THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS

vs.
EUSEBIO C. CAMACHO
[G.R. No. 18688. February 10, 1923]

Facts

On the 30th day of June 1920, in the town of Bayambang, Province of Pangasinan, the municipal
treasurer of said municipality sent a messenger to the defendant, Eusebio C. Camacho, acting as
municipal president, for his review, certification, and signature on the municipal pay roll of said
municipality for the payment of the salaries owed to the employees and functionaries of the
municipality for the month of June, 1920.

Despite the fact that none of the officials whose signatures were necessary for salary payments to
be made lawfully had signed or certified the roll, it appears that the municipal treasurer had
already paid the municipal secretary's salary when the roll was presented to the president for
approval.

Issue

Whether or not there is unfaithfulness in the custody of public documents done by the municipal
president.

Decision

The certificate and the area designated for the roll approval have not been signed. A. Garcia's
signature, which appears on a receipt for the municipal secretary's salary, is the only signature
found on the roll. The salary was paid in violation of the legislation (Administrative Code,
section 2300) since the president had not given his or her approval. As a result, neither the
payment nor the receipt for it, nor the signature confirming the receipt, can be regarded as having
an official character. The signature "A. Garcia" has no legal place therein in that unfinished
condition of the pay register and can be completely ignored when assessing the nature of that
instrument.

The outcome will be the same whether the court accepts the defense's account or the
prosecution's version of the facts since the facts in dispute are not crucial to the court's decision.

Insofar as it could have been rendered usable with minor repairs, the defendant's attorney claims
that there was no destruction of the alleged document in this instance. Although there is some
merit to this argument, it does not need to be considered given the court's ruling on the writing's
style.

Reflection/Conclusion

It dawned on me that the responsibility of handling such important documents like public
documents is pretty substantial to know especially that it has its own rules regarding the proper
accumulation and utilization of it. Though I have a little knowledge about this certain penal code,
turns out that the writing in question does not establish anything and does not affirm anything; it
is only a draft of a document. It would not be eligible for filing in any public office or archive
unless approved or certified to by one or more of the appropriate officials. It might also be
rejected or even destroyed by the official whose permission was required to make it effective
without subjecting him to criminal culpability. The municipal president should have keep up
with his responsibility in order to prevent the lawsuit from happening. It is the duty of the local
government unit to provide adequate protection and preservation of protected records it holds, in
accordance with the applicable standard even though he argues that the document is a draft and
empty.