact it was committed, without the falsification which
was effected only to conceal the malversation.

The Court of
Appeals also ruled that the two acts of malversation and falsification
committed respectively on April 30, 1931 and May 2, 1931 do not
constitute different offenses although they took place on different
dates, for the reason that there was but one intention to commit the
offenses of falsification and malversation on both dates.

These two cases have been brought up to this court by certiorari proceedings filed by Rafael Regis.

Error is assigned by the petitioner on the part of the Court of Appeals
for the latter’s failure to acquit him, notwithstanding the fact that
he testified as a witness for the prosecution to prove the
responsibility of Genaro P. Nemenzo, in support of which contention Act
No. 2709 is invoked. This Act refers to the discharge of a coaccused,
before he testifies, in order to utilize him as a witness for the
prosecution against the other accused. It is not applicable to a
coaccused who was tried separately and who has already testified as a
witness without having been previously discharged.

It is
also here contended that the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred
in not favorably ruling upon the petitioner’s motion for new trial. It
must be noted that in the Court of First Instance the petitioner moved
for a new trial with a view to proving that the fiscal had promised to
discharge him if he would testify as a government witness, which motion
was denied by the court. This resolution is not erroneous. The facts
intended by the petitioner to prove in the new trial do not affect the
merits of the case, because even supposing that such promise was made
to him, it does not by itself entitle him to acquittal, since he is
guilty of the offenses with which he is charged.

The
conclusion of the Court of Appeals that the falsifications committed on
April 30, 1931 and on May 2 of the same year were not necessary means
for the commission of the malversations on the same dates, is correct.
Each falsification and each malversation constitute independent
offenses which must be punished separately.

But the decision
of the Court of Appeals is erroneous in so far as it holds that the
falsifications and the malversations committed on April 30, 1931 and on
May 2, 1931 constitute a single falsification and a single
malversation. According to the facts stated, this criterion is contrary
to the decision of this court in various cases (U. S. vs. Infante and Barreto, 36 Phil., 146; People vs. Villanueva, 58 Phil., 671; People vs. Fabrig, G. R. Nos. 40666 and 40667 [60 Phil., 1001] ; and People vs.
Amboni, G. R. Nos. 41294-41297 [60 Phil., 1038], in which we have held
that the falsifications and malversations committed on different dates
constitute different offenses. The circumstances present in those cases
are similar to those present in the offenses which are the subject
matter of the two cases before us. The statement in the appealed
decision that there was only one intention to commit the falsification
and the malversation of April 30 and those of May 2, 1931 is not
supported by the facts of the case. They were committed on different
dates sufficiently distant from each other (April 30 and May 2, 1931).
It does not appear that when the malversation and the falsification
were committed on April 30, it was already the intention of the
appellant to commit also the falsification and the malversation of May
2, 1931, the same being necessary to justify the finding that, although
they were committed on different dates, a single intention determined
the commission of both. The acts being independent from each other and
executed by different voluntary actions, each constitutes an
independent offense.

The appellant Rafael Regis is found
guilty of the two offenses of falsification committed on April 30 and
May 2, 1931 and of the two offenses of malversation committed on the
same dates, and he is sentenced, for each offense of falsification,
under article 300 of the former Penal Code, as amended by Act No. 2712,
to the indeterminate penalty ranging from a minimum of two years of prision correccional to a maximum of eight years and one day of prision mayor
to pay a fine of 5,000 pesetas, with corresponding subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to perpetual disqualification
to hold public office; and for each offense of malversation, he is
sentenced, under section 2672 of the Revised Administrative Code, to
the indeterminate penalty ranging from a minimum of six months to a
maximum of two years of imprisonment, to pay a fine of P500, to
indemnify the municipal government of Pinamungahan, Cebu, in the
amounts of P473.70 and P271.60 respectively, with corresponding
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to perpetual
disqualification to hold public office. He is further sentenced to pay
the proportional part of the costs. So ordered.

Villa-Real, Imperial, Diaz, Laurel, and Concepcion, JJ., concur.