Leonila Batulanon vs People
GR No. 139857
September 15. 2006
Facts:
- four informations filed against LB
(employee of Polomok Credit Cooperative Inc
and as such, is in charge of receiving deposits
from and releasing loans to the members of
the cooperative) for estafa through
falsification of commercial documents:
Cash Voucher No:
30A 4,160php Erlinda Omadlao
237A 4,000php Gonafreda Oracion
276A 3,500php Ferlyn Arroyo
374A 5,000php Dennis Batulanon
Medallo (posting clerk, assistant of LB)
- Omadlao, Oracion, and DB not bonafide
mems of the coop
- Arroyo, a member, but theres no proof that
she applied for a loan
Gopio, Jr. (mem, Board of Directors)
- Dennis B. only 3 y/o; membership not open
to minors
Jayoma (Chairman, BOD)
- loans did not pass through the coops Credit
Committee and PCCIs BOD for screening
purposes
RTC: LB guilty of estafa through falsification
of commercial document in each case
CA: affirmed but modified; LB guilty of
FALSIFICATION OF PRIVATE
DOCUMENTS under par 2 Art 172 of the
RPC
-subject vouchers are private documents, not
commercial because they are not documents
used by merchants or businessmen to promote
or facilitate trade or credit transactions nor are
they defined and regulated by the Code of
Commerce or other commercial law
-they are private documents which have been
defined as deeds or instruments executed by a
private person without the intervention of a
public notary or of other person legally
authorized by which some disposition or
agreement is proved, evidenced, or set forth
SC: affirmed CA w/modifications
1. with re charges involving Omadlao,
Oracion, and Arroyo: falsification of private
documents under par 2 art 172, RPC
ELEMENTS:
(1) that the offender committed any of the acts
of falsification,
except those in paragraph 7, Article 171;
(2) that the falsification was committed in any
private document; and
(3) that the falsification caused damage to a
third party or at least
the falsification was committed with intent to
cause such damage.
--by signing the name of Omadlao, Oracion,
and Arroyo in Cash Voucher Nos. 30A, 237A,
and 267A, respectively, as payee of the
amounts appearing in the corresponding cash
vouchers, Batulanon made it appear that they
obtained a loan and received its proceeds
when they did not in fact secure said loan nor
receive the amounts reflected in the cash
vouchers
2. As there is no complex crime of estafa
through falsification of private document, it is
important to ascertain whether the offender is
to be charged with falsification of a private
document or with estafa. If the falsification of
a private document is committed as a means
to commit estafa, the proper crime to be
charged is falsification. If the estafa can be
committed without the necessity of falsifying
a document, the proper crime to be charged is
estafa.
3. with re charge involving son Dennis
Batulanon: estafa
--LB did not falsify the signature of Dennis.
What she did was to sign: "by: lbatulanon" to
indicate that she received the proceeds of the
loan in behalf of Dennis. The essence of
falsification is the act of making untruthful or
false statements, which is not attendant in this
case.
Pedro Bermejo vs Isidro Barrios et al
Jovita Carmorin vs Isidro Barrios et al
PEOPLE VS CAMACHO
ADAZA VS SANDIGANBAYAN
Parents and Teachers Association of Manawan
National High School
President - Mejorada
Municipal Mayor - Ludwig Adaza
Acquiring exclusive jurisdiction by the
Sandiganbayan = "in relation to his office"
Falsification under Art 171 = "taking
advantage of his office"
GALEOS VS PEOPLE
Galeos - Construction and Maintenance Man -
SALN - 1993, 1995, 1994, 1996
Rivera - Plumber I - SALN - 1993, 1995,
1996
Ong - mayor
1. 1993 SALN, Galeos
2. 1993 SALN, Rivera
3. 1994, SALN, Galeos
4. 1995, SALN, Galeos
5. 1995, SALN, Rivera
6. 1996, SALN, Galeos
7. 1996, SALN, Rivera
8. June 1, 1994, Certification, Galeos
9. June 1, 1994, Certification, Rivera
Sandiganbayan
Ong - guilty in all except #8 (8 counts)
Galeos - guilty in all (4 counts)
Rivera - guilty in all but case dismissed
pending appeal because of his death
Ong - guilty, 8 counts of falsification of
public documents, Art 171, par 4
Galeos - guilty, 4 counts of...
SC: Affirmed
The elements of falsification under Art 171
par 4 are:
(a) the offender makes in a public document
untruthful statements in a narration of facts;
(b) he has a legal obligation to disclose the
truth of the facts narrated by him; and
cHaADC
(c) the facts narrated by him are absolutely
false. 26
In addition to the afore-cited elements, it must
also be proven that the public ofcer or
employee had taken advantage of his ofcial
position in making the falsication.
In falsication of public document, the
offender is considered to have taken
advantage of his ofcial position when
(1) he has the duty to make or prepare or
otherwise to intervene in the preparation of a
document; or
(2) he has the ofcial custody of the
document which he falsies.
Likewise, in falsication of public or ofcial
documents, it is not necessary that there be
present the idea of gain or the intent to injure
a third person because in the falsication of a
public document, what is punished is the
violation of the public faith and the
destruction of the truth as therein
w/re first requirement:
A NARRATION OF FACTS, not a conclusion
of law as averred by the petitioners
- witholding crucial information amounts to
falsification
w/re 2nd requirement:
present - Galeos required to present SALN;
Ong required to disclose relatives... (Sec 8b
Ra 6173)
w/re 3rd requirement:
present as testified by the accused themselves
(but the defense that they came to know of
such fact only after the institution of the
action was rejected by both the
Sandiganbayan and the SC given the
"political reality" in the Philippines and the
close family kinship in our culture solemnly
proclaimed.
US VS CORRAL
PACASUM VS PEOPLE
Art 171
1. Counterfeiting or imitating any
handwriting, signature, or rubric
Pacasum - Regional Secretary, DOT ARMM;
accused of falsification of a public document
(employees clearance, particularly the
signature of Laura Y. Pangilan, the Supply
Officer I of DOT-ARMM) under Art 171, par
1 Court for being self-serving and for lacking
Sandiganbayan: Pacasum GUILTY AS
CHARGED
1. Pacasum failed to overcome the
presumption that she was the material author
of said falsified document because she was
the one benefitted by the falsification
(contrary to what she alleged that she had no
knowledge of the crime)
2. Memorandum applied to her as she needs
to get clearance to prove that she had no
unpaid cash advances
3. photocopied employees clearance
admissible as evidence as Pacasum was
already telegrammed to submit the original
copy (to no avail)
SC: AFFIRMED Sandiganbayan's Decision
and Resolution
1. agreed with Pacasum that Credit Notice
issued by the COA was the one needed in
order for her to draw her salaries under the
Misuari memorandum and not an employee's
clearance BUT the rule became effective only
on September 2000 [the falsification was
committed on August 22-23 2000, when she
was still required to submit an EC to get her
salary]
2. Pacasum's argument that there was no
evidence that she made us of the falsified
document, the same not being submitted to
the Office of the Regional Governor
UNTENABLE - CRIME WAS
CONSUMMATED THE MOMENT THE
SIGNATURE OF LAURA PANGILAN WAS
IMITATED, no need to have intent to injure
others as what is punished here the breach of
public faith...
3. Pacasum's mere denial that she had
knowledge of the falsification because it was
her asst sec Marie Cris Batuampar who
worked for her EC was not accepted by the
strong factual basis
4. The Sandiganbayan correctly admitted the
photocopy of the subject EC as secondary
evidence pursuant to Sec 3(b) and Sec 6 of
Rule 130
Petitioner was charged with falsifying her
Employees Clearance under Article 171,
paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code. For
one to be convicted of falsication under said
paragraph, the followings elements ust
concur:
(1) that the offender is a public ofcer, an
employee, or a notary public; (Pacasum -
Regional Sec, DOT-ARMM)
(2) that he takes advantage of his ofcial
position; (In a falsication of public
document, the offender is considered to have
taken advantage of his ofcial position when
(a) he had the duty to make or prepare or
otherwise intervene in the preparation of the
document; or (b) he had ofcial custody of
the document which he falsied. 69 It being
her duty to prepare and submit said document,
she clearly took advantage of her position
when she falsied or caused and the
falsication of her Employees Clearance by
imitating the signature of Laura
Pangilan.)
(3) that he falsies a document by
counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting,
signature or rubric.
PEOPLE VS SENDAYDIEGO
Art 171 par 1: Counterfeiting or imitating any
handwriting, signature, or rubric
Sendaydiego - Provincial Treasurer of
Pangasinan
Juan Samson - employee of a hardware and
lumber store (Carried Const. Supply Co.) in
Dagupan City
Anastacio Quirmit - Provincial Auditor
(accomplice)
6 FORGED PROVINCIAL vOUCHERS IN
ORDER TO EMBEZZLE FROM THE
ROAD AND BRIDGE FUND
V#10724 - Feb. 28, 1969 - 16,727.52 - bridge
in Barrio Libertad
v#11995 - Apr. 29, 1969 - 14,571.81 -
Bayaoas bridge
v#11869 - Apr. 15, 1969 - 5,187.28 -
Panganiban Bridge
v#11870 - Apr. 28, 1969 - 6,290.60 -
Cabatuan Bridge
v#11871 - Apr. 15, 1969 - 9,769.64 - Casabar
Bridge
v#11872 - Apr. 15, 1969 - 4,501.38 -
Baracbac Bridge
Upper part:
nature of the obligation signed by 2 officials
of the provincial engr office and 1 gov's rep
Middle part
par 1 - by the creditor
par 2 - by the provincial engr (cert that
expenses are correct and lawfully incurred)
par 3 - by the provincial treasurer (cert with
words that the same was approved for pre-
audit and payment)
par 4 - by the auditor (cert that voucher has
been pre-audited and may be paid in cash or
in check provided there is sufficient fund)
par 5 - by the provincial treasurer (cert that
the amount certified by the provincial engr
was paid in the amount and on the date shown
below)
Last part:
receipt of payment of the creditor (signed by
juan samson as rep of carried const)
SENDAYDIEGO, SAMSON, AND
QUIRMIT CHARGED WITH
MALVERSATION THROUGH
FALSIFICATION
CFI OF PANGASINAN:
QUIRMIT - ACQUITTED
SENDAYDIEGO AND SAMSON - GUILTY,
THREE COUNTS OF MALVERSATION
THROUGH FALSIFICATION
SC:
W/RE Sendaydiego's heirs appeal against
civil liability: DENIED. SC UPHELD CFI's
DECISION - COLLUSION W/ SAMSON
PROVED
W/RE Samson: JUDGEMENT AFFIRMED
1. it's okay for judge bello to conduct trial
even after conducting the preliminary
investigation
2. Samson used 2 signatures
3. The evidence conclusively proves that
Samson, as the representative or collector of
the supposed creditor, Carried Construction
Supply Co., hand-carried the vouchers in
question to the ofces of the provincial
engineer, treasurer and auditor and then back
to the treasurer's ofce for payment. He
actually received the cash payments. Under
those circumstances, Samson is presumed to
be the forger of the vouchers.
4. BUT THE PENALTY MUST NOT BE
THAT WHICH WAS IMPOSED BY THE
CFI BUT MUST BE 6 COUNTS OF
FALSIFICATION AND 6 COUNTS OF
MALVERSATION (FALSIFICATION USED
TO CONCEAL MALVERSATION, NOT AS
A NECESSARY MEANS, DID NOT ARISE
FROM ONE ACT)
DOMINGO VS PEOPLE
Art 171 par 2: Causing it to appear that
persons have participated in any act or
proceeding when they did not in fact so
participate
Crime charged: estafa through falsification of
a commercial document under Art 172 par 1
in connection w/ art 171 par 2
RTC: Gina Domingo (GD) guilty of 17 counts
of ESTAFA THROUGH FALSIFICATION
OF COMMERCIAL DOCUMENT
CA: AFFIRMED RTC'S DECISION IN
TOTO
SC: AFFIRMED CA'S DECISION
1. Essentially, the elements of the crime of
Falsication of Commercial Document
under Art. 172 are:
(1) that the offender is a private individual;
(2) that the offender
committed any of the acts of falsication; and
(3) that the act of falsication is
committed in a commercial document.
(prejudice to 3rd persons unnecessary since
what is punished in this crime is the damage
to the public's faith in these documents)
As borne by the records, all the elements of
the crime are present in the instant
case. Petitioner is a private individual who
presented to the tellers of BPI 17 forged
encashment slips on different dates and of
various amounts. The questioned
encashment slips were falsied by petitioner
by lling out the same and signing the
name of the private complainant, thereby
making it appear that Remedios signed the
encashment slips and that they are genuine in
all respects, when in fact petitioner knew
very well that Remedios never signed the
subject encashment slips.
2. The falsifcation of a public, offcial, or
commercial document may be a means of
committing estafa, because before the
falsied document is actually utilized to
defraud another, the crime of falsication has
already been consummated, damage or intent
to
cause damage not being an element of the
crime of falsication of public, ofcial, or
commercial document. In other words, the
crime of falsication has already existed.
Actually utilizing that falsied public,
ofcial, or commercial document to defraud
another is estafa. But the damage is caused by
the commission of estafa, not by the
falsication of the document. Therefore, the
falsication of the public, ofcial, or
commercial document is only a necessary
means to commit estafa. 13
In general, the elements of estafa are:
(1) that the accused defrauded another (a) by
abuse of condence or (b) by means of
deceit; and
(2) that damage or prejudice capable of
pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended
party or third person. Deceit is the false
representation of a matter of fact, whether by
words or conduct, by false or misleading
allegations, or by concealment of that which
should have been disclosed; and which
deceives or is intended to deceive another so
that he shall act upon it, to his legal injury.
In the case before us, all the elements of
estafa are present. Once petitioner acquired
the possession of the amounts she encashed
by means of deceit, she misappropriated,
misapplied, and converted the same to her
own personal use and benefit, to the damage
and prejudice of the private complainant and
BPI.
MENDOZA-ARCE VS OFFICE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN
Art 171 par 3: Attributing to persons who
have participated in an act or proceeding
statements other that those in fact made by
them
- Santiago Villaruz filed the case against
Susan Mendoza-Arce (Clerk of Court, RTC of
Roxas City) for issuing the letter of
administration of his mother's properties in
favor of his brother, Nicolas Santiago Jr
Ombudsman:
found prima facie case for violation of 3(e)
of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act) and Art. 171 of the Revised
Penal Code against petitioner Susan
Mendoza-Arce
In a resolution, dated April 20, 2001, Ricardo
A. Rebollido, Graft Investigation Officer II,
found probable cause against petitioner.
Based on the affidavits and counter-affidavits
submitted by the parties, he found petitioner
guilty of the charge by making it appear that it
was Judge Pestao, instead of Judge Patricio,
who had appointed Nicolas B. Villaruz as
administrator, without regard to the lease
agreement in favor of respondent Santiago B.
Villaruz. The Graft Investigation Officer
found that although petitioner's duties were
ministerial, she should have read the order
recognizing the lease.
SC: RECOMMENDATION BY THE GRAFT
INVESTIGATION OFFICER II AS
ADOPTED BY THE OMBUDSMAN IN ITS
RESOLUTION REVERSED; CASE
AGAINST SMA DISMISSED
1. SC can directly take cognizance of
petitions for certiorari filed against
Ombudsman resolutions (w/o the same having
to pass upon the CA)
2. Petitioner Arce allegedly violated 3 (e) of
Republic Act No. 3019 by including the
phrase "with full authority to take possession
of all property/ies of said deceased in any
province or provinces in which it may be
situated . . ." in the LOA she prepared in
Special Proceeding Case No. V-6433.
SC: In this case, there is no basis for the
finding that in issuing the LOA in question
petitioner acted with "partiality," or bias
which excites a disposition to see and report
matters as they are wished for rather than as
they are, with "bad faith," which connotes not
only bad judgment or negligence but also a
dishonest purpose or conscious wrongdoing, a
breach of duty amounting to fraud, nor with
"gross negligence," which is negligence
characterized by the want of even slight care,
acting or omitting to act in a situation where
there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but
willfully and intentionally, with a conscious
indifference to consequences as far as other
persons are concerned.
3. The Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas)
found a prima facie case for falsification
under Article 171, par. 3 of the Revised Penal
Code against petitioner because she stated in
the letter of administration that Nicolas B.
Villaruz, Jr. had been appointed administrator
by Judge Sergio Pestao when what the latter
did was to approve the administrator's bond.
SC: Criminal intent must be shown in felonies
committed by means of dolo, such as
falsification. In this case, there is no
reasonable ground to believe that the requisite
criminal intent or mens rea was present.
Petitioner prepared the letter of administration
on the basis of the order of Judge Pestao,
dated October 12, 1998, approving the
administrator's bond filed by Nicolas B.
Villaruz, Jr. By the approval of his bond,
Nicolas B. Villaruz, Jr. qualified as
administrator so that in a sense, therefore, the
statement in the letter of administration "[t]hat
by order of this Court dated October 12, 1998,
issued by Honorable Sergio Pestano, Judge of
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 19, Roxas
City, Nicolas B. Villaruz, Jr. has been
appointed Administrator of the estate of
Remedios Bermejo-Villaruz, deceased" is
correct.
MANGANGEY VS SANDIGANBAYAN
Art 171 par 4: making untruthful statements
in a narration of facts
Accused:
Wandag - Municipal Mayor, Paracelis,
Mountain Province
Mangangey - Construction and Maintenance
Foreman
Wanason - Municipal Planning and
Development Coordinator; Mayor's Rep
Forayo - Municipal Revenue Clerk;
Treasurer's Rep
Acapen (deceased) - Engr's rep
[ALL SIGNED THE CERTIFICATES OF
INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE
ATTESTING THAT THE PROJECT (ROAD
WIDENING AND RELOCATION OF
BANILAG-MINOLI ROAD LOCATED @
THE MOUNTAIN PROVINCE) WAS 100%
COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE W/ THE
AGREED SPECIFICATIONS]
The Amended Information docketed as Crim.
Case No. 17008 for Estafa thru Falsification
of Public Documents charged Paracelis
Mayor Matthew Wandag, Municipal Revenue
Clerk Forayo, Municipal Planning and
Development Coordinator Wanason, and
Construction and Maintenance Foreman of
the Office of the Provincial Engineer
Mangangey.
Sandiganbayan:
All accused (except Leon - private indiv;
acquitted, too!; and Wandag - went to the US)
FOUND GUILTY OF ESTAFA THROUGH
FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC
DOCUMENTS
The Sandiganbayan found that the signatories
of the Certificate of
Inspection and Acceptance, namely,
Mangangey, Wanason, Forayo, and the late
Bernardo, in their own official functions,
falsified a public document when they
attested that they personally inspected the
work of Leon and reported that it was 100%
completed in accordance with the plans,
specifications, and contract requirements
notwithstanding that the work on the
aforesaid project was not yet finished. The
Sandiganbayan found that petitioners
conspired with the accused Wandag to
defraud the Government.
SC: AFFIRMED IN TOTO THE DECISION
OF THE 5TH DIV OF SANDIGANBAYAN
1. Wandag masterminded the falsification of
the documents
2. FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC
DOCUMENT PROVEN
To convict for falsification of a public
document under Art. 171, paragraph 4 of the
RPC, the following requisites must concur:
(a) the offender makes in a document
untruthful statements in a narration of facts;
(b) the offender has a legal obligation to
disclose the truth of the facts narrated;
(c) the facts narrated by the offender are
absolutely false; and
(d) the perversion of truth in the narration of
facts was made with the wrongful intent to
injure a third person
Based on the aforesaid documents and
Angluben's testimony, we agree with the
Sandiganbayan that Mangangey lied in his
declarations. First, his erroneous
identification of the starting point of the
project puts into doubt his claim that he
personally inspected the road project. Second,
we find it suspect that Mangangey, a foreman
and a supposed technical expert of the
Provincial Engineer's Office, could not
specify the width and the extent of the work
done on the road. Third, Mangangey's report
that the actual earthworks excavated were
exactly the same as the approximated volume
of earthworks to be excavated is highly
improbable. He also offered no proof to rebut
the results of the technical audit of Angluben.
Besides, Forayo and Wanason clearly
admitted in their counter-affidavits that they
did not personally inspect the project when
they affixed their signatures on the Certificate
of Inspection and Acceptance. According to
Forayo, he merely relied on the late
Bernardo's signature. Wanason said he signed
because he was threatened by Wandag.
Now, as to the requirement that the accused
had a legal obligation to disclose the truth of
the facts narrated, suffice it to say that a
Certificate of Inspection and Acceptance is
required in the processing of vouchers for the
payment of government projects. Patently, the
falsification of this document by the
petitioners caused the release of the payment
for an unfinished road at great cost to the
Government.
3. ELEMENTS OF ESTAFA DULY
PROVEN
The elements of the crime of estafa under Art.
315, par. 2 of the RPC are:
(a) the accused made false pretenses or
fraudulent representations as to his power,
influence, qualifications, property, credit,
agency, business, or imaginary transactions;
(b) such false pretenses or fraudulent
representations were made prior to or
simultaneous with the commission of the
fraud;
(c) such false pretenses or fraudulent
representations constitute the very cause
which induced the offended party to part with
his money or property; and
(d) as a result thereof, the offended party
suffered damage
The first element, that the accused made false
pretenses or fraudulent representations, need
not be discussed all over. We have sufficiently
gone over this matter. The same holds true
with the requirement that
these falsifications were made during the
commission of the crime. The falsified
certificates of inspection and acceptance
resulted in the government paying for the
unfinished project to the disadvantage and
injury of the State. Altogether, the elements of
the complex crime of estafa through
falsification of public document are present.
4. CONSPIRACY PRESENT
PEOPLE VS PANTALEON, JR.
Art 171 par 5: Altering true dates
Sandiganbayan:
PANTALEON - former Municipal Mayor of
the Municipality of Castillejos, Zambales -
GUILTY, 3 COUNTS OF MALVERSATION
OF PUBLIC FUNDS THROUGH
FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC
DOCUMENTS
VALLEJOS - former Municipal Treasurer of
the Municipality of Castillejos, Zambales -
GUILTY, 3 COUNTS OF MALVERSATION
OF PUBLIC FUNDS THROUGH
FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC
DOCUMENTS
2 for "upgrading of various roads in the
municipality of castillejos"
1 for the "construction of market stalls at the
castillejos public market"
166k-154k-90k
jan 5 98-feb 23 98-mar 20 98
signatures needed for the validity of
disbursement vouchers (in order)
1. accountant (Nida Naman) - not present
2. budget officer - NP
3. mayor - present (argued that 1 and 2
refused to sign)
4. treasurer - present (same argument as
mayor's)
SC: JUDGEMENT AGAINST VALLEJOS
AFFIRMED; NO PRONOUNCEMENT
W/RESPECT TO PANTALEON IN LIEU OF
THE CONDITIONAL PARDON GRANTED
TO HIM
1. The essential elements common to all acts
of malversation under Article 217 of the
Revised Penal Code are the following:
(a) That the offender be a public officer.
(b) That he had the custody or control of
funds or property by reason of the duties of
his office.
(c) That those funds or property were public
funds or property for which he was
accountable.
(d) That he appropriated, took,
misappropriated or consented or, through
abandonment or negligence, permitted
another person to take them.
ALL PRESENT (SEE PAGE 11 OF CASE)
2. FALSIFICATION WAS A NECESSARY
MEANS TO COMMIT THE CRIME OF
MALVERSATION
CASE FALLS UNDER 2 TYPES OF
FALSIFICATION (UNDER #2 AND #5;
FOCUS ON #5)
Falsication under paragraph 2 is committed
when (a) the offender causes it to appear in a
document that a person or persons
participated in an act or a proceeding; and (b)
that such person or persons did not in fact so
participate in the act or proceeding. In the
present case, both testimonial and
documentary evidence showed that Vallejos
lled up the spaces for the voucher number
and the accounting entry of Disbursement
Voucher Nos. 101-9803-328, 101-9803-349
and 10-9804-415. These items were required
to be lled up by Nida as the municipal
accountant. Thus, Vallejos made it appear that
the municipal accountant participated in
signing the disbursement vouchers.
The appellants were likewise guilty of
falsication under paragraph 5 of Article 171.
Engr. Ramos testied that Pantaleon and
Vallejos instructed him to place the dates
January 5, 1998 on the rst and third
programs of work, and January 14, 1998 on
the second program of work, although he
prepared the programs only in March 1998.
Thereafter, the appellants afxed their
signatures on these programs of work. The
projects covered by these programs of work
served as basis for the issuance of the
disbursement vouchers.
3. CONSPIRACY PRESENT
The prosecution's evidence glaringly shows
how the appellants acted in concert to
facilitate the illegal release of public funds.
First, the appellants ordered the preparation of
the programs of work, with specic
instructions to antedate the submitted
programs. Second, they afxed their
signatures on the antedated programs of work.
Third, the appellants signed the disbursement
vouchers covering the simulated
projects despite knowledge of the absence of
the signatures of the local budget ofcer and
the local accountant. Vallejos even lled up
entries in the vouchers that were for the
municipal treasurer to ll up. Finally, the
appellants afxed their signatures in the
following documents attached to the three (3)
disbursement vouchers:...(supporting
documents)
4. OTHER ISSUES + PENALTIES
GARCIA VS CA
Art 171 par 6: Making any altercation or
intercalation in a genuine document which
changes its meaning
Avella Garcia - falsified receipt
Alberto Quijada, Jr.
Celso Cunanan - Architect, witness in the
defense of avella
The trial court found Avella's account
unworthy of belief. The court stated in its
decision that if, by her claim, she made the
changes in the receipt while Alberto was
counting the money it would not have taken
more than five (5) seconds to affix his
signature thereon even if he was in a hurry to
leave. The trial court, thus, held that the
elements of Article 172 (2), in relation to
Article 171 (6), of the Revised Penal Code
have been proven beyond reasonable doubt
and sentenced Avella to suffer imprisonment
The CA modified the penalty by lowering it,
but affirmed the conviction. The CA was
unconvinced by Avella's explanations
regarding the circumstances under which the
alterations were made.
SC: AFFIRMED CA'S DECISION (AND
PENALTY IMPOSED)
The elements of the crime of falsification
under Article 171 (6) of the Revised Penal
Code are:
(1) that there be an alteration (change) or
intercalation (insertion) on a document;
(2) that it was made on a genuine document;
(3) that the alteration or intercalation has
changed the meaning of the document; and
(4) that the changes made the document speak
something false.
When these are committed by a private
individual on a private document the violation
would fall under paragraph 2, Article 172 of
the same code, but there must be, in addition
to the aforesaid elements, independent
evidence of damage or intention to cause the
same to a third person.
ALL PRESENT IN THIS CASE
The receipt appeared to have been altered in
the following manner:
1) the word "fifty" was inserted before the
word "five" on the second line of the receipt
to read "fifty five thousand" instead of "five
thousand";
2) the number "5" was inserted before
"5,000.00" on the third line of the receipt so
that it would read "55,000.00";
3) additional words were inserted in the last
sentence of the receipt which reads, "Now
covered by T.C.T. # 3998 R.D. Mandaluyong
MM. the parties agree to execute of [sic] valid
deed of conveyance covering the same sale";
4) on the date "January 21" the number 4 was
superimposed so that it would read as
"January 24" instead; and
5) there now appears the amount of
"55,000.00" and below it the word "value" on
the upper left hand corner of the receipt.
REGIDOR JR VS PEOPLE
Art 171 par 7: Issuing in an authenticated
form a document purporting to be a copy of
an original document when no such original
exists or including in such copy a statement
contrary to or different from that of the
genuine original
7 Informations filed against Regidor, Zapatos
(Acting Presiding Officer, SP), Siete (VICE
MAYOR, Presiding Officer of SP; passed
away before arraignment), and Mangao (SP
SECRETARY, warrant of arrest yet to be
served, Sandiganbayan didnt acquire
jurisdiction)
ALLEGEDLY FALSIFIED RESOLUTIONS
(according to some council mems, the same
were not deliberated and passed/agreed
upon...although they were later on ratified by
a vote of 5-4):
Budget-related - 5
appointment related - 1
Operation-related (existence of Tangub City) -
1 committed the act of issuing in authenticated
DILG:
preventive suspension...but later on found
accused officials not guilty
Sandiganbayan (1st Div):
Mayor Regidor of Tangub City - GUILTY,
FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC
DOCUMENTS
sangguniang Panglungsod of Tangub City
MEMBER Zapatos - GUILTY,
FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC
DOCUMENTS
DID NOT ACCEPT petitioners' defenses of
good faith and lack of intent
SC: AFFIRMED IN TOTO THE DECISION
OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN IN 7 CASES
FALSIFICATION UNDER ART 171 PAR 2
Firstly, the accused caused it to appear in a
document that members of the Sangguniang
Panglungsod participated in the sessions,
deliberations and passed the questioned
resolutions. The said resolutions reect
the attendance of all the members of the
Sanggunian on the dates thereon, including
their unanimous approval of the resolutions.
The pieces of evidence and the testimonies of
the prosecution witnesses, however, reveal
otherwise. If, in truth and in fact, Resolutions
50-A, 56, 56-A, 63, 61, 64 and 68 were
indeed taken up and passed upon on their
respective dates, it would be contrary to
human reason why the members of the
Sangguniang Panglungsod who approved it
unanimously, to suddenly le a case against
the accused and deny the existence of a
legislative act they authored.
FALSIFICATION UNDER ART 171 PAR 7
Secondly, the accused are found to have
form, a document purporting to be a copy of
an original document when no such document
exists. In issuing the subject Resolutions,
Mayor Eleno T. Regidor, Jr., Vice-Mayor
Aniceto T. Siete and SP Camilo B. Zapatos,
consummated the crime of falsication by
purporting them to be original copies of valid,
deliberated and approved resolutions when no
such documents exist and no proceedings
regarding them ever took place as established
by the prosecution. Their defense that the
minutes of the sessions were inaccurate and
did not reect the deliberations concerning
the questioned resolutions, does not convince
this Court. The testimonies of complainants
Roberto O. [Taclob], Estrelita M. Pastrano,
Elizabeth L. Duroy and Agustin L. Opay, all
former members of the City Council during
the terms of the accused, must be given great
weight and credence. In falsication of a
public document, the falsication need not be
made on an ofcial form. It is sufcient that
the document is given the appearance of, or
made to appear similar to the ofcial form.
(SO BASICALLY DI MAGHHOLD TRUE
TALAGA YUNG ARGUMENT NUNG
DALAWA NA THE DOCUMENTS PASSED
AND APPROVED WERE AUTHENTIC,
GENUINE, AND ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS
SO THERE CAN BE NO FALSIFICATION
UNDER PAR 7)