G.R. No.
180314 - NORMALLAH A.
PACASUM, petitioner versus PEOPLE OF THE
Promulgated:
April
16, 2009
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
DISSENTING OPINION
QUISUMBING,
J.:
With due respect, I dissent from the majority opinion.
I vote to grant the petition and reverse the decision of the Sandiganbayan
finding petitioner Normallah A. Pacasum guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of falsification under Article 171, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal
Code.
In my view, it is erroneous to convict
petitioner because of the following grounds:
First, there is lack
of sufficient evidence to prove petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Article 171, paragraph 1[1] of the Revised
Penal Code punishes “any public officer, employee, or notary who, taking
advantage of his/her official position shall falsify a document by
counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature, or rubric.”
The elements of
falsification of public document are as follows:
(a)
the
offender is a public officer, employee or notary public;
(b)
s/he
takes advantage of his/her official position;
(c)
s/he
falsifies a document by committing any of the acts mentioned in Article 171 of
the Revised Penal Code such as counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting,
signature or rubric.[2]
Elements
(b) and (c) are absent in this case.
Petitioner could not have taken advantage of her official position to
have her employee clearance falsified because she had no need for the
clearance. Moreover, the mere act of an
employee of having his/her clearance signed is not taking advantage of one’s
official position. It is erroneous to
conclude that were it not for her position and her employment in the ARMM,
petitioner could not have accomplished her clearance.
There
is no evidence, direct or circumstantial, showing that petitioner imitated or caused
to be imitated the alleged falsified signature in the clearance. The witnesses merely testified that the
signature in petitioner’s clearance was falsified. This fact alone is not sufficient proof
beyond reasonable doubt that she is guilty of falsification.
The
Sandiganbayan, for lack of proof of petitioner’s direct participation in
falsifying the document, relied on the disputable legal presumption that the
possessor of a falsified document who makes use of such to her advantage is
presumed to be the author of the falsification.[3] At
any rate, for the presumption of authorship of falsification to apply, the
possessor must stand to profit or had profited from the use of the falsified
document.[4] In this
case, petitioner does not stand to profit nor profited from the use of the
alleged falsified document.
Second, the allegedly
falsified document, petitioner’s employee clearance, was not needed by her to
get her salaries for the months of August and September 2000 and therefore, no
criminal intent or ill motive could be attributed to petitioner to warrant her
conviction for falsification under Article 171, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code.
Criminal intent must be present in felonies committed by
means of dolo, such as falsification.[5] In this
case, there is no reasonable ground to believe that the requisite criminal
intent or mens rea was present. Petitioner had no
ill motive to falsify her own employee’s clearance. She had no need to do so since the employee
clearance was not needed by her in the procurement of her salaries. Even if she
had her employee clearance prepared, this act, by itself, is not
felonious. There was nothing willful or
felonious in petitioner’s acts that would warrant her prosecution for
falsification.
I therefore vote to
set aside the Decision dated
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
[1] Art. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastic minister. — The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed P5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer, employee, or notary who, taking advantage of his official position, shall falsify a document by committing any of the following acts:
1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric;
xxxxxx
[2]
[3] Eugenio v. People of the
[4]
[5] De Jesus v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
164166 & 164173-80,