EN BANC
THE UNITED STATES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G.
R.
No. 2607
February
2, 1906 -versus-
FERNANDO
NIETO,
Defendant-Appellant.
D E C I S I
O N
CARSON, J:
Fernando Nieto,
the appellant
in this case, was charged with the falsification of a public document,
with abuse of his office as Municipal President.
It
appears that the
accused, who at that time was President of the Municipality of
Meycauayan,
bought a typewriter for the use of the said municipality for which he
paid
$90, gold, and at the same time caused the vendors to sign a receipt
and
a reimbursement voucher setting out the facts connected with the sale
of
the machine and the amount paid therefor. It appears further that the
accused
changed the amount as set out in the receipt and voucher from $90,
gold,
to $95, gold, and on the presentation of these falsified documents,
recovered
from the treasurer of the municipality the sum of 190 Pesos, Philippine
currency, in reimbursement of his expenditure in the purchase of the
machine.
The
trial court found
the accused guilty of the crime of falsification of a private document,
without aggravating or extenuating circumstances, and sentenced him to
one year eight months and twenty-one days imprisonment [presidio
correccional],
and to the payment of a fine of 625 pesetas, and to the restitution to
the municipality of Meycauayan of the sum of $5, gold, with the
accessory
penalties prescribed by law and the payment of the costs of the trial.
We think
the evidence
of record fully sustains the findings of the trial court, and We are
agreed
that the documents in question at the time when they were falsified
were
private and not public documents, and that the offense was not
committed
with abuse of a public office. In the purchase of the machine, the
accused
was acting as a private person and not in his official capacity as
municipal
president, and the receipt and voucher at the time when they were
altered
were merely evidenced of a private transaction between the accused and
the vendors of the machine. They did not emanate from any public
office;
they were not a part of any public or official record, nor were they
certified
by any person authorized to certify public documents. The mere fact
that
they were intended for use in support of a claim against the public
funds
could not of itself raise them to the dignity of public documents
before
they had become a part of some official record, and prior to their
certification
by some public official clothed with authority for that purpose.
The
accused admitted
that he had made the alterations in the documents as alleged, but
attempted
to justify or rather to explain his action by stating that at the time
when he bought the machine, he also bought $5 worth of typewritter
supplies;
that at the time when he recovered the amount paid for the machine he
had
mislaid his receipt for these supplies, and believed that without that
receipt he could not recover the price paid therefor; and that he
altered
the receipt and voucher so as to include this $5, not with any
intention
of defrauding the municipality, but merely for the purpose of
recovering
from the municipality the full amount he had expended on its behalf.
Taking
this view of
the case counsel for the appellant insists that as there was really no
loss (perjuicio) to the municipality resulting from the alteration of
the
document, there can be no conviction for that alteration, as loss or
damage
to a third person is an essential requisite to the crime of
falsification
of a private document, as defined in Article 304 of the Penal Code.
We,
however, are
satisfied
beyond a reasonable doubt that as a matter of fact the accused did not
pay $5 for the typewritter supplies as he pretends, and that these
supplies
were included in the purchase price of the machine, for which he took
the
original receipt and disbursement voucher, and therefore it is not
necessary
to consider what would have been the legal effect upon the transaction
as a criminal offense had his explanation contained a true relation of
the facts.
The
judgment of the
trial court is affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the
appellant.
So ordered.
Arellano, C.J.,
Mapa and Willard, JJ., concur.
Johnson, J.,
reserves his vote. |