This case involves only a question of law. That is why the Hon.

Court of Appeals has been certified to this

superiority.
The question is this: with view of the facts admitted by the appellant, were you may or may not find
guilty of the crime of embezzlement of public funds, laid down and punished by the article 227 of the
Revised Penal Code?
Of the appealed judgment of the Court below the following facts emerge:
Toward the period from 9 September 1937 until 6 December 1938, the appellant was a public servant,
serving as assistant cashier in the provincial treasury of Pangasinan, doing office in the municipality of
Lingayen in the same province. In that period of time, the appellant, in his capacity as assistant cashier
of the provincial treasury of Pangasinan, received in the municipality of Lingayen, municipal coffers of
Malasiqui, Tayug, Binalonan, San Quintin, Rosales and Manaoag, various amounts of money, which
amounted to the sum total of P1,701.26, without any receipt issued by the aforesaid quantities. These
were funds of the "Red Cross", the " Anti-Tuberculosa " and the "Boy Scouts". On 6 December 1938, the
auditors delegates and Blas Giron and Pedro Velasco, the review and tonnage of the funds in the
custody of the appellant, in the capacity indicated above, they found a deficit of P1,701.26, that the
appellant could not explain. So this, on several occasions, from 9 December 1938 until 30 January 1939,
he was paying to the provincial treasury of Pangasinan the amount defrauded.
On appeal, the appellant contends that the quantities of the misappropriated funds were not public, so
it cannot be found guilty of the crime defendant.
Having admitted that he had received the amounts in question, in the performance of their official
position of several municipal treasuries of the province, the mentioned amounts are public funds, by
those who must respond in accordance with article 609 of the Revised Administrative Code, which
stipulates that:
ART. 609. Provision of funds raised by public officials. - Except as otherwise specifically provided, must
give an account of all funds received officially by a public official in any capacity or in any occasion, such
as funds from the Government.
This Court has already decided again that when an official public receives some money, for safekeeping,
it acquires the character of public funds (R.G. No. 44363, 17 December, 1937;) People vs. Castro, R.G.
No. 41747, August 30, 1935; People vs. Sibulo, R.G. No. 40714; (August 7, 1939). With view of these
decisions, it is clear that the appellant, upon receipt of the amount of P1, 701.26, which were free, "Red
Cross", the "Anti-Tuberculosa" and "Boy Scouts", was responsible for such amount. No power,
therefore, give explanation satisfactory lack of money, when the examination and arc of his books by
the Auditors were conducted, have been guilty of the crime of embezzlement of funds public, allegedly
in the fiscal complaint.
We are with the Hon. Attorney General in place to estimate the return made by the appellant for the
amount defrauded as special extenuating circumstances without any aggravating factor that
compensates for it. This as well, proceeds to condemn the appellant to suffer in its minimum degree

penalty indicated by law.

With the only modification, therefore, that it understood the appellant condemned to suffer an
indeterminate sentence of six months and a day in four years, two months and one day of prison
correctional, confirm the appealed judgment, in all its other parts, with costs to the appellant. So is
ordered.