ChanRobles Virtual law Library
|
GO TO FULL LIST OF LATEST DECISIONS and RESOLUTIONS
THE
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS,
G. R. No. 31745 February 12, 1930 -versus-JULIO V. PACANA, Defendant-Appellant. The defendant was charged in the Court of First Instance of Misamis with infidelity in the custody of documents with estafa, alleged to have been committed as follows:
"Contrary to law." He was tried, found guilty and sentenced to ten years and one day of prision mayor, with accessory penalties, to pay a fine of 625 pesetas, to indemnify the Philippine National Bank in the sum of P2,050, and to suffer temporary special disqualification for ten years and one day, and to pay the costs, and on appeal assigns the following errors:
"II. The lower court erred in holding that Voucher No. 311 was, when it disappeared, under the care and custody of the appellant in his capacity as assistant cashier of the Misamis Agency of the Philippine National Bank. "III. The lower court erred in holding that Checks Nos. 76419 and 126161 were presented for payment for the second time by the appellant to Marcelino Calinawan, cashier of the Misamis Agency of the Philippine National Bank, and that said Calinawan duly paid him the amounts of the same. "IV. The lower court erred in holding that the appellant delivered to Marcelino Calinawan the sum of P500 as reimbursement for Check No. 76419 about the end of November, 1921. "V. The lower court erred in holding that when the appellant delivered to his successor, Feliciano Pacalioga, on October 3, 1921, the office of assistant cashier of the Provincial Treasury of the Province of Misamis, he gave said Pacalioga Check No. 735765 as part of the cash money in the sum of P26,761.35 then in appellant's hands as provincial funds, which he turned over to said Pacalioga, his successor, on the same date. "VI. The lower court erred in not holding that Voucher No. 311 was examined and audited by the district auditor's office on October 4, 1921, and that, therefore, the accused could not have been responsible for its disappearance, which must have occurred after said date. "VII. Assuming, merely for the sake of argument, that the appellant was assistant cashier of the Misamis agency of the Philippine National Bank, that Voucher No. 311 was confided in his care and custody, and that he removed and concealed the same, the lower court erred in holding that appellant had committed the crime of infidelity in the custody of documents." The history of the case
is both novel and interesting. The alleged crime was committed in the
year
1921, and in 1922 an Information was filed in the Court of First
Instance
charging the defendant with the commission of the alleged crime which,
upon motion of the then prosecuting attorney, Gervasio Diaz, and which
the approval of the Court, was dismissed on the ground that the
evidence
was not sufficient to sustain the conviction. In that prosecution, the
witnesses listed for the prosecution were the identical persons who
testified
against the defendant in the instant case, chief of whom was Marcelino
Calinawan who was the cashier of the Misamis agency of the Philippine
National
Bank at the time the crime was committed.
'This case was instituted on the 20th day of February, 1922. From this date the case had been set for trial, but the same had not been effected for lack of certain evidence of the prosecution. The following facts appear from a careful investigation made by the Provincial Fiscal: It was found out that three checks of the depositors in the Agency of the National Bank at Misamis had been twice charged in the daily book of the said agency wherein are found certain amendments in the numbers of said checks. Said checks were twice charged against their respective depositors, who refused to pay, because the same had already been paid. A careful investigation of the case was made, and it was found out that three persons could have been responsible for this irregularity; to wit: Julio V. Pacana, the herein accused, Marcelino Calinawan and one Feliciano Pacalioga. These three had been working in the Agency of the National Bank, to wit: Cashier, bookkeeper and filer, the three having discharged these positions in an uncertain manner, without fixing the date in which they acted in the different capacities. We have not found any data from the Provincial Treasury showing the dates when these persons acted in the different capacities. Each one of these persons acted sometimes as filer, sometimes as cashier, and at other times as bookkeeper. It is impossible to determine from the record of the Agency of the National Bank when these three acted as cashier, filer and bookkeeper. When the three were asked during an investigation I made, they all testified that they did not remember the dates when they acted in the different capacities, and when they were asked who made the alterations of the notes on the checks in the ledger, they blamed one another. We cannot find a clear fact to determine who of the three is responsible for this irregularity. Neither can we find whether the amounts represented by the checks, which were twice charged, had been withdrawn from the Agency of the National Bank. This is a case in which a careful investigation is necessary, especially the help of a hand-writing expert who can be furnished by the bank, to decipher the form and handwriting of the person who made the alterations in the ledger of the Agency of the National Bank; and in view of the fact that the case has been pending for a long time, without action, we respectfully pray for the temporary dismissal thereof, with the request that copy of this statement, together with the order which the court may enter, be endorsed again to the district auditor, in order that he may make a careful examination of this case, and inform the office of the Provincial Fiscal whatever conclusion he may have arrived at. The evidence as it is now, does not have sufficient merit to convict any of the three persons above mentioned.'
It
will be noted that the
alleged crime was committed in 1921; that the first Information was
filed
on the 20th day of February, 192; and that the order of dismissal was
made
on January 2, 1924, and the information upon which the defendant is now
prosecuted was filed on March 29, 927.
Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, Romualdez and Villa-Real, JJ., concur. |
|