This  defendant  was charged with the crime of estafa. The complaint alleged:

"That on October 11,1913, the accused,  abusing the office which he then held of president of the municipality of Victoria, Province of Tarlac, received from the  Chinaman Tiu Loco the sum of  Ti under the obligation to deliver it to the municipal treasurer as  a  voluntary contribution  from the said Chinaman for the construction of the public school of the  said  municipality;  but the  accused,  instead  of so doing, did appropriate to himself the said sum to the prejudice of the municipality  of Victoria and, furthermore, did, on October  22,  1914,  deny ever  having received the said sum from the Chinaman aforementioned."

Upon said complaint the defendant was  duly  arrested, arraigned, tried, found guilty of the crime  of estafa, and sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of two months and one day of arresto mayor, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 5 of article 535, and paragraph 1 of article 534 of the Penal Code.  He was further sentenced to suffer the accessory penalties of article 61, and  to pay the costs. From that sentence the defendant appealed to the Supreme Court.

In  this court the appellant presents  a  very interesting brief, in which he attempts to show that, considering the proof adduced during the trial of the cause, and  the  law applicable thereto, he is not guilty of the crime charged.

The Attorney-General,  in a very well-reasoned brief, in which he makes a careful analysis of the proof, reaches the conclusion that the defendant  is guilty of the crime  charged and should suffer  not only the period  of imprisonment imposed by  the lower court, but also the temporary special disqualification provided for under article  399 of the Penal Code.

After a careful examination of the evidence, we find that the following facts are proved, beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. 
   
2. That on the 11th day of October, 1913, and for some time prior thereto, the defendant was the  president of the municipality of Victoria, Province of Tarlac.
   
   
3. That some time prior to  the said  11th day of October, in accordance with the law,  the municipal council of the municipality of Victoria authorized the collection of money from  the citizens of the said  municipality  for the  purpose of constructing a public school building; that said resolution had been properly  affirmed by the proper  authorities.
   
   
4. That a committee was duly appointed for the  purpose of making said collections from the people of said  municipality ; that the defendant, as  municipal president, was  one of the members of said committee.
   
   
5. That on the 11th day of  October, 1913, the defendant went  to the store or  tienda of one Tiu  Loco and solicited from  him a contribution to be used in the construction of the said public school; that the said Tiu Loco  paid to  the defendant the sum of P4 to be used for said purpose.
   
   
6. That the defendant,  as president of the municipality of Victoria, and as a member of the committee duly  appointed for the purpose of making said  collections  for  the purpose  above indicated, after having received  the said sum of P4 from Tiu Loco, to be used in the construction of a public school, failed and  refused to deliver the same to the proper authorities, and later  denied that he had ever received said sum for said purpose, or for any other.
   
   
7. That while the fact is not important for the decision of the present case, the record shows that a number of the other members of the committee,  including the vice-president  of  said  municipality, had made similar  collections and had appropriated various sums to their own use, and had been arrested, tried, and convicted of the crime  of estafa.
   

It seems to us to be clear, when the foregoing facts are taken into consideration  with  paragraph 5 of article 535 of the Penal Code, in its relation with paragraph 1 of article 534, that the defendant  is guilty of the crime of estafa. (U. S. vs. Dacuycuy,  9 Phil. Rep., 84; U. S. vs. Dacuycuy, 9 Phil. Rep., 747; U.  S. vs. Gallego, 10 Phil. Rep., 222.)

The Attorney-General recommends that the sentence of the lower court be modified  and that the defendant be punished with the penalty of temporary special disqualification, in accordance with the provisions of article 399 of the Penal Code.  No authority  is cited in support of said recommendation.   The Attorney-General, however, supports his recommendation with the following argument:

"Before beginning  to collect the voluntary contributions for the construction  of  the school, the municipal council, after obtaining  permission from the  Governor-General, passed a resolution whereby it authorized several persons, among whom was included the municipal president of Victoria, by reason of his office, to take up these contributions; and it cannot be doubted  that when the  Chinaman Tiu Loco delivered the sum of V4 to the  accused, he did so in consideration of the latter's office which permitted the said accused to ask contributions from private parties for the said school.  We are convinced that if the accused, Jose Villarta, had not been municipal  president, an  office that entitled him to the respect and consideration of his towns men, he would not have obtained from Tiu Loco that sum of (P4,  as  shown by the said  Chinaman's attitude before the court  in  always employing the words "municipal president" when referring to the accused, Villarta.  It is likewise no less certain that, in consideration of the office held by the accused, the Chinaman Tiu Loco did not require of him a receipt for the said sum  of P4.  The lower  court, therefore,  should have sentenced the accused, in addition to the penalty it imposed upon him,  to that between temporary  special disqualification in its maximum degree and perpetual  special disqualification"

With that  argument of the Attorney-General we are inclined  to  agree.  The collection  of the  funds referred  to above was authorized by the Governor-General.  The defendant, as president of the municipality, without  doubt by virtue of the fact that he was president, was authorized to make collections.   The municipal council, when by special  resolution  it authorized  the defendant as municipal president  to  make collections, did so  under the belief that as president, he would be able to render more assistance in the collection of the necessary funds than persons who were not occupying official positions.   He accepted the appointment, he collected the funds, representing to the persons from whom he  collected them that they were  to  be used in the construction of a public school.  After collecting the same, he not only refused to deliver or turn over said funds to the proper authorities, but denied that he had received the same.  It seems clear to us that the defendant, while acting as a public official, took advantage of his position as president of the municipality of Victoria, and should therefore  be  punished, in addition to the punishment imposed by the lower court, with temporary special disqualification for a period of eleven years and one day.

Therefore, the sentence of the lower court is hereby modified, and the defendant is hereby sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of two months and one day of arresto mayor, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 5 of article 535. in its relation with  paragraph  1  of  article 534  of the Penal Code, and to suffer eleven years and one day of temporary special disqualification, in accordance with article 399 of the  Penal Code, and to return to the offended person, Tiu  Loco, or to the municipal  treasurer, the sum of P4 and to pay the costs, and in case of insolvency to suffer subsidiary imprisonment, in accordance with the provisions of the law.   So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Torres, Carson, and Araullo, JJ., concur.

---

DISSENTING

TRENT, J.,

I am of the opinion that the judgment should be affirmed without any modification.