People vs. Camacho

An unsigned and unapproved official form, lacking the requisite signatures and certification, is not a public document within the meaning of Article 360 of the Penal Code but a mere draft, and its destruction by the official whose approval was necessary to give it effect does not give rise to criminal liability.

Eusebio C. Camacho was the municipal president of Bayambang, Pangasinan, and had a strained relationship with the municipal secretary and treasurer due to political rivalry. On or about June 30, 1920, the municipal treasurer sent the municipal payroll for June 1920 salaries to Camacho for his examination, certification, and signature. Attached was a memorandum demanding that Camacho reimburse the municipality P33 for alleged overdrawn per diems. Camacho allegedly became angry and tore the payroll; his version, supported by defense witnesses, was that the intoxicated municipal secretary tried to snatch the payroll after Camacho expressed displeasure over an unauthorized salary payment, causing the document to tear during the ensuing struggle.

• Nature of the Charge: The information alleged that the municipal treasurer sent the municipal payroll for June 1920 to the accused, Eusebio C. Camacho, as municipal president, for his examination, certification, and signature, and that Camacho, upon obtaining possession of the public document, voluntarily, illegally, and criminally concealed and destroyed it with the purpose of avoiding reimbursement of a certain sum, in violation of Article 360 of the Penal Code.
• Preparation and Presentation of the Payroll: The payroll was prepared in the municipal treasurer’s office on a printed blank form entitled “Municipal Pay Roll,” filled in with the names, designations, and salaries of municipal officials and employees. A clerk took it to Camacho’s office for his approval. At that time, the payroll had not been signed or certified by any of the officials whose signatures were required before salaries could legally be paid. Despite this, the municipal treasurer had already paid the salary of the municipal secretary, and a receipt signature of “A. Garcia” appeared on the payroll for that payment.
• Events in the President’s Office (Prosecution Version): Upon being handed the payroll accompanied by a memorandum requiring him to reimburse P33 for alleged overdrawn per diems, Camacho became angry and tore the roll into pieces.
• Events in the President’s Office (Defense Version): Camacho, upon noticing the secretary had been paid without his approval and without deductions for alleged absences, expressed displeasure and refused to approve the roll. The municipal secretary, who appeared intoxicated, became incensed and attempted to take the payroll away; during the ensuing struggle, the payroll was torn. The witnesses for the defense included the clerk who prepared the roll.
• Condition of the Payroll: The instrument consisted of a printed blank form with typed entries. At the foot of each page was a blank space for the municipal president’s approval, and a printed certificate form requiring signatures of the municipal president, secretary, and treasurer, as well as another office. None of these blanks were signed. The only signature was “A. Garcia” as a receipt for the secretary’s salary. The payment had been made without the president’s approval, contrary to Section 2300 of the Administrative Code.
• Trial Court’s Finding: The trial court found Camacho guilty and imposed the penalties stated. No definitive credibility finding on the conflicting accounts was essential to the Supreme Court’s resolution.

• Public Document: The prosecution maintained that the payroll was a public document entrusted to the accused by reason of his office as municipal president, and that its intentional destruction constituted a violation of Article 360 of the Penal Code.
• Blank Forms as Public Documents: The Attorney-General argued, citing United States v. Asensi (34 Phil. 750), that blank forms prepared by the Auditor of the Philippine Islands are public documents, and thus the payroll, even if incomplete, retained that character.

• Character of the Writing: The defense argued that the writing was not a document because it lacked the required signatures and the president’s approval; it was merely a draft.
• Absence of Destruction: Counsel for Camacho contended that no actual destruction occurred, as the payroll, with slight repairs, could still have been made serviceable.

• Public Document: Whether an unsigned and unapproved municipal payroll, lacking the necessary official signatures and the municipal president’s approval, constitutes a public document within the meaning of Article 360 of the Penal Code, the destruction of which gives rise to criminal liability.

• Public Document: The payroll was not a public document but merely a draft. A document is a writing or instrument by which a fact may be proven and affirmed. The payroll, lacking any official signature or approval, proved nothing and confirmed nothing. The only signature present—a receipt for the secretary’s salary—was placed without legal authority because the payment had been made without the president’s approval, contrary to Section 2300 of the Administrative Code; that signature had no official character and was disregarded. Until approved or certified by the proper officials, the writing was not entitled to filing in any public office and could be disapproved or even destroyed by the official whose approval was necessary to give it effect, without incurring criminal liability. The dictum in United States v. Asensi (34 Phil. 750) that blank forms prepared by the Auditor are public documents was clarified: the actual holding in the case it relied upon, United States v. Carrington (5 Phil. 725), was that documents executed on such blank forms are public documents—not that the bare forms themselves are. To hold otherwise would lead to the absurdity of prosecuting someone for destroying a printed blank containing no other writing.

• Definition of a Public Document (Article 360, Penal Code) — A document is a writing or instrument by which a fact may be proven and affirmed. An instrument that proves nothing and confirms nothing—such as an unsigned, unapproved draft of an official form—is not a document within the contemplation of the law punishing unfaithfulness in the custody of documents.
• Incomplete Official Forms — A writing that requires approval or certification by specific officials to attain legal effect does not become a public document until those signatures are affixed. The official whose approval is a prerequisite to the instrument’s efficacy may disapprove or destroy the draft without criminal liability.
• Blank Forms — A blank official form, standing alone and containing no executed content, is not a public document. Only when filled out and appropriately signed does it acquire the character of a document.

• “A document is a writing or instrument by which a fact may be proven and affirmed (2 Esriche Dic. de Leg. y Jurisprudencia, 714). The writing here in question proves nothing and confirms nothing; it is not a document but merely a draft of one.”
• “Until approved or certified to by one or more of the proper officials, it would not be entitled to filing in any public office or archive and might be disapproved or even destroyed by the official whose approval was necessary to give it effect, without giving rise to criminal liability on his part.”
• “To hold that a mere blank in itself alone is a public document would lead to the absurdity that a person might be criminally prosecuted under article 360 of the Penal Code for the destruction of a printed blank form containing no other writing whatever.”

• United States v. Asensi, 34 Phil. 750 — Distinguished and clarified. The statement that blank forms prepared by the Auditor are public documents was dictum; the actual holding of the underlying precedent referred to forms upon which official documents had been executed.
• United States v. Carrington, 5 Phil. 725 — Followed and explained. The true holding is that documents executed on blank forms prepared by the Auditor are public documents, not that the blank forms themselves are.
• Sentence of the Supreme Court of Spain of May 27, 1882 — Referenced as authority for the discussion of what constitutes a public document within the meaning of the Penal Code.

• Article 360, Penal Code (Unfaithfulness in the custody of public documents) — The provision under which the accused was charged. Held inapplicable because the payroll did not qualify as a public document.
• Section 2300, Administrative Code — Required the approval of the municipal president before salaries could be paid. The unauthorized payment to the municipal secretary without the president’s approval rendered the receipt signature devoid of official character, reinforcing the conclusion that the payroll was incomplete and unofficial.

Araullo, C.J., Malcolm, Avanceña, Villamor, Johns, and Romualdez, JJ., concurred. Street, J., concurred in the result.