Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 561 views

    People Vs Araneta Digest

    Uploaded by

    Russell John S. Hipolito
    Germiniano Araneta was charged with falsifying a public document while working as a clerk collecting fees for permits to kill cattle. He collected a fee but falsified the permit book to change the name of the person who paid. This was discovered during an audit. He was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment and a fine. On appeal, the court found that falsifying documents and misappropriation of funds should be considered separate offenses under the law. The penalty was reduced to 8 years and 1 day imprisonment for falsification of public documents alone.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People Vs Araneta Digest

    Uploaded by

    Russell John S. Hipolito
    561 views2 pages
    Germiniano Araneta was charged with falsifying a public document while working as a clerk collecting fees for permits to kill cattle. He collected a fee but falsified the permit book to change the name of the person who paid. This was discovered during an audit. He was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment and a fine. On appeal, the court found that falsifying documents and misappropriation of funds should be considered separate offenses under the law. The penalty was reduced to 8 years and 1 day imprisonment for falsification of public documents alone.

    Original Title

    20. People vs Araneta Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Germiniano Araneta was charged with falsifying a public document while working as a clerk collecting fees for permits to kill cattle. He collected a fee but falsified the permit book to change the name of the person who paid. This was discovered during an audit. He was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment and a fine. On appeal, the court found that falsifying documents and misappropriation of funds should be considered separate offenses under the law. The penalty was reduced to 8 years and 1 day imprisonment for falsification of public documents alone.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    561 views2 pages

    People Vs Araneta Digest

    Uploaded by

    Russell John S. Hipolito
    Germiniano Araneta was charged with falsifying a public document while working as a clerk collecting fees for permits to kill cattle. He collected a fee but falsified the permit book to change the name of the person who paid. This was discovered during an audit. He was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment and a fine. On appeal, the court found that falsifying documents and misappropriation of funds should be considered separate offenses under the law. The penalty was reduced to 8 years and 1 day imprisonment for falsification of public documents alone.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff and appellee, vs.

    GERMINIANO ARANETA, defendant


    and appellant.
    No. 24622
    January 28, 1926
    OSTRAND, J.:

    FACTS:

    On the 17th of August 1923 in the province of Bohol, municipality of Dauis. The defendant
    Germiniano Araneta acting as a chief clerk in the office of the municipal treasurer of Dauis, and as such
    in charge of collecting and receiving the fees for permit to kill large cattle of the said municipality of
    Dauis, he collected and received the sum of P1.50 from one Crispo Penales in payment of the fee for
    permit to kill a cow belonging to Baldomero Doldolea; Araneta then falsified and counterfeiting the
    stub-book (sic) of the permit to kill large cattle No. 68, which is a public document previously issued to
    Damaso Penales, erased the name of the latter and in lieu thereof he put, inserted and substituted that
    of Baldomero Doldolea.

    On April 23, 1924, a deputy auditor for the Province o Bohol, in examining the books of the
    municipal treasurer, discovered that no entry had been made in the Record o General Collections of the
    fee for the license issued to Baldomero Doldolea and called the defendant's attention thereto. Araneta
    then explained an oversight and paid the 1.50 pesos. Some other irregularities of the same manner were
    discovered.

    Araneta was then tried and sentenced to suffer ten years o prisión mayor, with perpetual
    disqualification from holding public office, and to pay a fine of 800 pesetas, with the costs. Hence the
    appeal.

    ISSUES:

    1. WON Araneta was a public functionary under article 390 and 401 of the penal code?
    2. WON the penalty given was cruel and unconstitutional?
    3. WON the court erred in treating the offense as a complex crime?

    RULING:

    1. Yes, it is sufficient to say that it was his duty to make the collection upon the issuance of the
    license and that the presumption is that he performed his duty. This crime had been repealed by
    section 2672 of Act No. 2711.
    2. No, the penalty was not imposed for the crime of misappropriation alone but included the
    punishment for the falsification of public documents as well; the penalty prescribed by Act No.
    2712 for that offense has been often applied and is, in the courts opinion, neither cruel nor
    unusual.
    3. Yes, misappropriation of public funds is now punished under section 2672 of the Administrative
    Code, while the crime o falsification of public documents by a public employee falls under article
    300 of the Penal Code; one of the two offenses being punishable under the Penal Code and the
    other under an ordinary Act of the Legislature, they must be regarded as two separate and
    distinct offenses.
    For crime of falsification of public documents, the defendant is hereby sentenced to
    suffer eight years and one day of prisión mayor, with the accessory penalties prescribed by the
    Penal Code, to pay a fine of 250 pesetas, with perpetual disqualification from public office, and
    to pay the costs.

    You might also like