GR 48398; (November, 1942) (Digest)
G.R. No. 48398 ; November 28, 1942
MELCHOR V. KATANIAG, petitioner, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
FACTS
The petitioner, a public officer, was charged with the crime of infidelity in the custody of public documents under Article 226 of the Revised Penal Code. The case arose from his act of removing official documents from their usual place of safekeeping in his office. He was caught carrying these documents after he had locked his office door and was walking through the lobby towards the main door of the building. The removal occurred against the backdrop of a strict surveillance order from higher authorities and during an ongoing immigration scandal investigation. The documents were intact at the time of his arrest.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the petitioner’s act constitutes the consummated crime of infidelity in the custody of public documents under Article 226 of the Revised Penal Code, considering the circumstances of the removal and the elements of the offense.
RULING
The Court ruled that the petitioner is guilty of the consummated crime of infidelity in the custody of public documents.
1. Essential Elements of the Crime: The crime is committed when a public officer removes, destroys, or conceals documents officially entrusted to him for an illicit purpose, such as to tamper with them, profit from them, or perform an act constituting a breach of trust. Removal for lawful motives (e.g., official examination or securing them from danger) does not constitute the crime. The circumstances in this case conclusively show the removal was for an illicit purpose.
2. Interpretation of “Removal, Destroy or Conceal”: Under Article 226, the acts of “remove,” “destroy,” or “conceal” are distinct modes of committing the offense. The disjunctive conjunction “or” is given its ordinary meaning. Therefore, proof of an intention to conceal is not necessary to establish guilt for the act of removal; removal alone, if done with an illicit purpose, is sufficient.
3. Damage to Public Interest: Actual damage to public interest is required, but it need not be pecuniary. It can consist of alarm to the public or the erosion of public confidence in government service. The petitioner’s act of removing documents during a scandal and against strict surveillance orders constitutes a serious perversity of official duty, which seriously damages public interest by undermining the integrity of public records and public trust.
4. Consummation of the Crime: The crime was consummated, not merely attempted. The petitioner successfully removed or secreted the documents from his office. The offense of removal was complete the moment he took the documents from their official place of custody and left his office with them. It is immaterial that he had not yet fully accomplished his purpose with the documents when he was apprehended.