THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
RAFAEL B. CATOLICO, defendant-appellant.
G.R. No. L-6486 MARCH 2, 1911
MORELAND, J

FACTS: On the 2nd of October 1909, the herein accused as the justice of the peace of Baggao, province of
Cagayan, had before him sixteen separate civil cases filed by a certain Juan Canillas against sixteen
individuals for a damages arising from breach of contracts. Cases were all decided in favor of the plaintiff.
The defendants appealed the decision and each deposited a bond of P16 and P50 each as required by
law and it was approved by the said court. On the 12 th day of the same month, plaintiff alleged that the
sureties of the said bonds were insolvent. Thereupon, the herein defendant-appellant ordered the
cancellation of the bonds and required each of the appellants of the said cases to file another bonds
within fifteen days, none of the appellants presented new bonds within the time fixed, and as a result,
final judgment was promulgated, ordering the sums attached and delivered the same to the plaintiff. The
attorney of the defendants-appellants of the said cases presented a complaint to the court of first
instance against the appellant, by virtue of which, the appellant was convicted with the crime of
malversation of public funds.

ISSUE: whether or not the herein appellant committed a crime in the performance of duty amounting to
malversation of public funds?

RULINGS: No. The case made against the appellant lacks many of the essential elements required
by law to be present in the crime of malversation of public funds. The accused did not convert the
money to his own use nor of any other person; neither did he feloniously permit anybody else to do it.
Everything he did was acting judicially and correctly. The fact that he ordered the sums, deposited in his
hands by the defendants-appellants in the sixteen cases referred to, attached for the benefit of the
plaintiff in those action, after the dismissal of the appeals and the judgments in this court had become
final, and that he delivered the said sums to the plaintiff in satisfaction of the judgment which he held in
those cases, cannot be considered an appropriation or taking of said sums within the meaning of Act No.
1740.

To constitute a crime, the act must, except in certain crimes made such by statute, be
accompanied by a criminal intent, or by such negligence or difference to duty or to consequences, as, in
law, is equivalent to criminal intent. The maxim is, actus non facit reum, nisi mens rea--- a crime is not
committed if the mind of the person performing the act complained of be innocent.

The appellant engage in exercising the functions of a court of justice of peace. Giving the act
complained of the signification most detrimental to the part of the appellant, it, nevertheless, was
simply the result of the erroneous exercise of judicial function and not an intention to deprive any
person of his property feloniously. Presumption of criminal intention may arise from proof of the
commission of a criminal act. In this case, the act was not criminal.

The prosecution failed to prove that the absence of funds was due to the personal use of the
accused, thus, affirmatively and completely negativing the presumption of criminal intention. Mere
absence of funds is not sufficient proof of conversion. Neither is the mere failure of the accused to turn
over the funds at any given time sufficient to make even a prima facie case. (u.s. v morales, 15 phil. Rep.,
236: u.s. v. Dominguez, 2 phil. Rep,. 580.) conversion must be affirmatively proved, either by direct
evidence or by the production of facts from which conversion necessary follows (U.S. v. Morales, supra).