Home of ChanRobles Virtual Law Library

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 47005. January 31, 1940. ]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LAZARO MAÑAGO, Petitioner-Appellant.

Francisco M. Ramos and Lorenzo P Navarro for the Appellant.

Solicitor-General Ozaeta for the appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE; MALVERSATION; ACQUINTAL; PAYMENT OF SALARY DURING SUSPENSION; SECTION 260 OF THE REVISED ADMINISTRATIVE CODE. — In a criminal proceeding against an accused, the judgment that the law authorized to be rendered, is either one of acquittal or of conviction with indemnity and the accessory penalties provided for by law. The payment of salary of an employee during the period of his suspension cannot, as a general rule, be property decreed by the trial court department of acquittal. It devolves upon the hand of the department concerned, and is descretionary with him. (sec. 260, Rev. Adm. Code.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; MODIFICATION OF JUDGMENT AFTER TWO YEARS. — The petition was filed after the lapse of two years from the rendition of the judgment. The effect of the petition, if granted, would be to modify a final judgment by adding thereto a relief which was not originally contemplated therein. That such cannot be done is the law and the settled rule of this Court.


D E C I S I O N


MORAN, J.:


In virtue of a criminal proceedings for malversation of public funds instituted against him, petitioner-appellant was suspended from office on June 16, 1935. On July 30, 1937, judgment was rendered acquitting him of the charge. Two years thereafter, appellant filed a petition with the trial court, praying that, by reason of his acquittal in the criminal proceeding aforementioned, a supplemental decision be entered ordering the payment of his salary during the period of his suspension from office. The petition was denied , and to the order of denial, he interposed the present appeal.

We hold that the petition was rightly denied. In a criminal proceedings against an accused, the judgment that the law authorizes to be rendered, is either one of acquittal or of conviction with indemnity and the accessory penalties provided by law. The payment of salary of an employee during the period of his suspension cannot, as a general rule, be properly decreed by the trial court in a judgment of acquittal. It devolves upon the head of the department concerned, and is descretionary with him. (Sec. 260, Rev. Adm. Code.)

Besides, the petition was filed after the lapse of two years from the rendition of the judgment. The effect of the petition, if granted, would be to modify a final judgment by adding thereto a relief which was not originally contemplated therein. That such cannot be done is the law and the settled rule of this court.

The appealed order is affirmed, with costs against a petitioner.

Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real, Imperial, Diaz and Laurel, JJ., concur.

Top of Page