Manzanaris vs. People

The crime of infidelity in the custody of documents under Article 226 of the Revised Penal Code requires that the act of removal, concealment, or destruction of official documents be coupled with criminal intent or illicit purpose; where the removal is actuated by lawful or commendable motives, no crime is committed.

Atty. Selso M. Manzanaris served as Clerk of Court of the Court of First Instance of Basilan from 1963 onward, making him the custodian of all court records. Among the cases filed in that court was Criminal Case No. 299 against Geronimo Borja for malversation of public funds, in which a property bond had been posted, including the property covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 877 of the Register of Deeds of Basilan.

Atty. Selso M. Manzanaris was the Clerk of Court of the Court of First Instance of Basilan from 1963 and, as such, served as custodian of all court records. Among the cases filed in that court was Criminal Case No. 299 against Geronimo Borja for malversation of public funds. The property bond posted by Borja in that case included the property covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 877 of the Register of Deeds of Basilan.

Upon discovering through a subordinate that the original of OCT No. 877 was missing from the Register of Deeds, petitioner ordered a subordinate to deliver the owner's copy of the certificate of title to Borja for the purpose of administrative reconstitution. Borja signed a receipt stating that the title was received from the Clerk of Court "to be reconstituted in the Register of Deeds" and that "[a]fter reconstitution to be returned to the court." The release and delivery were made without any written order from the presiding judge. Borja's wife, Trinidad, filed a petition with the Office of the Register of Deeds for the administrative reconstitution of OCT No. 877. Although she succeeded in reconstituting the original in November 1974, the certificate of title was never returned to the court.

On June 11, 1975, the building housing the Court of First Instance of Basilan, including all records and documents, was destroyed by fire. Sometime in 1981, Atty. Filoteo Jo filed a motion to borrow OCT No. 877. The motion was denied on the basis of a certification issued by petitioner stating that the title was among the documents destroyed in the 1975 conflagration. Atty. Jo later informed petitioner that Trinidad Borja had obtained possession of the title and had it reconstituted. Only then did petitioner recall that he had delivered the title to Geronimo Borja, who had issued a receipt for it. Petitioner repeatedly asked Trinidad Borja to return the reconstituted title, but she could not locate it among the files of her deceased mother, the registered owner who had been in custody of the title before her death.

Petitioner admitted removing OCT No. 877 from the court's files and delivering it to Borja for administrative reconstitution, but maintained that he was motivated by a lawful and commendable purpose — to protect the State's interest, since the unreconstituted certificate of title serving as property bond was absolutely inefficacious for that purpose. The Sandiganbayan brushed aside this defense of good faith, notwithstanding what the Supreme Court characterized as a complete lack of evidence to the contrary.

• Good Faith and Lawful Motive: Petitioner maintained that in removing OCT No. 877 from the court's files and delivering it to Borja for administrative reconstitution, he was actuated by a lawful and commendable motive — to protect the interest of the State, since the unreconstituted certificate of title given as property bond was absolutely inefficacious for such purpose.

• Criminal Intent: Whether the act of removing an official document from the court's custody, without written court order, constitutes the crime of infidelity in the custody of documents under Article 226, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code when the removal was motivated by a lawful purpose rather than criminal intent.

• Criminal Intent: No. The act of removal must be coupled with criminal intent or illicit purpose to constitute infidelity in the custody of documents; where the removal is actuated by lawful or commendable motives, no crime is committed under Article 226 of the Revised Penal Code.

• Criminal Intent: The crime of infidelity in the custody of documents requires that the act of removal be accompanied by criminal intent or illicit purpose, pursuant to the maxim "Actus non facit, nisi mens sit rea" — a crime is not committed if the mind of the person performing the act is innocent. While a presumption of criminal intent may arise from proof of the commission of a criminal act, the act from which such presumption springs must itself be a criminal act. In this case, the act of removing OCT No. 877 was not criminal, nor could it be categorized as malum prohibitum, the mere commission of which makes the doer criminally liable even without evil intent. Petitioner's removal of the certificate of title and delivery to Borja for administrative reconstitution was motivated by a sincere desire to protect the Government's interest, not by criminal intent or illegal purpose. The prosecution did not attempt to impute bad faith, and nothing in the record suggested petitioner profited from the act. Applying the rule in Kataniag vs. People, where the act of removal is actuated with lawful or commendable motives — such as securing public documents from imminent danger of loss or protecting the State's interest — there is no crime under the law, because the act of removal, destruction, or concealment of public documents is punished only when it constitutes infidelity in the custody thereof.

• Actus non facit, nisi mens sit rea — A crime is not committed if the mind of the person performing the act complained of is innocent. Except in crimes made such by statute (malum prohibitum), the act must be accompanied by criminal intent to constitute a crime. A presumption of criminal intent may arise from proof of the commission of a criminal act, but the act from which the presumption springs must itself be a criminal act. In this case, the Court applied the maxim to hold that petitioner's removal of the certificate of title was not a criminal act and was not malum prohibitum, thus no presumption of criminal intent could arise.

• Lawful Motive as Defense to Infidelity in the Custody of Documents — The act of removal, concealment, or destruction of public documents by a public officer is punishable under Article 226 of the Revised Penal Code only when it constitutes infidelity in the custody thereof. Where the removal is for an illicit purpose — such as to tamper with or profit by the document, or to commit a breach of trust — the crime is committed. Where the removal is actuated by lawful or commendable motives — such as examining the document in connection with official duty or securing it from imminent danger of loss — no crime is committed. The Court applied this rule to acquit petitioner, whose removal of OCT No. 877 was motivated by a desire to protect the State's interest in the property bond.

• "To warrant a finding of guilt of the crime of infidelity in the custody of documents, the act of removal as a mode of committing the offense, should be coupled with criminal intent or illicit purpose." — This is the ratio decidendi of the case, establishing that criminal intent is an essential element of infidelity in the custody of documents under Article 226 of the Revised Penal Code.

• "Where the act of removal is actuated with lawful or commendable motives, as when the public officer removes the public documents committed to his trust for examination in connection with official duty, or with a view to securing them from imminent danger of loss, there would be no crime committed under the law. This is so, because the act of removal destruction or concealment of public documents is punished by law only when any of such acts would constitute infidelity in the custody thereof." — This passage, quoted from Kataniag vs. People, articulates the controlling doctrine distinguishing criminal from non-criminal removal of public documents.

• Kataniag vs. People, 74 Phil. 45 — Controlling precedent. The Court applied the rule therein that removal of public documents by a public officer constitutes infidelity in the custody of documents only when done for an illicit purpose; removal actuated by lawful or commendable motives does not constitute the crime.

• U.S. vs. Catolico, 18 Phil. 504 — Cited as authority for the principle that a presumption of criminal intent arises from proof of the commission of a criminal act, but the act from which the presumption springs must itself be a criminal act.

• Article 226, paragraph 2, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes the crime of infidelity in the custody of documents, specifically the removal, concealment, or destruction of documents by a public officer. The Court interpreted this provision as requiring criminal intent or illicit purpose as an essential element, such that removal actuated by lawful motives does not fall within its scope.

Fernando, C.J., Teehankee, Makasiar, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Relova, and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concurred.