People vs Sendaydiego, Licerio et al

G.R. No L-33254/L-33253
1/20/1978

Facts:
 Sendaydiego the provincial treasurer, Samson an employee of a hardware and lumber store, and Quirimit the
provincial auditor were charged with malversation with the first two as principals and the last one as an accomplice.
 They use six vouchers to secure permits to release money for alleged repairs for a bridge that entailed purchase or
lumber and hardware products.
 The vouchers needed to be signed by city engineers but it was proven that the signatures were falsified
 Samson delivered the vouchers inside Sendaydiego’s office where the latter paid in cash.
 Samson and quirimit signed the vouchers. It would later be held that Quirimit is innocent and was only doing his job
to sign documents authorized by Sendaydiego
 It was contested in the lower court that Samson didn’t sign the vouchers. Hand-writing experts testified that his
specimen signatures and the ones on the vouchers were different. They then found out that he used different
signature on purpose but they were written by the same hand.
 Sendaydiego died during the pendency of the case. It eas proven beyond reasonable doubt that he was a principal.
His estate is liable for indemnity
 Ulanday was the provincial cashier who would have been knowledgeable about the manner of payment but he also
died.
 Rosete works in the inner office and saw that the payment was not done like how it usually was
 Samsons possession of the falsified documents gave rise to the presumption that he authored them

Issue: Whether there is a complex crime of falsification and malversation – NO

Ruling:
 Falsification is not indispensable in malversation. The court held that they could have taken the money without the
vouchers. It held that each voucher is a separate act of falsification and each amount is a separate act of
malversation.
 A private individual can be a principal in malversation since his acts were indispensable to allow sendaydiego to steal
the money.
 The crimes committed in these three cases are not complex. Separate crimes of falsification and malversation were
committed.
 These are not cases where the execution of a single act constitutes two grave or less grave felonies or where the
falsification was used as a means to commit malversation.
 In the instant cases, the provincial , as the custodian than of the money forming part of the road and bridge could
have malversed or misappropriated it without falsifiying any voucher. The falsification was used as a device to
prevent detection of the malversation.
 The falsifications cannot be regarded as constituting one continuing offense impelled by a single criminal impulse.
 Each falsification of a voucher constitutes one crime. The falsification of six vouchers constitutes six separate or
distinct offenses
 And each misappropriation as evidenced by a provincial voucher constitutes a separate crimes of malversation were
committed. Appellant Samson is a co-principal in each of the said twelve offenses.
 As already stated, he is presumed to be the author of the falsification because he was in possession of the forged
vouchers and he used them in order to receive public monies from the provincial treasurer.
 He is a co-principal in the six crimes of malversation because he conspired with the provincial treasurer in
committing those offenses.
