United States vs. Dacuycuy

A public official who commits a crime outside the exercise of his functions, doing acts not connected with the duties of his office, must be punished with the penalty prescribed by law for a private individual, without regard to the official character with which he is invested.

Justo Dacuycuy was a councilor of the municipality of Bacarra, Province of Ilocos Norte, and the residents who entrusted him with money for the purchase of cedulas were taxpayers of his district. The prosecution proceeded under the Spanish Penal Code, then in force, which prescribed a distinct penalty for public officers who committed estafa in the exercise of their functions (article 399) as against the penalty for private individuals (articles 534 and 535, No. 5). The characterization of the offense — whether committed in or outside the exercise of official functions — thus determined the applicable penalty and the accessory sanctions that could be imposed.

Justo Dacuycuy was a councilor of the municipality of Bacarra, Province of Ilocos Norte. In the early part of February 1906, while enjoying a vacation at the barrio of Oangagan in the same town, he informed the residents there that cedulas had been received at the municipality. Thirty-nine residents of the barrio, relying on his representation and on the fact that he had done the same thing in former years, delivered to him the sum of P39 and asked him to obtain an equal number of cedulas, one for each of them, so as to spare them the long journey to the town proper.

On February 2, 1906, Dacuycuy received the money. He thereafter took out only sixteen cedulas for as many taxpayers and appropriated the balance of P23. The twenty-three taxpayers who remained without cedulas made repeated requests for their cedulas or for the return of their money, but he neither obtained the cedulas nor returned the amount, telling them not to worry because they would eventually receive their cedulas. When the term fixed by law for the payment of the cedula tax elapsed, the twenty-three residents were obliged to take out their respective cedulas with a surcharge on account of the delay, each of them paying the cost thereof.

In his testimony, Dacuycuy admitted having received the P39 on February 2, 1906 for the purchase of an equal number of cedulas, but denied that he had gone to the barrio in order to collect taxes, claiming that he was there merely enjoying a vacation when the residents handed him the money. He explained that he was unable to obtain the cedulas because at the municipal treasury one person was not permitted to take out a cedula for another. He nevertheless managed to obtain sixteen cedulas for as many individuals. When he could not refund the money he had appropriated, he advised the interested persons to procure money with which to purchase cedulas and agreed to pay the same later on.

After Silverio Jose, one of the injured parties, had testified for the prosecution, the provincial fiscal and counsel for the accused entered into a stipulation that, if all the other witnesses who had handed their money to the accused were to give evidence, their declarations would conform to that made by Jose. The Court of First Instance found that the accused had received the sum for investment in cedulas, had obtained only sixteen, and had kept the P23 to the prejudice of the twenty-three taxpayers who had to procure their cedulas with a surcharge and pay for them again.

• Denial of Tax Collection: The accused denied that he had gone to the barrio in order to collect taxes, maintaining that he was there merely enjoying a vacation when the residents handed him the money for the purchase of their respective cedulas.
• Inability to Obtain Cedulas: He claimed that he was unable to obtain the cedulas because at the municipal treasury one person was not permitted to take out a cedula for another.
• Promise to Pay: When he was unable to refund the money he had appropriated, he advised the interested persons to procure money with which to purchase cedulas and agreed to pay the same later on.

• Official Character and Applicable Penalty: Whether a public official who commits estafa outside the exercise of his official functions should be punished under article 399 of the Penal Code as a public officer, or under articles 534 and 535, No. 5, as a private individual.
• Commission of Estafa: Whether the accused committed the crime of estafa.

• Official Character and Applicable Penalty: No. The accused must be punished as a private individual, the crime not having been committed in the exercise of his official functions; the penalty prescribed by article 399 of the Penal Code for public officers was therefore improper.
• Commission of Estafa: Yes. Estafa under articles 534 and 535, No. 5, of the Penal Code was established by the accused's own admission that he received the P39 for investment in cedulas, obtained only sixteen, and kept the P23 balance to the prejudice of the twenty-three taxpayers.

• Official Character and Applicable Penalty: The controlling principle is that whenever a public official commits a crime outside the exercise of his functions, doing acts not connected with the duties of his office, he should be punished with the penalty provided by law for the private individual who violates its provisions, without taking into account the official character with which the accused is invested. Although Dacuycuy was a councilor at the time the crime was committed, it was neither within his province nor part of his official duties to collect the cedula tax. If his character as councilor made it easy for him to collect the P39 from the thirty-nine residents — because he inspired them with confidence — that circumstance constitutes one of the elements of estafa, since he took advantage of it in consummating the crime. Because he received the amount not in the exercise of his functions as councilor, though he abused the confidence of the taxpayers, it was not proper to impose on him the penalty provided by article 399 for public officers. He was thus punished as a private individual guilty of estafa, with the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum and medium degrees, imposed in the medium period on account of the amount misappropriated, no aggravating or mitigating circumstance being present.

• Commission of Estafa: The testimony of the sole prosecution witness, Silverio Jose, was fully corroborated by the declaration of the accused, who confessed to having received the P39 to be invested in cedulas, of which he obtained only sixteen, and then kept the P23 remaining, to the prejudice of the twenty-three taxpayers who had to procure their cedulas with a surcharge and again pay for them. The accused's exculpatory allegation that at the municipal treasury one person was not permitted to obtain a cedula for another was inadmissible, in view of the fact that he secured sixteen cedulas, and even if it were true it would never under any consideration justify his appropriating the P23 to the detriment of the injured parties. The Court noted that the stipulation dispensing with the testimony of the other witnesses, following the practice in civil cases, is not authorized in criminal proceedings, but found the conviction sustainable on the strength of the corroborated testimony and the accused's own admission.

• Public Officer Committing a Crime Outside the Exercise of His Functions — A public official who commits a crime outside the exercise of his functions, doing acts not connected with the duties of his office, is punished with the penalty provided by law for a private individual, without regard to his official character. The Court applied this rule to hold that a municipal councilor who misappropriated money entrusted to him for the purchase of cedulas could not be sentenced under article 399 of the Penal Code, because the collection of the cedula tax was not among his official duties.

• Estafa by Abuse of Confidence — Estafa under articles 534 and 535, No. 5, of the Penal Code is committed when a person receives money or property in trust for a specific purpose and misappropriates it to the prejudice of the owner. The Court found the elements present: the accused received P39 for the purchase of cedulas, obtained only sixteen, and appropriated the P23 balance, leaving the twenty-three taxpayers to procure their cedulas with a surcharge.

• Abuse of Official Character as an Element of Estafa — The confidence inspired by an accused's official position may constitute an element of estafa where he takes advantage of it to consummate the crime, even though the crime itself is not committed in the exercise of his official functions. The Court held that Dacuycuy's character as councilor made it easy for him to collect the money, and this circumstance formed part of the estafa, but did not convert the offense into one committed in the exercise of his office.

• Stipulation of Witness Testimony in Criminal Proceedings — The practice of dispensing with the testimony of witnesses through a stipulation that their declarations would conform to that of a witness who has testified, following the practice in civil cases, is not authorized in criminal proceedings. The Court noted the impropriety of the stipulation but found the conviction sustainable because the sole witness's testimony was fully corroborated by the accused's own declaration.

• "Whenever a public official commits a crime outside of the exercise of his functions, doing acts which are not connected with the duties of his office, he should be punished with the penalty provided by law for the private individual who violates its provisions, without taking into account the official character with which the accused is invested." — This passage states the ratio decidendi: it establishes the rule that official character is disregarded in determining the penalty when the crime is unconnected with the duties of the office.

• "If because he inspired them with confidence it was an easy matter for him to collect from the said 39 residents the P39 for the purchase of cedulas in view of his character of councilor, this circumstance constitutes in this case one of the elements of the crime of estafa, since he took advantage thereof in consummating the crime; but, considering that he committed the crime as a private individual, it is not proper to impose on him the penalty provided by article 399 of the code for public officers, because he received said amount not in the exercise of his functions as councilor, though he abused the confidence of the said 39 taxpayers; hence the accused should be punished as a private individual, guilty of the crime of estafa, with the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum and medium degrees, imposed in the medium period on account of the amount misappropriated, because in the commission of the crime neither an aggravating not a mitigating circumstance is present." — This passage distinguishes between the abuse of official character as an element of estafa and the commission of the crime in the exercise of official functions, and fixes the penalty to be imposed on the accused as a private individual.

• "The law, however, does not authorize this practice in criminal proceedings, but considering that the testimony of the sole witness is fully corroborated by the declaration of the accused, who confessed to having received the said sum to be invested in cedulas, of which he only obtained 16, and then kept the P23 remaining, to the prejudice of the 23 taxpayers, who had to procure them with a surcharge and again to pay for them, one is convinced that Justo Dacuycuy committed the crime of estafa defined and punished under articles 534 and 535, No. 5, of the Penal Code." — This passage disapproves the stipulation of witness testimony in criminal cases while sustaining the conviction on the basis of the corroborated testimony and the accused's admission.

• Article 399, Penal Code — Prescribes the penalty for a public officer who commits estafa in the exercise of his functions. Held inapplicable because the accused received the money not in the exercise of his functions as councilor, notwithstanding that he abused the confidence of the taxpayers.
• Articles 534 and 535, No. 5, Penal Code — Define and punish estafa committed by abuse of confidence. Applied to convict the accused as a private individual for misappropriating the P23 entrusted to him for the purchase of cedulas.
• Article 61, Penal Code — Prescribes the accessory penalties accompanying the principal penalty. Imposed in the sentence rendered against the accused.

Arellano, C.J., Johnson, Willard, and Tracey, JJ.