Allan, the
Municipal Treasurer of the Municipality of Gerona, was in a
hurry to return to his office after a day-long official conference. He
alighted from the government car which was officially assigned to him, leaving
the ignition key and the car unlocked, and rushed to his office. Jules, a
bystander, drove off with the car and later sold the same to his brother, Danny
for P20,000.00, although the car was worth P800,000.00.
In the case of Allan:
The Revised Penal Code defines the
crime of malversation of public funds or property as follows:
Art. 217. Malversation of public funds or property. –
Presumption of malversation. - Any public officer
who, by the reason of the duties of his office, is accountable for public funds
or property, shall appropriate the same, or shall take or misappropriate or
shall consent, or through abandonment or negligence, shall permit any other person
to take such public funds or property wholly or partially, or shall otherwise
be guilty of misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property
Hence, the elements of the
said felony are as follows:
A. that
the offender be a public officer
B. that he had custody or control of funds or
property by reason of the duties of his office
C.
that those funds or property were public funds or property for which he was
accountable
D.
that he appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented or, through abandonment
or negligence, permitted another person to take them.
In this case, Allan, the
municipal treasurer is liable for malversation committed through negligence or
cupla. The government car which
was assigned to him is public property under his accountability by reason of
his duties. By his act of negligence, he permitted the taking of the car by
another person, resulting to malversation, consistent with the language of
Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code.
In the
case of Danny:
Section 2 (a) of PD 1612 also known as the
Anti-Fencing law provides:
Definition of Terms. The following terms
shall mean as follows:
(a) "Fencing" is the act of any person who,
with intent to gain for himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess,
keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any
other manner deal in any article, item, object or anything of value which he
knows, or should be known to him, to have been derived from the proceeds of the
crime of robbery or theft.
Added
further,
Section 5. Presumption of Fencing. Mere possession of any good,
article, item, object, or anything of value which has been the subject of
robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing.
Danny violated the
Anti-Violated the Anti-Fencing Law. He is in possession of an item which is the
subject of thievery. PD No 1612 under Section 5 provides that mere possession of
any goods, article, item, object or anything of value which has been the
subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing. We can
also deduce from the facts that he knows that car is a proceed of the crime of
theft since high confidence can be assumed in the relationship of brothers and
the price of the car is far less that its real value which is glaringly obvious
that his intent is to dispose of it as soon as possible and gain from it.
In the case of Jules:
Section 2 of the RA 6539 also known as the
Anti Carnapping Act of 1972 provides:
"Carnapping" is
the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to another
without the latter's consent, or by means of violence against or intimidation
of persons, or by using force upon things.
xxx
"Motor vehicle" is
any vehicle propelled by any power other than muscular power using the public
highways,
Jules is guilty of car
napping. He took the motor vehicle belonging to another without the latter’s
consent in violation of RA No 6539
Civil Liabilities
Article 104 of the Revised Penal Code provides what
is included in civil liability:
What is included in civil liability. - The civil liability established in articles
100, 101, 102, and 103 of this Code includes:
1. Restitution;
2. Reparation of the damage caused;
3. Indemnification for consequential damages.
Since Allan has caused the
loss of the car through his acts, Allan is under obligation to restitute the
vehicle or makes reparation if not possible. Jules must pay the amount he
gained from the sale of the car which is P 20,000.00. Since Danny has in his possession
the stolen car obtained through a crime of fencing, he must make reparation
corresponding to the value of the car which is P 800,000.00. The court shall
also determine the amount of damage.
No comments:
Post a Comment