The elements common to all acts of malversation under Article 217 of the

Revised Penal Code, as amended, are the following:

(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; and
(d) that he appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented, or through
abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take them

Case: THE UNITED STATES vs CASIMIRO E. VELASQUEZ, 32 Phil 157

Facts:

Casimiro E Velasquez, accused and appellant, after having been convicted of the
crime of misappropriation of public funds, was sentenced by the court in addition to the
penalty imposed by the trial court, to indemnify the province to which the money
misappropriated belongs in the sum of P597, the amount misappropriated by the
accused.

The prayer of the moving party is that that portion of the judgment requiring the
return to the Province of Rizal of the sum of P597 be stricken from the judgment. The
ground on which that motion is based is that under Act No. 1740, the Act under which
the accused was convicted, and sentenced, does not authorized what is termed in the
Penal Code an indemnity by way of the restriction to the municipality injured of the sum
of which is has been illegally deprived.

Issue:

Whether or not the contention of Velasquez is correct.

Ruling:

Act No. 1740, entitled "An Act providing for the punishment of public officers and
employees who fail or refuse to account for public funds or property or who make
personal use of such funds or property, etc." expressly articles 390, 391, and 392 of the
Penal Code "in so far as the same may be in conflict with this Act." No other provisions
of the Penal Code are repealed; and those expressly mentioned are repealed only in so
far as they may be in conflict with the Act. The general principles embodied in articles
119, 120, and 121 of the Penal Code are not disturbed by Act No. 1740, and are still in
force and applicable to all crimes committed under the Act. Whether the payment to the
province of P597 under the decisions of this court be called a restitution or an
indemnity, the result is the same year.
 The Supreme Court in dealing with the question said:

We think this was a sound exercise of the discretion conferred upon the trial
court in imposing the penalty prescribed in Act No. 1740, and we find no error in
the proceedings prejudicial to the rights of the accused. The sentence imposed
by the trial court should be and is hereby affirmed.

The motion is denied.