THIRD DIVISION
|
ELENO
T. REGIDOR, JR. and CAMILO B. ZAPATOS, Petitioners, - versus - PEOPLE OF THE Respondents. |
G.R. Nos. 166086-92
Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., Chairperson, CARPIO,* AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CHICO-NAZARIO, and NACHURA, JJ. Promulgated: February
13, 2009 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
NACHURA, J.:
Before this
Court is a Petition[1]
for Review on Certiorari under Rule
45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking the reversal of the Sandiganbayan
Decision[2]
dated September 24, 2004, convicting petitioners Eleno T. Regidor, Jr. (Mayor
Regidor), former City Mayor, and Camilo B. Zapatos (Zapatos), former member of
the Sangguniang Panglungsod of Tangub City (petitioners), of the crime
of falsification of public documents.
The Facts
Petitioners, along with Aniceto T.
Siete, former Vice-Mayor, and one Marlene L. Mangao,[3]
then Acting Secretary of the Sangguniang Panglungsod of
Criminal Case No. 13689 filed on May 10, 1989
That
on or about the 23rd day of June, 1988, in the City of Tangub, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused Eleno T.
Regidor, Jr., Aniceto T. Siete, Camilo B. Zapatos and Marlene
Mangao, all public officers being then the City Mayor, Vice Mayor and Presiding
Officer of the Sangguniang Panglungsod, Temporary Presiding Officer, and Acting
Sangguniang Panglungsod Secretary, respectively, of said City, and as such are
authorized to attest and approve resolutions of the Sangguniang Panglungsod,
and committing the crime herein charged in relation to their office, with grave
abuse of confidence and taking advantage of their official/public positions,
conspiring and confabulating with one another, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously falsify Resolution 50-A, of the Sangguniang
Panglungsod of Tangub City, entitled: “A RESOLUTION GRANTING A SALARY INCREASE
OF ALL EMPLOYEES EXCEPT CHIEFS, ASSISTANT CHIEF OF OFFICERS (sic) AND CITY
OFFICIALS OF TANGUB CITY AT ONE HUNDRED PESOS (P100) A MONTH EFFECTIVE
JULY 1, 1988,” by then and there making it appear that the aforesaid Resolution
was deliberated upon, passed and approved by the Sangguniang Panglungsod when
in truth and in fact as accused well knew it was never taken up by said body,
to the damage and prejudice of the Government.
Contrary
to law.
Criminal Case No. 13690
filed on May 10, 1989
That on or about the 30th
day [of] June, 1988, in Tangub City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, accused Eleno T. Regidor, Jr., Aniceto T. Siete
and Marlene L. Mangao, all public officers being the City Mayor, Vice-Mayor,
and Presiding Officer of the Sangguniang Panglungsod and Acting Sangguniang
Panglungsod Secretary, respectively, of the said City, and as such are
authorized to attest and approve resolutions of the Sangguniang Panglungsod,
and committing the crime herein charged in relation to their office, with grave
abuse of confidence and taking advantage of their official/public positions,
conspiring and confabulating with one another, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously falsify Resolution No. 56, of the Sangguniang
Panglungsod of Tangub, entitled: RESOLUTION APPROVING SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET NO. 2
OF THE SANGGUNIANG PANGLUNGSOD OF TANGUB CITY FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 1988,” by
then and there making it appear that the aforesaid Resolution was deliberated
upon, passed and approved by the Sangguniang Panglungsod when in truth and in
fact as accused well knew it was never taken up by the said body, to the damage
and prejudice of the government.
Contrary to law.
Criminal Case No. 13691
filed on May 10, 1989
That on or about the 30th day of June, 1988,
in Tangub City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, accused Eleno T. Regidor, Jr., Aniceto T. Siete, and Marlene L.
Mangao, all public officers being the City Mayor, Vice-Mayor and Presiding
Officer of the Sangguniang Panglungsod, and Acting Sangguniang Panglungsod
Secretary, respectively, of said City, and as such are authorized to attest and
approve resolutions of the Sangguniang Panglungsod, and committing the crime
herein charged in relation to their office, with grave abuse of confidence and
taking advantage of their official/public positions, conspiring and
confabulating with one another, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously falsify Resolution No. 56-A of the Sangguniang Panglungsod of
Tangub entitled: “RESOLUTION APPROVING SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET NO. 2 OF THE INFRA
FUND OF TANGUB CITY FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 1988,” by then and there making it
appear that the aforesaid Resolution was deliberated upon, passed and approved
by the Sangguniang Panglungsod when in truth and in fact as accused well knew
it was never taken up by said body, to the damage and prejudice of the
government.
Contrary to law.
Criminal Case No. 13692
filed on May 11, 1989
That on or about the 14th day of July, 1988,
in Tangub City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, accused Eleno T. Regidor, Jr., Aniceto T. Siete, and Marlene L.
Mangao, all public officers, being the City Mayor, Vice-Mayor and Presiding
Officer of the Sangguniang Panglungsod and Acting Sangguniang Panglungsod
Secretary, respectively of said City, and as such, are authorized to attest and
approve resolutions of the Sangguniang Panglungsod, and committing the crime
herein charged in relation to their office, with grave abuse of confidence and
taking advantage of their official/public positions, conspiring and
confabulating with one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously falsify Resolution No. 63 of the Sangguniang Panglungsod of Tangub,
entitled: “A RESOLUTION EARNESTLY REQUESTING HONORABLE ALFREDO BENGZON,
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, MANILA, THRU THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, CANDIDO
TAN, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, REGION X, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, TO APPOINT DR.
SINFORIANA DEL CASTILLO AS CITY HEALTH OFFICER IN TANGUB CITY HEALTH OFFICE,”
by then and there making it appear that the aforesaid Resolution was
deliberated upon, passed and approved by the Sangguniang Panglungsod when in
truth and in fact as accused well knew it was never taken up by said body, to
the damage and prejudice of the government.
Contrary to law.
Criminal Case No. 13693
filed on May 10, 1989
That on or about the 14th day of July, 1988,
in Tangub City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, accused Eleno T. Regidor, Jr., Aniceto T. Siete and Marlene L.
Mangao, all public officers being the City Mayor, Vice-Mayor and Presiding
Officer of the Sangguniang Panglungsod and Acting Sangguniang Panglungsod
Secretary, respectively, of said City, and as such, are authorized to attest
and approve resolutions of the Sangguniang Panglungsod, and committing the
crime herein charged in relation to their office, with grave abuse of
confidence and taking advantage of their official/public positions, conspiring
and confabulating with one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously falsify Resolution No. 61 of the Sangguniang Panglungsod of Tangub,
entitled: “A RESOLUTION REVERTING THE AMOUNT OF ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P100,000)
FROM THE CONSTRUCTION OF SPORT CENTER TO COVER UP DEFICIENCIES OF APPROPRIATION
IN THE INFRASTRUCTURE FUND,” by then and there making it appear that the
aforesaid Resolution was deliberated upon, passed and approved by the
Sangguniang Panglungsod when in truth and in fact as accused well knew it was
never taken up by the said body, to the damage and prejudice of the government.
Contrary to law.
Criminal Case No. 13694
filed on May 10, 1989
That on or about the 21st day of July, 1988,
in the City of Tangub, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, accused Eleno T. Regidor, Jr., Camilo B. Zapatos and
Marlene Mangao, all public officers being the City Mayor, Temporary Presiding
Officer of the Sangguniang Panglungsod and Acting Sangguniang Panglungsod
Secretary, respectively, and as such, are authorized to attest and approve
resolutions of the Sangguniang Panglungsod, and committing the crime herein
charged on relation to their office, with grave abuse of confidence and taking
advantage of their official/public positions, conspiring and confabulating with
one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously falsify
Resolution No. 64, of the Sangguniang Panglungsod entitled: “A RESOLUTION
ADOPTING A POSITION PAPER REGARDING THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE AND OPERATION OF
TANGUB CITY AND REQUESTING HONORABLE LOURDES R. QUISUMBING FOR A
RECONSIDERATION OF HER MEMORANDA,” by then and there making it appear that the
aforesaid resolution was deliberated upon, passed and approved by the
Sangguniang Panglungsod when in truth and in fact as accused well knew it was
never taken up by the said body, to the damage and prejudice of the government.
Contrary to law.
Criminal Case No. 13695
filed on May 11, 1989
That on or about the 21st day of July, 1988,
in Tangub City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, accused Eleno T. Regidor, Jr., Camilo B. Zapatos and Marlene L.
Mangao, all being public officers being City Mayor, Sangguniang Panlalawigan
Member and concurrently Temporary Presiding Officer and Sangguniang
Panlalawigan Secretary, respectively, of said City and as such, are authorized
to attest and approve resolutions of the Sangguniang Panglungsod, and
committing the crime herein charged in relation to their office, with grave
abuse of confidence and taking advantage of their official/public positions,
conspiring and confabulating with one another, did then and there, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously falsify Resolution No. 68, of the Sangguniang
Panglungsod of Tangub, entitled: “RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE HONORABLE
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, MALACANANG, MANILA FOR
AUTHORITY TO PURCHASE TEN (10) UNITS OF MOTORCAB, ONE (1) DOZEN MICROSCOPE
COMPOUND, ONE (1) SET ENCYCLOPEDIA TEXTBOOKS, ONE (1) SET BRITANICA DICTIONARY,
SEVEN (7) UNITS ELECTRIC TYPEWRITER (20” CARRIAGE), ONE (1) UNIT ELECTRIC FAN
AND ONE (1) UNIT LOMBARDINI DIESEL ENGINE 4ID 820 FOR USE OF VARIOUS OFFICES OF
TANGUB CITY,” by then and there making it appear that the aforesaid Resolution
was deliberated upon, passed and approved by the Sangguniang Panglungsod when
in truth and in fact as accused well knew it was never taken up by the said
body, to the damage and prejudice of the government.
Contrary to law.
Upon their arraignment on July 8,
1991, petitioners entered a plea of not guilty to all the charges. Marlene L.
Mangao was not arraigned as the Sandiganbayan did not acquire jurisdiction over
her person. Hence, an order for her arrest was issued which remains
unserved up to the present. On the other hand, Aniceto T. Siete passed
away on March 12, 1991 before he could be arraigned.[5]
Upon agreement of the parties, no pre-trial conference was conducted. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued. In
the course of trial, two varying versions arose and, as found by the
Sandiganbayan, are culled as follows:
Evidence for the Prosecution
The accused are all public officers in the City
Government of Tangub City. Accused Eleno T. Regidor, Jr. was then the
incumbent Mayor who assumed office on May 5, 1988, while accused Aniceto T.
Siete as the incumbent Vice-Mayor and Presiding Officer of the Sangguniang
Panglungsod. Accused Camilo B. Zapatos was the Acting Presiding Officer
of the Sangguniang Panglungsod, while accused Marlene L. Mangao, who was a
clerk in the Office of the Mayor, was designated as Acting Secretary of the
City Council during the period corresponding to the alleged commission of the
crimes charged against the accused.
When accused Eleno T. Regidor, Jr. assumed the mayoral
post on May 5, 1988, it has been the practice that the proposals for
resolutions and ordinances originated from him or his office. Often, when
a proposal is put in the agenda of the Sangguniang Panglungsod, a prepared
resolution is already available so that it will be easier for the City Council
to just accept or adopt the resolutions.
During the session of the Sangguniang Panglungsod on July
27, 1988, the Council was presented with the Minutes for the sessions held on
June 23, 30, July 14 and 21, respectively. The minutes of said sessions
reflected resolutions and ordinances allegedly taken up, deliberated and passed
upon by the Sangguniang Panglungsod namely: Resolution 50-A on June 23, 1988,
Resolution 56 and 56-A on June 30, Resolution No. 63 and 61 on July 14,
Resolution 64 and 68 on July 21. The actual copies of the Resolutions,
Appropriations and Ordinances all contained the signatures of the four (4)
accused and approving the same.
However, some of the Council Members questioned the
validity of the said Resolutions and Ordinances. They alleged that the
Resolutions and Ordinances were neither taken up, deliberated nor passed upon
during the above-mentioned dates. Roberto O. [Taclob],[6]
[private complainant] a former council member, testified that the questioned
Resolutions were not taken up and thus could not have been deliberated nor
passed upon. His testimony was corroborated by prosecution witnesses,
Estrelita M. Pastrano, Elizabeth L. Duroy Albarico and Agustin L. Opay, all
former members of the Sangguniang Panglungsod of
Evidence for the Defense
In his defense, Mayor Eleno T. Regidor, Jr. testified
that before approving resolutions or ordinances, he consults his legal counsel
to check if there are any irregularities in the resolutions and whether or not
the resolutions are beneficial to the City of
It is further contended by accused Eleno T. Regidor, Jr.
that the questioned Resolutions were taken up and passed upon during the
sessions. The same accused further claimed that the minutes of the
sessions of the Sanggunian were inaccurate since the entire proceedings were
not completely and accurately taken down by the stenographer or Council
Secretary present during the meetings, thus, the deliberations on the
questioned resolutions were not entirely recorded. Lastly, the same
accused claimed that the complainants even admitted in their Affidavit of
Desistance the inaccuracy of the minutes “x x x although the matters taken
during the sessions of the Sangguniang Panglungsod wherein we were present,
were discussed and deliberated upon, we are not sure whether or not said
deliberations and discussions were recorded in the minutes x x x.” The
defense of the accused Eleno T. Regidor, Jr. is corroborated by the testimony
of Rogelio Taburada,[7]
[Taburada] who was then a Councilor of Tangub City.
As for the other accused Sanggunian
Member and Acting Presiding Officer Camilo B. Zapatos, he opted not to take the
witness stand and instead adopted the evidence of his co-accused Eleno T.
Regidor Jr.
The
Sandiganbayan's Decision
On September 24, 2004, the
Sandiganbayan held that the petitioners' defenses of good faith and lack of
intent failed to cast doubt on the allegations of the prosecution. The pieces
of evidence and the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses revealed that
Resolution Nos. 50-A,[8]
56,[9]
56-A,[10]
63[11]
61,[12]
64[13]
and 68[14]
(assailed Resolutions) established the moral certainty or degree of proof which
would produce conviction in an unprejudiced mind. Thus, it disposed of this
case in this wise:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in the above cases
as follows:
1. In
Criminal Case No. 13689, the Court finds the accused Eleno T. Regidor, Jr. and
Camilo B. Zapatos, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Falsification
of Public Document as defined in and penalized by Article 171 of the Revised
Penal Code and, there being no modifying circumstances, are hereby sentenced to
each suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from TWO (2) YEARS, FOUR
(4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of Prision
Correccional medium as the minimum penalty to EIGHT (8) YEARS of Prision Mayor minimum as the maximum
penalty and to each pay a FINE of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00).
2. In
Criminal Case No. 13690, the Court finds the accused Eleno T. Regidor, Jr.,
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Falsification of Public Document
was defined in and penalized by Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code and,
there being no modifying circumstances, is hereby sentenced to suffer an
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from TWO (2) YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS and
ONE (1) DAY of Prision Correccional medium
as the minimum penalty to EIGHT (8) YEARS of Prision Mayor minimum as the maximum penalty and to pay a FINE of
FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00).
3. In
Criminal Case No. 13691, the Court finds the accused Eleno T. Regidor, Jr.,
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Falsification of Public Document
as defined in and penalized by Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code and, there
being no modifying circumstances, is hereby sentenced to suffer an
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from TWO (2) YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS and
ONE (1) DAY of Prision Correccional medium
as the minimum penalty to EIGHT (8) YEARS of Prision Mayor minimum as the maximum penalty and to pay a FINE
of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00).
4. In
Criminal Case No. 13692, the Court finds the accused Eleno T. Regidor, Jr., GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Falsification of Public Document as
defined in and penalized by Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code and, there
being no modifying circumstances, is hereby sentenced to suffer an
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from TWO (2) YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS and
ONE (1) DAY of Prision Correccional
medium as the minimum penalty to EIGHT (8) years of Prision Mayor minimum as the maximum penalty and to pay a FINE of
FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00).
5. In
Criminal Case No. 13693, the Court finds the accused Eleno T. Regidor, Jr.,
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Falsification of Public Document
as defined in and penalized by Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code and, there
being no modifying circumstances, is hereby sentenced to suffer an
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from TWO (2) YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS and
ONE (1) DAY of Prision Correccional medium
as the minimum penalty to EIGHT (8) YEARS of Prision Mayor minimum as the maximum penalty and to pay a FINE of
FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00).
6. In
Criminal Case No. 13694, the Court finds the accused Eleno T. Regidor, Jr. and
Camilo B. Zapatos, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Falsification
of Public Document as defined in and penalized by Article 171 of the Revised
Penal Code and, there being no modifying circumstances, are hereby sentenced to
each suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from TWO (2) YEARS, FOUR
(4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of Prision
Correccional medium as the minimum penalty to EIGHT (8) YEARS of Prision Mayor minimum as the maximum
penalty and to each pay a FINE of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00).
7. In
Criminal Case No. 13695, the Court finds the accused Eleno T. Regidor, Jr. and
Camilo B. Zapatos, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Falsification
of Public Document as defined in and penalized by Article 171 of the Revised
Penal Code and, there being no modifying circumstances, are hereby sentenced to
each suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from TWO (2) YEARS, FOUR
(4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of Prision
Correccional medium as the minimum penalty to EIGHT (8) YEARS of Prision Mayor minimum as the maximum
penalty and to each pay a FINE of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00).
In so far as Aniceto T. Siete is concerned, who died
before arraignment could be held, the case against him is hereby considered
dismissed by reason of his death.
Let a Warrant of Arrest issue against Marlene L. Mangao
for her immediate apprehension and in order to answer the charges leveled
against her.
SO ORDERED.
The Issues
Petitioners filed their Motion for
Reconsideration[15]
which was, however, denied by the Sandiganbayan in its Resolution[16]
dated November 26, 2004. Hence, this Petition based on the following grounds:
I.
THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY AND SERIOUSLY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED
AMOUNTING TO EXCESS OR LACK OF JURISDICTION AS NO CRIME OF FALSIFICATION WAS
COMMITTED BY THEM;
II.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE PETITIONERS WHEN THE
EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION WAS TOO WEAK TO WARRANT CONVICTION [BECAUSE] IT
MISERABLY FAILED TO PROVE THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT;
III.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT GIVING WEIGHT/VALUE TO THE
AFFIDAVIT OF DESISTANCE OF THE COMPLAINANTS AND THE EXONERATION BY THE DILG OF
THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGE AGAINST THEM;
IV.
THE RESPONDENT COURT ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
OF REGIDOR THAT HE HAS NO PARTICIPATION IN THE PREPARATION, BEING THE CITY
MAYOR HIS RULE WAS ONLY TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTIONS; [AND]
V.
THE EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION IS INCREDIBLE THAT ACCUSED TOOK
ADVANTAGE OF THEIR POSITION[.] CONSPIRACY WAS NOT ESTABLISHED.[17]
Moreover, petitioners asseverate that
there is no falsification in this case under Article 171, paragraph 2 of the
Revised Penal Code because they did not cause it to appear that other persons
participated in an act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate.
Petitioners submit that they did not feign such participation because the private
complainants physically and actually participated in passing the assailed
resolutions. The participation of Mayor Regidor came only after the assailed
resolutions were submitted to him for approval. Likewise, there is no
falsification under paragraph 7 of Article 171 because petitioners passed and
approved authentic, genuine and original documents. Petitioners submit that
paragraph 7 involves falsification of a non-existent document and the falsifier
produces one purporting to be the original. Petitioners also opine that the
DILG's dismissal[18]
of the administrative complaint and the private complainants' act of executing
affidavits of desistance[19]
should be given weight. Intent to gain and/or bad faith were not shown by
petitioners as some of the assailed resolutions do not involve money matters.
Further, petitioners argue that Taburada's testimony should have been accorded
more weight and credence than the testimony of private complainant Taclob.
Petitioners claim that Taburada, as a former member of the Sangguniang Panglungsod, clearly testified that he was
present at the time all the assailed resolutions were deliberated upon and
approved,[20]
while Taclob's testimony was not credible and trustworthy considering that he
executed two (2) affidavits of desistance. Taburada's testimony was not at all
discussed by the Sandiganbayan; hence, its decision was not supported by
evidence. Most importantly, petitioners reiterate their contention that the
minutes[21]
were defective and inaccurate. Thus, petitioners pray that they be acquitted in
the name of due process and based on the long-standing policy of the State to
acquit the accused if the quantum of evidence is insufficient to convict, as in
the case at bench.[22]
On the other hand, respondent People
of the
The ultimate issue in this case is whether
petitioners are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of falsification of
public documents.
Our Ruling
The instant Petition is bereft of
merit.
The law in point is Article 171 of the
Revised Penal Code, which clearly provides:
Art. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee
or notary or ecclesiastic minister. — The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed
5,000 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;
2. Causing it to appear that persons
have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate;
3. Attributing to persons who have
participated in any act or proceeding statements other than those in fact made
by them;
4. Making untruthful statements in a
narration of facts;
5. Altering true dates;
6. Making any alteration or intercalation
in a genuine document which changes its meaning;
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 a copy a statement contrary to, or different from,
that of the genuine original; or
8. Intercalating any instrument or note
relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry, or official book.
The
same penalty shall be imposed upon any ecclesiastical minister who shall commit
any of the offenses enumerated in the preceding paragraphs of this article,
with respect to any record or document of such character that its falsification
may affect the civil status of persons.[24]
Thus,
for falsification of a public document to be established, the following
elements must concur: 1) that the offender is a public officer, employee, or
notary public; 2) that he takes advantage of his official position; and 3) that
he falsifies a document by committing any of the aforementioned acts. Likewise,
in falsification of public or official documents, it is not necessary that
there be present the idea of gain or the intent to injure a third person because
in the falsification of a public document, what is punished is the violation of
the public faith and the destruction of the truth as therein solemnly
proclaimed.[25]
In this case, the petitioners are
charged under Article 171, paragraphs 2 and 7 of the Revised Penal Code.
Petitioners Regidor and Zapatos, as Mayor, and Member and Temporary Presiding
Officer of the Sangguniang Panglungsod, respectively, made it appear
that private complainants, among others, participated in the Sangguniang Panglungsod sessions when
they did not in fact so participate,[26]
and issued, in authenticated forms, the assailed resolutions purporting to be
copies of original documents when no such originals exist.
We hold that all the elements of the
offense punishable under Article 171, paragraphs 2 and 7 of the Revised Penal
Code are present in this case.
First. Petitioners were public
officers at the time of the commission of the offenses charged. Mayor Regidor
was then Mayor of Tangub City, while Zapatos was a member of the Sangguniang
Panglungsod and was a Temporary Presiding Officer thereof.
Second. The petitioners took
advantage of their respective official positions because they had the duty to
make or to prepare, or otherwise to intervene in the preparation of the
document, or have the official custody of the document which they falsified.[27]
Zapatos, as a member and, at the time, Temporary Presiding Officer of
the Sangguniang Panglungsod, had the duty to make or prepare or
intervene in the preparation of the assailed resolutions. In like manner, Mayor
Regidor cannot claim that as mayor he had no participation in the making, or preparation
of, nor any intervention in the assailed resolutions.
Under Section 180[28]
of Batas Pambansa Blg. 337, or the
Local Government Code of 1983, which was in effect at the time the crimes
imputed were committed, the city mayor had the power to veto the ordinances and
resolutions enacted or adopted by the Sangguniang Panglungsod. Contrary
to Mayor Regidor's submission, the veto power confers authority beyond the
simple mechanical act of signing an ordinance or resolution as a requisite to
its enforceability. Thus, this Court held that the concurrence of a local chief
executive in the enactment of an ordinance or resolution requires not only a
flourish of the pen, but the application of judgment after meticulous analysis
and intelligence as well.[29]
Third.
While petitioners' witness, Taburada, testified that he was present during the Sangguniang’s deliberations of the
assailed resolutions,[30]
private complainant Taclob also testified that the resolutions were not discussed
and approved during the respective sessions of the Sangguniang Panglungsod.[31]
The minutes of the sessions, as well, do not reflect any deliberation and/or
approval by the Sangguniang Panglungsod of the assailed resolutions. Initially, when Taburada was asked
if the minutes faithfully recorded all the matters deliberated upon during the
sessions of the Sangguniang Panglungsod on June 23, June 30,
July 14, and July 21, 1988, he readily affirmed it. But after the Sandiganbayan called for a
recess when the counsel for the parties had a heated discussion, Taburada
claimed that the minutes of the sessions on said dates did not contain all the
matters taken up during those sessions, particularly the deliberation and
approval of the assailed resolutions.[32] Yet,
the resolutions were questioned by private complainants precisely because the
alleged deliberation and voting thereon were not at all conducted as reflected in
the minutes[33] of the Sanggunian session of July 27, 1988. On
said date, after taking up other matters, the Sangguniang Panglungsod, upon motion of Taclob, went into a
closed-door session. Then a nominal
voting was conducted in order to determine “whether said resolutions were
brought before the session for deliberation or [if] the nature of said
resolutions [was] reflected in the minutes.”[34] Majority
of the members voted “no,” while Taburada answered “no comment”[35]
because he did not actually read the minutes at the time, but he nonetheless
signed the same.[36] To the
same question, Zapatos also answered “no comment.” These material
inconsistencies in Taburada's testimony, pitted against the testimonies of the
private complainants and the documentary evidence, proved fatal to petitioners'
cause.
It must be borne in mind that weighing
heavily against the petitioners' defense is the well-settled doctrine that
findings of fact of trial courts — in this case, the Sandiganbayan —
particularly in the assessment of the credibility of witnesses, is binding upon
this Court, absent any arbitrariness, abuse or palpable error.[37]
While the petitioners do not wish to impute
much significance to the minutes, they are important in the resolution of this
case.
In a similar case, De los Reyes v.
Sandiganbayan, Third Division,[38]
this Court, citing a number of cases,[39] highlighted the importance of the minutes
taken in the pertinent proceeding, relying thereon to ascertain the truth when
confronted by conflicting claims of parties.
Hence, this Court held:
Thus, the Court accords
full recognition to the minutes as the official repository of what actually
transpires in every proceeding. It has happened that the minutes may be
corrected to reflect the true account of a proceeding, thus giving the Court
more reason to accord them great weight for such subsequent corrections, if
any, are made precisely to preserve the accuracy of the records. In light of
the conflicting claims of the parties in the case at bar, the Court, without
resorting to the minutes, will encounter difficulty in resolving the dispute at
hand.[40]
We
see no reason to deviate from this ruling.
Added to this is the Memorandum of
Agreement[41] entered
into by the Office of the Mayor and the Sangguniang
Panglungsod on August 12, 1988, “recalling all SP resolutions not duly
passed and/or approved by the majority of the members thereat.” Further, the Sangguniang
Panglungsod, in its Resolution No.
94[42]
dated October 15, 1988, opted to re-approve the assailed resolutions “which
were alleged to [have been] implemented but not discussed,” rather than move
for the amendment of the minutes. These acts belie petitioners' claims
that the minutes were inaccurate for failing to include therein the
deliberations and approval of the assailed resolutions. Indeed, if the minutes
merely omitted any mention of the discussion on, and approval of, the subject
resolutions, there would have been no need to resubmit them for the approval of
the Sanggunian. It would have been more convenient to simply
effect the correction of the minutes.
Likewise, petitioners' reliance on the
affidavits of desistance executed by the private complainants fails to impress
this Court. Our ruling in Balderama
v. People[43]
is instructive:
A recantation or an
affidavit of desistance is viewed with suspicion and reservation. The Court looks with disfavor upon
retractions of testimonies previously given in court. It is settled that an
affidavit of desistance made by a witness after conviction of the accused is
not reliable, and deserves only scant attention. The rationale for the rule is
obvious: affidavits of retraction can easily be secured from witnesses, usually
through intimidation or for a monetary consideration. Recanted testimony is
exceedingly unreliable. There is always the probability that it will later be
repudiated. Only when there exist special circumstances in the case which when
coupled with the retraction raise doubts as to the truth of the testimony or
statement given, can retractions be considered and upheld.
The affidavits of desistance cannot
prevail over the categorical statements of the private complainants, the very
same affiants who executed the same. Moreover, based on the testimonies of the
private complainants, they merely executed the affidavits of desistance after
the DILG dismissed the administrative complaint and after Mayor Regidor asked
them to execute the same, because they had the impression that the DILG ruling
would, in one way or another, be binding on the Sandiganbayan, and they simply
wanted to avoid having to spend for their fare in going to the Sandiganbayan
for the trial.
This impression was likewise noted by
the Sandiganbayan in its assailed Decision. The impression was so prevalent
that even the petitioners themselves relied on the DILG dismissal of the
administrative charge, contending that it should have been given greater weight
by the Sandiganbayan, at least to create a serious and reasonable doubt to
warrant their acquittal.
The petitioners' contention lacks
merit.
It is a fundamental principle in the
law on public officers that administrative liability is separate from and independent
of criminal liability. A simple act or
omission can give rise to criminal, civil or administrative liability, each
independently of the others. This is
known as the “threefold liability rule.”
Thus, absolution from a criminal charge is not a bar to an administrative
prosecution, and vice-versa. In this criminal
prosecution, the dismissal of the administrative cases against the petitioners will
not necessarily result in the dismissal of the criminal complaints filed
against them.
Based on the foregoing disquisitions,
the Sandiganbayan's conviction
of petitioners had ample factual mooring, after the prosecution presented both
documentary and testimonial pieces of evidence. Time and again, we held that we
are not a trier of facts; hence, we defer to the factual findings of the Sandiganbayan which had more
opportunity and facilities to examine and evaluate the evidence presented.[44]
To repeat, settled is the rule that
findings of fact of the Sandiganbayan in cases before this Court are binding
and conclusive in the absence of a showing that they come under the established
exceptions, among them: 1) when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely
on speculation, surmises and conjectures; 2) the inference made is manifestly
mistaken; 3) there is a grave abuse of discretion; 4) the judgment is based on
misapprehension of facts; 5) said findings of fact are conclusions without
citation of specific evidence on which they are based; and 6) the findings of
fact of the Sandiganbayan are premised on the absence of evidence on record.[45] We found none of these exceptions in the
present case. Thus, we accord respect and weight to the Sandiganbayan's
findings, a portion of which aptly and judiciously states, to wit:
Based on the foregoing,
this Court finds the contentions of the accused untenable. Their defense of
good faith and lack of intent has failed to cast doubt on the allegations of
the prosecution. In the falsification of public or official documents, whether
by public officials or by private persons, it is not that there be present the
idea of gain or intent to injure a third person. Verily, the pieces of evidence
reveal the specific acts of the four (4) accused in the commission of the crime
of falsification. 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 reflect 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 file a case against
the accused and deny the existence of a legislative act they authored.
Secondly, the accused are found to have committed the act of issuing in
authenticated 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 falsification 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 reflect 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 falsification of a public document, the
falsification need not be made on an official form. It is sufficient that the document
is given the appearance of, or made to appear similar to the official form.
All
told, the Sandiganbayan committed no reversible error in ruling that the
petitioners are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of falsification of
public documents.
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition
is DENIED and the Sandiganbayan Decision dated September 24, 2004 in
Criminal Cases Nos. 13689, 13690, 13691, 13692, 13693, 13694 and 13695 is AFFIRMED
in toto. Costs against the petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice |
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate
Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the
conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case
was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson,
Third Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O
N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article
VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify
that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s
Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief
Justice
* Additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta per Special Raffle dated February 2, 2009.
[1] Rollo,
pp. 3-22.
[2] Particularly
docketed as Crim. Cases Nos. 13689-95, penned by Associate Justice Diosdado M.
Peralta (now a member of this Court), with Associate Justices Teresita
Leonardo-De Castro (now a member of this Court) and Roland B. Jurado,
concurring; id. at 26-42.
[3] Marlene L. Mangao is still at-large. Thus, an Order of Arrest was issued by the Sandiganbayan which, however, remains to be unserved up to this day; records, p. 483.
[4] Records, unpaged. (Emphasis supplied.)
[5] Records, p. 200.
[6] Also referred to as Roberto Taclub in other pleadings and documents.
[7] Also referred to as Rogelio Taborada in other pleadings and documents.
[8] Entitled: A RESOLUTION GRANTING A SALARY INCREASE OF ALL EMPLOYEES EXCEPT THE CHIEFS, ASSISTANT CHIEFS OF OFFICES AND CITY OFFICIALS OF TANGUB CITY AT ONE HUNDRED PESOS (P100.00) A MONTH EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1988; Exhibit “A,” folder of exhibits.
[9] Entitled: A RESOLUTION APPROVING SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET NO. 2 OF THE GENERAL FUND OF TANGUB CITY FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 1988; Exhibit “B,” folder of exhibits.
[10] Entitled: RESOLUTION APPROVING SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET NO. 2 OF THE INFRA FUND OF TANGUB CITY FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 1988; Exhibit “C,” folder of exhibits.
[11] Entitled: A RESOLUTION EARNESTLY
REQUESTING HONORABLE ALFREDO BENGZON, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, MANILA
THRU THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR CANDIDO TAN, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, REGION X, CAGAYAN
DE ORO CITY TO APPOINT
[12] Entitled: A RESOLUTION REVERTING
THE AMOUNT OF ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P100,000.00) FROM THE
CONSTRUCTION OF SPORT CENTER TO COVER UP DEFICIENCIES OF APPROPRIATION IN THE
INFRASTRUCTURE FUND; Exhibit “E,” folder of exhibits.
[13] Entitled: A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A
POSITION PAPER REGARDING THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE AND OPERATION OF
[14] Entitled: RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE HONORABLE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, MALACAÑANG, MANILA FOR AUTHORITY TO PURCHASE TEN (10) UNITS MOTORCAB, ONE (1) DOZEN MICROSCOPE COMPOUND, ONE (1) SET ENCYCLOPEDIA TEXTBOOKS, ONE (1) SET BRITANNICA DICTIONARY, SEVEN (7) UNITS ELECTRIC TYPEWRITER (20” CARRIAGE) ONE (1) UNIT ELECTRIC FAN AND ONE (1) UNIT LOMBARDINI DIESEL ENGINE 4ID 820 FOR USE IN THE VARIOUS OFFICES OF TANGUB CITY; Exhibit “G,” folder of exhibits.
[15] Rollo, pp. 43-50.
[16]
[17] Supra note 1, at 8-9.
[18] Dated April 15, 1991; Exhibit “13,” folder of exhibits.
[19] Exhibits “16,” “17,” folder of exhibits.
[20] TSN, January 9, 1992, pp. 17-18.
[21] Exhibits “H,” “I,” “J,” “K” and “L,” folder of exhibits.
[22] Supra note 1; petitioners' Memorandum dated November 25, 2006, rollo, pp. 176-183.
[23] OSP's Memorandum dated November 15, 2006; id. at 193-223.
[24] Emphasis supplied.
[25] Lastrilla v. Granda, G.R. No. 160257, January 31, 2006, 481 SCRA 324, 345, citing Lumancas v. Uriarte, 347 SCRA 22, 33-34 (2000), further citing People v. Po Giok To, 96 Phil. 913, 918 (1955).
[26] Bernardino
v. People, G.R. Nos. 170453 and 170518, October 30, 2006, 506 SCRA 237,
247-248.
[27] Giron, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 145357-59, August 23, 2006, 499 SCRA 594, 605.
[28] Section 180 of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 337 provides:
SECTION
180. Approval of Ordinances by the Mayor; Veto Power. — (1) All
ordinances, and any resolution or motion directing the payment of money or
creating liability, enacted or adopted by the sangguniang panlungsod
shall be forwarded to the mayor. Within ten days after the receipt of the
ordinance, resolution or motion, the mayor shall return it with his approval or
veto. If he does not return it within that time, it shall be deemed approved.
If he returns it with his veto, his reasons therefor in writing shall accompany
it. A vetoed ordinance, if repassed by a two-thirds vote of all the members of
the sangguniang panlungsod, shall take effect as provided in this Code.
(2) The mayor shall have the power to
veto any particular item or items of an appropriation ordinance, or of an
ordinance, resolution or motion directing the payment of money or creating
liability, but the veto shall not affect the item or items to which he does not
object. The item or items objected to shall not take effect except in the
manner provided in the preceding section. Should an item or items in an
appropriation ordinance be disapproved by the mayor, the corresponding item or
items in the appropriation ordinance of the previous year shall be deemed
reenacted.
[29] De los Reyes v.
Sandiganbayan, Third Division, G.R. No. 121215, November
13, 1997, 281 SCRA 631, 635.
[30] TSN, January 9, 1992, pp. 17-18.
[31] TSN, March 4, 1992, p. 5.
[32] TSN, January 9, 1992, pp. 21-32.
[33] Exhibit “L,” folder of exhibits.
[34]
[35] TSN, January 9, 1992, pp. 36-45.
[36] TSN, January 10, 1992, pp. 9-11.
[37] Filoteo,
Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, 331 Phil. 531, 580 (1996).
[38] Supra
note 29.
[39]
[40]
[41] Exhibit “18,” folder of exhibits.
[42] Exhibit “14,” folder of exhibits.
[43] G.R. Nos. 147578-85 and G.R. Nos. 147598-605, January
28, 2008, 542 SCRA 423, 432-433. (Citations
omitted.)
[44] Atty.
Rodolfo D. Pactolin v. The Honorable Fourth Division of the Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 161455, May 20, 2008.
[45] Supra
note 43, at 432, citing Gil v. People, 177 SCRA 229, 236 (1989), further
citing Cesar v. Sandiganbayan, 134 SCRA 105 (1985).