G.R. No. 27040 , September 29, 1927
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FAUSTINO GARALDE, defendant-appellant.

Ponente: J. Romualdez

FACTS

Faustino Garalde, the assistant postmaster of Bangui, Ilocos Norte, was charged with estafa with falsification of commercial documents. The information alleged that in January 1926, Garalde, conspiring with Candido Aguillon and taking advantage of his official position, appropriated two postal money orders (Nos. 99014 and 99015 for $100 and $60, respectively) sent via registered mail to Cosme Valdes. Garalde received the money orders by reason of his office and, through falsificationspecifically by forging Valdes’ signaturecollected the amounts for his own benefit, causing damage equivalent to P320.

After trial, the Court of First Instance convicted Garalde as principal of estafa with falsification of official documents and Aguillon as an accomplice. Garalde appealed, contesting the sufficiency of the evidence.

ISSUE

Whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain Garalde’s conviction for the crimes charged.

RULING

Yes, the evidence is sufficient. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence and found Garalde’s guilt proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the Court modified the conviction. It held that the amounts appropriated were government funds as defined under the Administrative Code. Consequently, Garalde committed not only falsification of public documents but also malversation of public funds. Both crimes were sufficiently alleged and proven.

The Court modified the trial court’s judgment. Garalde was found guilty of two separate crimes: (1) falsification of public documents, for which he was sentenced to eight years and one day of *prision mayor*, with accessories, perpetual disqualification from public office, a fine of 250 pesetas, and indemnification of the government for P244.49; and (2) malversation of public funds, for which he was sentenced to two years imprisonment, perpetual disqualification, a fine of P320 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and payment of costs. The personal penalties were to be served successively, not simultaneously. The conviction was affirmed with modification.