This defendant was charged with the crime of "faithlessness in the custody of documents," in violation of the provisions of  paragraph 2 of article 360 of  the Penal Code.

After  hearing the  evidence, the lower court found the defendant guilty of the crime  charged and sentenced him to be imprisoned for the period of one year and nine months of prision correctional, with the accessories of the law, to pay to Alejo Anupol the sum  of  P16,  to suffer subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, giving him the benefit of one-half the time of imprisonment which he has already suffered, to  pay the costs and  to  be disqualified for twelve years from holding the office of justice of the peace or any other public office in the Philippine Islands.

From that sentence the defendant appealed.

The complaint filed against the defendant was as follows: 

"On  or about  the month of October, 1907,  the said accused, being auxiliary justice of the peace of San Antonio, and as such entrusted with the documents of that  court, heard and decided a civil cause between Leocadio Aguirre and Alejo Anupol, from which decision the latter appealed; but the accused,  for the purpose of keeping the deposit of PI6 which  the appellant made with him,  did maliciously and criminally conceal and  destroy said cause instead of forwarding it to the Court of First Instance of this province; with serious injury to the parties and to the  public. The act occurred in the municipality of San Antonio, Province of Nueva Ecija, P. I., in violation of law."

An examination of  the evidence brought to this court discloses the following undisputed facts:

First. That the defendant was auxiliary  justice  of the peace of the municipality  of San Antonio,  Province  of Nueva Ecija, in the month of October, 1907.

Second. That in said month of October, 1907, a  case was pending before the said auxiliary justice of the peace between Arcadio Aguirre, as plaintiff, and Alejo Anupol,  as defendant.

Third. That in that action the said defendant herein rendered a decision  in favor of the plaintiff and  against the defendant.

Fourth. That after  receiving notice of the  decision  of the defendant herein, Alejo Anupol appealed to the Court of First Instance of the Province  of Nueva Ecija, and for that purpose presented a bond and deposited P16  with the said defendant herein, thus  complying  with the  requirements for the perfection of an  appeal  from a decision of the justice of the  peace to the Court of First Instance.

Upon the perfection  of the appeal as above stated,  it was the duty of  the defendant herein to forward to the Court of First Instance the record in the appealed case,  together with the P16 (section  38, Act No. 1627) to the Court of First Instance.  The defendant  herein attempted  to prove that he  did deliver a certified copy of the record,  together with P16to one Nazario Cando, for the purpose of having said documents  and money delivered  to  the clerk of the Court of First Instance of the  Province  of Nueva Ecija. This fact is positively denied by Nazario  Cando.   The defendant presented no receipt showing that he had delivered said documents  and money to Nazario Cando, and makes no explanation of his failure to take from  Nazario Cando a receipt for the  documents and  money.  The  fact is that neither the documents nor the P16 were  ever received by the clerk of the Court of First Instance.

Some time after the perfection of the  appeal,  the said Alejo Anupol  inquired of the clerk of the Court  of First Instance if his  appeal had been received  in the  office of the clerk, and upon being  informed that the appeal  had not been received,  he put  on foot  an administrative investigation concerning  the loss  of the documents, which investigation was conducted by the Court of First Instance of said province.  At the conclusion pf said investigation, the court ordered that the defendant be prosecuted for the crime herein charged against him.

Another  very important fact which goes to show the culpability  of  the defendant with  reference to  the facts charged in  the complaint is that  at the close of his services as auxiliary justice of the peace he delivered to  the clerk of the Court of First Instance of said province a list of the causes which had been pending before him as such auxiliary justice of the peace and the  cause between Aguirre  and Anupol  was not included in said list.  No explanation  is given of this omission.

The Hon. Julio Llorente,  the judge who  tried the defendant, commenting upon the  declaration of  the defendant at the trial of the cause, said:

"The  accused  testified falsely,  and  we are  convinced that he effected the disappearance of the  cause prosecuted against Alejo  Anupol in order to make it appear that he had forwarded it to the court with the P16."

The attorney for the defendant in this court attempts to show that  the evidence adduced during  the  trial of the cause demonstrates that  the  defendant is guilty  of the crime of estafa and not of the crime charged in said complaint.

Groizard,  in  his  valuable Commentaries on the  Penal Code, with special reference to article 360, in speaking of the essentials of the crime of  faithlessness in the custody of documents says:

"Four circumstances are required to establish the crime: (1) that the agent be a public officer; (2) that he abstract, destroy  or conceal  documents;  (3) that  the documents which he abstracts, destroys or conceals be entrusted to him by reason of his office; and  (4) that injury to a third party or to  the  public follow  from the abstraction, destruction or concealment.   If any of these circumstances be not present,   the crime  disappears, or  rather,   does  not  arise.? (Groizard, Penal Code of 1870, Vol. IV, p. 146,  edition of 1891.)

Viada, in discussing the  provisions of the same article of the Penal  Code, says:

"Remember that for the existence of the crime  herein specified it is an essential condition  that  the papers  or documents, whose abstraction,  destruction or concealment is in question, should have been entrusted to a public officer by reason  of his  office: otherwise,  the  abstraction would be converted into the  act  of a mere private person, and would not  be punishable under  this article but  under number 9 of 548, which applies to those who commit fraud by abstracting, concealing, or  rendering useless in  whole or in part some cause, record,  document or other paper of that kind."  (Viada,  vol 2, p. 563, edition of 1890.) It  seems clear from all the facts that the defendant  is guilty of the crime charged in the complaint and not of the crime of estafa.

It will be noted  that the  punishment provided for under article 360 includes imprisonment and a fine. The lower court  failed  to  impose the fine.  Under all  the circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime charged, as demonstrated by the evidence  adduced during the trial of the cause, we are of the opinion that the sentence of the lower court should be affirmed and that in addition thereto a fine should be imposed upon the defendant in the sum of 1,000 pesetas.  With this  modification, the sentence of the lower court is hereby affirmed.  It is so ordered.

Torres, Mapa,  Carson, and Moreland, JJ., concur.