Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

Manzanaris

vs. People

Facts:

Selso M. Manzanaris is the Clerk of Court of the Court of First Instance of
Basilan since 1963. He is the custodian of all the records of the said
court. Criminal case was filed against Geronimo Borja for malversation
of public funds and Certificate Title No. 877 of the Register of Deeds of
Basilan was among the property bond filed by Borja.



When Manzanaris discovered that the original Title was not existing in
the Register of Deeds, he ordered a subordinate to give a copy of the
title for the administrative reconstitution of such. Borja signed a
receipt, Received from the Clerk of Court Selso M. Manzanaris OCT No.
877 to be reconstituted in the Register of Deeds. After reconstitution to
be returned to the court.

Release and delivery was done without any court order. Trinidad Borja,
wife of Geronimo Borja was able to Reconstitute the Original Certificate
of Title No. 877 in Nov. 1974 but the Certificate was not turned over to
the court.

It was also known that on June 11, 1975 building of the Court of First
Instance of Basilan, with all the records and documents of the court,
were burned. 1981, when Atty. Filoteo Jo filed a petition to borrow the
original title. This was denied as issued in the Certificate given by
Manzanaris that the Title was among those burned in fire.

The lawyer later informed Manzanaris that Mrs. Borja was able to
reconstitute the said Title, it was only then that Manzanaris
remembered that he had the Title delivered to Geronimo. Since then,
She repeatedly asked for the return of the said title, but Mrs. Borja could
no longer find it in the files of her deceased mother, the registered
owner.

Sandiganbayan found Manzanaris guilty in Violation of Art. 226.

In his petition, admitted the removal of the said Title for reconstitution
saying that he was actuated with a lawful and commendable motive,
that is, To protect the interest of the state, since the unreconstituted
certificate of title, given as property bond, was absolutely inefficacious
for such purpose.


Issue:

Whether or not Selso M. Manzanaris has a criminal intent or illicit
purpose in Violation of Infidelity in the custody of documents Art. 226.
Removal, concealment or destruction of documents.

Held:

No. Guilt of the crime of Infidelity in the custody of documents, the act of
removal, as in this case, should be with a criminal intent or illicit
purpose. Actum non facit reum, nisi mens sit rei, The act does not
make a man criminal if his mind in not criminal. There are offenses that
mere commission is already a crime with intent but that presumption is
made only on acts that are criminal. In this case, it is not criminal nor
malum prohibitum, which makes the doer liable by mere commission
even without evil intent.

Manzanaris was motivated with a sincere desire to protect the interest
of the Government. He did not benefited from the said act.

In Kataniag vs. People, SC ruled, 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.

Sandiganbayan ruling was reversed and petitioner acquitted. Costs de
eficio

Вам также может понравиться