|
ROSALIO
S. GALEOS, Petitioner, |
G.R. Nos. 174730-37
|
|
|
- versus - |
|
|
|
PEOPLE
OF THE Respondent. x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -x |
|
|
|
PAULINO
S. ONG, Petitioner, -versus- PEOPLE
OF THE Respondent. |
G.R. Nos. 174845-52 Present: Carpio Morales, J., Chairperson, brion, BERSAMIN, VILLARAMA, JR., and MENDOZA,* JJ. Promulgated: February 9, 2011 |
|
x - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - x
VILLARAMA,
JR., J.:
The consolidated petitions at bar seek
to reverse and set aside the Decision[1]
promulgated on August 18, 2005 by the Sandiganbayan convicting petitioners
Paulino S. Ong (Ong) of eight counts and Rosalio S. Galeos (Galeos) of four counts of falsification of
public documents under Article 171, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code,
as amended.
The facts are as follows:
Ong was appointed Officer-in-Charge
(OIC)-Mayor of the
On
In their individual Statement of
Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) for the year 1993, Galeos answered
“No” to the question: “To the best of your knowledge, are you related within
the fourth degree of consanguinity or of affinity to anyone working in the
government?” while Rivera indicated “n/a” on the space for the list of the
names of relatives referred to in the said query.[4]
The boxes for “Yes” and “No” to the said
query were left in blank by Galeos in his 1994 and 1995 SALN.[5] Rivera in his 1995 SALN answered “No” to the
question on relatives in government.[6] In
their 1996 SALN, both Galeos and Rivera also did not fill up the boxes
indicating their answers to the same query.[7] Ong’s signature appears in all the foregoing
documents as the person who administered the oath when Galeos and Rivera
executed the foregoing documents.
In a letter-certification dated June
1, 1994 addressed to Ms. Benita O. Santos, Regional Director, Civil Service
Commission (CSC), Regional Office 7, Cebu City, it was attested that:
This
is to certify that pursuant to the provisions of R.A. 7160, otherwise known as
the Local Government Code of 1991, all restrictions/requirements relative to
creation of positions, hiring and issuance of appointments, Section 325 on the
limitations for personal services in the total/supplemental appropriation of a
local government unit; salary rates; abolition and creation of positions, etc.;
Section 76, organizational structure and staffing pattern; Section 79 on nepotism; Section 80, posting of vacancy and
personnel selection board; Section 81 on compensation, etc. have been duly
complied with in the issuance of this appointment.
This
is to certify further that the faithful
observance of these restrictions/requirements was made in accordance with the
requirements of the Civil Service Commission before the appointment was
submitted for review and action.[8] (Emphasis
supplied.)
The above certification was signed by
Ong and HR Officer-Designate Editha C. Garcia.
On October 1, 1998, the members of the
Sangguniang Bayan of Naga, Cebu filed
a letter-complaint[9]
before the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB)-Visayas against Ong (then incumbent
Vice-Mayor of Naga), Galeos and Rivera for dishonesty, nepotism, violation of
the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees
and Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and for the crime of
falsification of public documents.
On August 11, 2000, Ombudsman Aniano
Desierto approved the recommendation of OIC-Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas that
criminal charges be filed against Ong, Galeos and Rivera for falsification of
public documents under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, in connection with the Certification dated June 1, 1994 issued by Ong
and the false statements in the 1993, 1995 and 1996 SALN of Rivera and the
1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996 SALN of Galeos.[10]
On
Criminal Case No. 26181
That
on or about the 14th day of February, 1994, in the Municipality of
Naga, Province of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, above-named [Paulino S. Ong and Rosalio S. Galeos] accused,
public officers, being the former Municipal Mayor and Construction and
Maintenance Man of the Office of the Municipal Engineer, Municipality of Naga,
Cebu, in such capacity and committing the offense in relation to office, conniving
and confederating together and mutually helping with each other, with
deliberate intent, with intent to falsify, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously falsify a public document, consisting of a Sworn Statement of Assets and Liabilities,
Disclosure of Business Interests and Financial Connections and Identification
of Relatives In the Government Service, as of December 31, 1993,
filed by accused Rosalio S. Galeos
and subscribed and sworn to before accused Paulino
S. Ong, wherein accused made
it appear therein that they are not related within the fourth degree of
consanguinity or affinity thereby making untruthful statements in a narration
of facts, when in truth and in fact, accused very well k[n]ew that they are
related with each other, since accused Rosalio S. Galeos is related to accused
Paulino S. Ong within the fourth degree of consanguinity, the mother of accused Rosalio S. Galeos [being] the sister of the mother of accused Paulino
S. Ong.
CONTRARY
TO LAW. (Emphasis supplied.)
Criminal Case No. 26182
That
on or about the 15th day of February 1994, in the Municipality of
Naga, Province of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, above-named [Paulino S. Ong and Federico T. Rivera] accused,
public officers, being the former Municipal Mayor and Plumber I of the Office
of the Municipal Engineer, Municipality of Naga, Cebu, in such capacity and
committing the offense in relation to office, conniving and confederating
together and mutually helping with each other, with deliberate intent, with
intent to falsify, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
falsify a public document, consisting of a Sworn
Statement of Assets and Liabilities, Disclosure of Business Interests and
Financial Connections and Identification of Relatives In the Government Service
as of December 31, 1993, filed
by accused Federico T. Rivera and
subscribed and sworn to before accused
Paulino S. Ong, wherein accused Federico T. Rivera made it appear therein that he has no relatives
within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity working in the
government, thereby making untruthful statements in a narration of facts,
when in truth and in fact, as accused very well knew that they are related with
each other, since accused Federico T. Rivera is related to accused Paulino S.
Ong within the fourth degree of affinity, the
mother of Federico T. Rivera’s wife being the sister of the mother of Paulino
S. Ong.
CONTRARY
TO LAW. (Emphasis supplied.)
Criminal Case No. 26183
That
on or about the 1st day of February, 1996, in the Municipality of
Naga, Province of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, above-named [Paulino S. Ong and Rosalio S. Galeos] accused,
public officers, being the former Municipal Mayor and Construction and
Maintenance Man of the Office of the Municipal Engineer, Municipality of Naga,
Cebu, in such capacity and committing the offense in relation to office,
conniving and confederating together and mutually helping with each other, with
deliberate intent, with intent to falsify, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously falsify a public document, consisting of a Sworn Statement of Assets and Liabilities,
Disclosure of Business Interests and Financial Connections and Identification
of Relatives In the Government Service, as of December 31, 1995,
filed by accused Rosalio S. Galeos
and subscribed and sworn to before accused Paulino
S. Ong, wherein accused made
it appear therein that they are not related within the fourth degree of
consanguinity or affinity thereby making false statements in a narration of
facts, when in truth and in fact, as accused very well k[n]ew that they are
related with each other, since accused Rosalio S. Galeos is related to accused
Paulino S. Ong within the fourth degree of consanguinity, the mother of accused Rosalio S. Galeos being the sister of the mother
of accused Paulino S. Ong.
CONTRARY
TO LAW. (Emphasis supplied.)
Criminal Case No. 26184
That
on or about the 1st day of February 1996, in the Municipality of
Naga, Province of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, above-named [Paulino S. Ong and Federico T. Rivera] accused,
public officers, being the former Municipal Mayor and Plumber I of the Office
of the Municipal Engineer, Municipality of Naga, Cebu, in such capacity and
committing the offense in relation to office, conniving and confederating
together and mutually helping with each other, with deliberate intent, with
intent to falsify, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
falsify a public document, consisting of a Sworn
Statement of Assets and Liabilities, Disclosure of Business Interests and
Financial Connections and Identification of Relatives In The Government
Service, [a]s of December 31, 1995, filed by accused Federico T. Rivera and subscribed and
sworn to before accused Paulino S. Ong,
wherein accused Federico T. Rivera made it appear therein that he has no
relatives within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity working in the
government, thereby making untruthful statements in a narration of facts, when in truth and in fact, as accused very
well knew that they are related with each other, since accused Federico T.
Rivera is related to accused Paulino S. Ong within the fourth degree of
affinity, the mother of Federico T.
Rivera’s wife being the sister of the mother of Paulino S. Ong.
CONTRARY
TO LAW. (Emphasis supplied.)
Criminal Case No. 26185
That
on or about the 5th day of February 1997, in the Municipality of
Naga, Province of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, above-named [Paulino S. Ong and Federico T. Rivera] accused,
public officers, being the former Municipal Mayor and Plumber I of the Office
of the Municipal Engineer, Municipality of Naga, Cebu, in such capacity and
committing the offense in relation to office, conniving and confederating
together and mutually helping with each other, with deliberate intent, with
intent to falsify, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
falsify a public document, consisting of a Sworn
Statement of Assets and Liabilities, Disclosure of Business Interests and
Financial Connections and Identification of Relatives In The Government
Service, [a]s of December 31, 1996, filed by accused Federico T. Rivera and
subscribed and sworn to before accused Paulino
S. Ong, wherein
accused Federico T. Rivera made it appear therein that he has no relatives
within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity working in the
government, thereby making untruthful statements in a narration of facts,
when in truth and in fact, as accused very well knew that they are related with
each other, since accused Federico T. Rivera is related to accused Paulino S.
Ong within the fourth degree of affinity,
the mother of Federico T. Rivera’s wife
being the sister of the mother of Paulino S. Ong.
CONTRARY
TO LAW. (Emphasis supplied.)
Criminal Case No. 26186
That
on or about the 3rd day of March, 1995, in the Municipality of Naga,
Province of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, above-named [Paulino S. Ong and Rosalio S. Galeos] accused, public
officers, being the former Municipal Mayor and Construction and Maintenance Man
of the Office of the Municipal Engineer, Municipality of Naga, Cebu, in such
capacity and committing the offense in relation to office, conniving and
confederating together and mutually helping with each other, with deliberate
intent, with intent to falsify, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously falsify a public document, consisting of a Sworn Statement of Assets and Liabilities, Disclosure of Business
Interests and Financial Connections and Identification of Relatives In the
Government Services, as of December 31, 1994, filed by accused Rosalio S. Galeos and subscribed
and sworn to before accused Paulino S. Ong,
wherein accused made it appear therein
that they are not related within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity
thereby making untruthful statements in a narration of facts, when in truth
and in fact, as accused very well k[n]ew that they are related with each other,
since accused Rosalio S. Galeos is related to accused Paulino S. Ong, within
the fourth degree of consanguinity, the
mother of accused Rosalio S. Galeos being the sister of the mother of accused
Paulino S. Ong.
CONTRARY
TO LAW. (Emphasis supplied.)
Criminal Case No. 26187
That
on or about the 11th day of March, 1997, in the Municipality of
Naga, Province of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, above-named [Paulino S. Ong and Rosalio S. Galeos] accused,
public officers, being the former Municipal Mayor and Construction and Maintenance
Man of the Office of the Municipal Engineer, Municipality of Naga, Cebu, in
such capacity and committing the offense in relation to office, conniving and
confederating, together and mutually helping with each other, with deliberate
intent, with intent to falsify, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously falsify a public document, consisting of a Sworn Statement of Assets and Liabilities, Disclosure of Business
Interests and Financial Connections and Identification of Relatives In the
Government Service, as of December 31, 1996, filed by accused Rosalio S. Galeos and subscribed
and sworn to before accused Paulino S. Ong,
wherein accused made it appear therein
that they are not related within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity
thereby making untruthful statements in a narration of facts, when in truth
and in fact, as accused very well k[n]ew that they are related with each other,
since accused Rosalio S. Galeos is related to accused Paulino S. Ong within the
fourth degree of consanguinity, the
mother of accused Rosalio S. Galeos being the sister of the mother of accused
Paulino S. Ong.
CONTRARY TO LAW. (Emphasis supplied.)
Criminal Case No. 26188
That
on or about the 1st day of June, 1994, at the Municipality of Naga,
Province of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, above-named accused, a public officer, being the former Mayor of the
Municipality of Naga, Cebu, in such capacity and committing the offense in
relation to office, with deliberate intent, with intent to falsify, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously falsify a public document,
consisting of a Certification in
the form of a letter addressed to Mrs. Benita O. Santos, then Regional Director
of the Civil Service Commission (CSC)-Region
VII, Cebu City dated June 1, 1994,
a requirement in the approval of an appointment, certifying therein that there
was a faithful compliance of the
requirement/restriction provided under the Civil Service Laws and Rules in the
appointment of Rosalio S. Galeos, as Construction and Maintenance
Man of the Office of the Municipal Engineer, Naga, Cebu, thereby making untruthful statements in a narration
of facts, when in truth and in fact as accused
very well knew that the appointment of Rosalio S. Galeos was nepotic being made
in violation of the Civil Service Rules
and Laws on Nepotism, as Rosalio S. Galeos is related to accused within the
fourth degree of consanguinity, since the
mother of Rosalio S. Galeos is the sister of the mother of accused, which
Certification caused the approval of the appointment of Rosalio S. Galeos, to
the detriment of public interest.
CONTRARY
TO LAW. (Emphasis supplied.)
Criminal Case No. 26189
That
on or about the 1st day of June, 1994, at the Municipality of Naga,
Province of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, above-named accused, a public officer, being the former Mayor of the
Municipality of Naga, Cebu, in such capacity and committing the offense in
relation to office, with deliberate intent, with intent to falsify, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously falsify a public document,
consisting of a Certification
in the form of a letter addressed to Mrs. Benita O. Santos, then Regional
Director of the Civil Service Commission (CSC), Region VII, Cebu City, dated June 1, 1994, a requirement in the
approval of an appointment, certifying therein that there was a faithful
compliance of the requirement/restriction provided under the Civil Service Laws
and Rules in the appointment of Federico T. Rivera, a Plumber I of
the Office of the Municipal Engineer,
Naga, Cebu, thereby making
untruthful statements in a narration of facts, when in truth and in fact as
accused very well knew that the
appointment of Federico T. Rivera was nepotic being made in violation of the
Civil Service Rules and Laws on Nepotism, as Federico T. Rivera is related
to accused within the fourth degree of affinity, since the mother of Federico T. Rivera’s wife is the sister of the mother of
accused, which certification caused the approval of the appointment of Federico
T. Rivera, to the detriment of public interest.
CONTRARY
TO LAW. (Emphasis supplied.)
Under
the Joint Stipulation of Facts submitted to the court a quo, the accused made the following admissions: (1) Ong was the
Municipal Mayor of Cebu at all times relevant to these cases; (2) Ong is related
to Galeos, within the fourth degree of consanguinity as his mother is the
sister of Galeos’ mother, and to Rivera within the fourth degree of affinity as
his mother is the sister of the mother of Rivera’s wife; and (3) Galeos and
Rivera were employed as Construction and Maintenance Man and Plumber I,
respectively, in the Municipal Government of Naga, Cebu at all times relevant
to these cases. Ong likewise admitted
the genuineness and due execution of the documentary exhibits presented by the
prosecutor (copies of SALNs and Certification dated
As lone witness for the prosecution,
Esperidion R. Canoneo testified that he has been a resident of Pangdan, Naga,
Both Galeos and Rivera testified that
they only provided the entries in their SALN but did not personally fill up the
forms as these were already filled up by “people in the municipal hall” when
they signed them.
Galeos, when shown his 1993 SALN,[16]
confirmed his signature thereon. When he was asked if he understood the
question “To the best of your knowledge,
are you related within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity to anyone
working in the government?” he answered in the negative. He claimed that the
“X” mark corresponding to the answer “No” to said question, as well as the
other entries in his SALN, were already filled up when he signed it. When shown
his SALN for the years 1994, 1995 and 1996, Galeos reiterated that they were
already filled up and he was only made to sign them by an employee of the
municipal hall whom he only remembers by face.
He also admitted that he carefully read the documents and all the
entries therein were explained to him before he affixed his signature on the
document. However, when asked whether he understands the term “fourth degree of
consanguinity or affinity” stated in the SALNs, he answered in the negative.[17]
Rivera testified that he was not aware
that his wife was a close relative of the Municipal Mayor because when he asked
her, the latter told him that Ong was a distant relative of hers. Rivera added that it was not Ong who first
appointed him as a casual employee but Ong’s predecessor, Mayor Vicente
Mendiola.[18]
On the part of Ong, he testified that
at the time he was serving as Municipal Mayor of Naga, he did not know that he
and Galeos are relatives, as in fact there are several persons with the surname
“Galeos” in the municipality. He signed
Galeos’ 1993 SALN when it was presented to him by Galeos at his office. There were many of them who brought such documents
and he would administer their oaths on what were written on their SALN, among
them were Galeos and Rivera. He came to
know of the defect in the employment of Galeos when the case was filed by his
“political enemy” in the Ombudsman just after he was elected Vice-Mayor in
1998. As to Rivera, Ong claimed that he
knows him as a casual employee of the previous administration. As successor of the former mayor, he had to
re-appoint these casual employees and he delegated this matter to his
subordinates. He maintained that his family was not very
close to their other relatives because when he was not yet Mayor, he was doing
business in
On
WHEREFORE,
judgment is hereby rendered on the following:
In
Criminal Case No. 26181, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Paulino S.
Ong and Rosalio S. Galeos 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 and ONE (1) DAY of Prision Mayor medium as the maximum penalty and to each pay a FINE
of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00).
In
Criminal Case No. 26182, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Paulino S.
Ong and Federico T. Rivera 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 and ONE (1)
DAY of Prision Mayor medium as the
maximum penalty and to each pay a FINE of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00).
In
Criminal Case No. 26183, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Paulino S.
Ong and Rosalio S. Galeos 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 and ONE (1)
DAY of Prision Mayor medium as the
maximum penalty and to each pay a FINE of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00).
In
Criminal Case No. 26184, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Paulino S.
Ong and Federico T. Rivera 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 and ONE (1)
DAY of Prision Mayor medium as the
maximum penalty and to each pay a FINE of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00).
In
Criminal Case No. 26185, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Paulino S.
Ong and Federico T. Rivera 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 and ONE (1)
DAY of Prision Mayor medium as the
maximum penalty and to each pay a FINE of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00).
In
Criminal Case No. 26186, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Paulino S.
Ong and Rosalio S. Galeos 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 and ONE (1) DAY of Prision Mayor medium as the maximum penalty and to each pay a FINE
of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00).
In
Criminal Case No. 26187, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Paulino S.
Ong and Rosalio S. Galeos 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 and ONE (1)
DAY of Prision Mayor medium as the
maximum penalty and to each pay a FINE of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00).
In
Criminal Case No. 26188, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Paulino S.
Ong NOT GUILTY for Violation of Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code for
failure of the Prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt; and
In Criminal Case No. 26189, judgment is hereby rendered
finding accused Paulino S. Ong GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for 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 and ONE (1) DAY of Prision Mayor medium as the maximum penalty and to pay a FINE of
FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00).
SO
ORDERED.[20]
In its Resolution[21]
dated
In
G.R. Nos. 174730-37, Galeos contends that the Sandiganbayan erred when:
1) . . .
IT HELD THAT THE SUBJECT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE CONTAINED UNTRUTHFUL STATEMENTS
IN A NARRATION OF FACTS.
2) . . .
IT DID NOT CONSIDER PETITIONER’S VALID DEFENSE OF GOOD FAITH AND LACK OF INTENT
TO COMMIT THE CRIMES IMPUTED.
3) . . .
IT GAVE FULL CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE SOLE WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION.[22]
In support of his assigned errors,
Galeos argues that he did not make untruthful or false statements in his SALN
since a “statement” requires a positive averment and thus silence or
non-disclosure cannot be considered one. And even if they are considered
statements, Galeos contends that they were not made in a “narration of facts”
and the least they could be considered are “conclusions of law.” He also argues
that the prosecution failed to adduce any evidence to support the finding that
he was aware of their relationship at the time of the execution of the SALN.
With the presence of good faith, Galeos avers that the fourth element of the
crime – the perversion of truth in the narration of facts was made with the
wrongful intent of injuring a third person – is missing. He also faults the
Sandiganbayan for its heavy reliance on the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecution’s
sole witness despite the fact that there are aspects in his testimony that do
not inspire belief.
On the other hand, in G.R. Nos.
174845-52, Ong argues that the Sandiganbayan erred when:
(a)
. . .
IT HELD THAT THE SUBJECT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE CONTAINED UNTRUTHFUL STATEMENTS
IN A NARRATION OF FACTS.
(b)
IN
CRIMINAL CASES NOS. 26181-26187, [IT HELD] THAT A PERSON MERELY ADMINISTERING
THE OATH IN A DOCUMENT IS GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF FALSIFICATION BY MAKING
UNTRUTHFUL STATEMENTS IN A NARRATION OF FACTS.
(c)
. . .
IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 26189, … IT INFER[R]ED, DESPITE THE COMPLETE ABSENCE OF ANY RELEVANT AND MATERIAL
EVIDENCE, THAT RESPONDENT’S EXHIBIT “I” (OR PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT “8”) REFERS TO
OR SUPPORTS THE APPOINTMENT OF FEDERICO T. RIVERA.[23]
Ong
similarly argues that the subject SALN do not contain any untruthful statements
containing a narration of facts and that there was no wrongful intent of
injuring a third person at the time of the execution of the documents. He
contends that he cannot be held liable for falsification for merely
administering the oath in a document since it is not among the legal
obligations of an officer administering the oath to certify the truthfulness
and/or veracity of the contents of the document. Neither can he be made liable
for falsification regarding the letter-certification he issued since there was
no evidence adduced that it was made to support Rivera’s appointment.
In the Joint Memorandum filed by the
Ombudsman through the Office of the Special Prosecutor of the Sandiganbayan, it
was pointed out that Galeos categorically admitted during his testimony that
before affixing his signature on the subject SALN, he carefully read its
contents and the entries therein have been explained to him. Moreover, the admission made by Ong during
the pre-trial under the joint stipulation of facts indicated no qualification
at all that he became aware of his relationship with Galeos and Rivera only
after the execution of the subject documents.
The defense of lack of knowledge of a particular fact in issue, being a
state of mind and therefore self-serving, it can be legally assumed that the
admission of that particular fact without qualification reckons from the time
the imputed act, to which the particular fact relates, was committed. As to mistaken reliance on the testimony of
prosecution witness, the analysis and findings in the assailed decision do not
show that such testimony was even taken into consideration in arriving at the
conviction of petitioners.[24]
With respect to Ong’s liability as
conspirator in the execution of the SALN containing untruthful statements, the
Special Prosecutor argues that as a general rule, it is not the duty of the
administering officer to ascertain the truth of the statements found in a
document. The reason for this is that
the administering officer has no way of knowing if the facts stated therein are
indeed truthful. However, when the facts
laid out in the document directly
involves the administering officer, then he has an opportunity to know of their
truth or falsity. When an administering
officer nevertheless administers the oath despite the false contents of the
document, which are known to him to
be false, he is liable, not because he violated his duty as an administering
officer, but because he participated in the falsification of a document.[25]
After
a thorough review, we find the petitions unmeritorious.
Petitioners were charged with
falsification of public document under Article 171, paragraph 4 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, which states:
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
an act or proceeding statements other than those in fact made by them;
4. Making
untruthful statements in a narration of facts;
x x x x (Emphasis and italics supplied.)
The elements of falsification in the
above provision are as follows:
(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
(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 officer or employee had taken advantage of his official
position in making the falsification. In falsification of public document, the offender is considered to have taken
advantage of his official 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
official custody of the document which he falsifies.[27] 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.[28]
Falsification of Public Document
by
making untruthful statements
concerning
relatives in the
government
service
All the elements of
falsification of public documents by making untruthful statements have been established
by the prosecution.
Petitioners argue that the
statements “they are not related within the fourth civil degree of
consanguinity or affinity” and “that Section 79 of the Local Government Code
has been complied with in the issuance of the appointments” are not a narration of facts but a conclusion of
law, as both require the application of the rules on relationship under the law
of succession. Thus, they cite People v. Tugbang[29]
where it was held that “a statement expressing an erroneous conclusion of law
cannot be considered a falsification.” Likewise, in People v. Yanza,[30]
it was held that when defendant certified that she was eligible for the
position, she practically wrote a conclusion of law, which turned out to be
incorrect or erroneous; hence, she may not be declared guilty of falsification
because the law violated pertains to narration of facts.
We disagree.
A conclusion of law is a determination
by a judge or ruling authority regarding the law that applies in a particular
case. It is opposed to a finding of fact, which interprets the factual
circumstances to which the law is to be applied.[31] A
narration of facts is merely an account or description of the particulars of an
event or occurrence.[32] We have held that a certification by accused
officials in the Statement of Time Elapsed and Work Accomplished qualifies as a
narration of facts as contemplated under Article 171 (4) of the Revised Penal
Code, as it consisted not only of figures and numbers but also words were used
therein giving an account of the status of the flood control project.[33]
In this case, the required disclosure or
identification of relatives “within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or
affinity” in the SALN involves merely a description
of such relationship; it does not call for an application of law in a
particular set of facts. On the other
hand, Articles 963 to 967 of the Civil Code simply explain the concept
of proximity of relationship and what constitute direct and collateral lines in
relation to the rules on succession. The question of whether or not persons are
related to each other by consanguinity or affinity within the fourth degree is one
of fact. Contrary to petitioners’ assertion, statements concerning relationship
may be proved as to its truth or falsity, and thus do not amount to expression
of opinion. When a government employee
is required to disclose his relatives in the government service, such
information elicited therefore qualifies as a narration of facts contemplated
under Article 171 (4) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. Further, it bears to stress that the
untruthful statements on relationship have no relevance to the employee’s eligibility for the position but
pertains rather to prohibition or
restriction imposed by law on the
appointing power.
Since petitioner Galeos answered “No” to
the question in his 1993 SALN if he has relatives in the government service
within the fourth degree of consanguinity, he made an untruthful statement
therein as in fact he was related to Ong, who was then the municipal mayor,
within the fourth degree of consanguinity, he and Ong being first cousins
(their mothers are sisters). As to his
1994, 1995 and 1996 SALN, Galeos left in blank the boxes for the answer to the
similar query. In Dela Cruz v. Mudlong,[34] it was held that one is guilty of
falsification in the accomplishment of his information and personal data sheet
if he withholds material facts which would have affected the approval of his
appointment and/or promotion to a government position. By withholding information on his relative/s
in the government service as required in the SALN, Galeos was guilty of
falsification considering that the disclosure of such relationship with then
Municipal Mayor Ong would have resulted in the disapproval of his permanent
appointment pursuant to Article 168 (j) (Appointments), Rule XXII of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local
Government Code of 1991 (R.A. No. 7160), which provides:
No
person shall be appointed in the local government career service if he is
related within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity to the
appointing power or recommending authority.
Section 7 (e), Rule V of the
Implementing Rules of Book V, Executive Order No. 292 otherwise known as the Administrative Code
of 1987, provides that the CSC shall disapprove the appointment of a person
who “has been issued such appointment in violation of existing Civil Service
Law, rules and regulations.” Among the prohibited appointments enumerated in
CSC Memorandum Circular No. 38, series of 1993 are appointments in the LGUs of
persons who are related to the appointing or recommending authority within the
fourth civil degree of consanguinity.[35]
The Omnibus Rules on Appointments and
Other Personnel Actions (CSC Memorandum Circular No. 40, series of 1998 dated
December 14, 1998) contain a similar prohibition under Rule XIII, Section 9:
SEC.
9. No appointment in the national, provincial, city or municipal governments or
any branch or instrumentality thereof, including government owned or controlled
corporations with original charters shall be made in favor of a relative of the
appointing or recommending authority, or of the chief of the bureau or office
or of the person exercising immediate supervision over the appointee.
Unless
otherwise provided by law, the word “relative” and the members of the family
referred to are those related within the third degree either of consanguinity
or of affinity.
In the local
government career service, the prohibition extends to the relatives of the
appointing or recommending authority, within the fourth civil degree of
consanguinity or affinity.
x
x x x
The
nepotism rule covers all kinds of appointments whether original, promotional,
transfer and reemployment regardless of status including casuals and
contractuals except consultants. (Emphasis supplied.)
The second element is likewise present.
“Legal obligation” means that there is a law requiring the disclosure of the
truth of the facts narrated.[36]
Permanent employees employed by local
government units are required to file the following: (a) sworn statement of
assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN); (b) lists of relatives within the
fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity in government service; (c)
financial and business interests; and (d) personal data sheets as required by
law.[37]
A similar requirement is imposed by
Section 8 (B) of Republic Act No. 6713 otherwise known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for
Public Officials and Employees, thus:
(B) Identification
and disclosure of relatives[38]. – It shall be the duty of every public
official or employee to identify and disclose to the best of his knowledge and
information, his relatives in the Government in the form, manner and frequency
prescribed by the Civil Service Commission.
Section 11 of the same law penalizes the
violation of the above provision, either with imprisonment or fine, and, in the
discretion of the court of competent jurisdiction, disqualification to hold
public office. Such violation if proven
in a proper administrative proceeding shall also be sufficient cause for
removal or dismissal of a public official or employee, even if no criminal
prosecution is instituted against him.
The evidence on record clearly showed
that Galeos’ negative answer reflected in his SALN is absolutely false. During the trial, both Ong and Galeos
admitted the fact that they are first cousins but denied having knowledge of
such relationship at the time the subject documents were executed. The Sandiganbayan correctly rejected their
defense of being unaware that they are related within the fourth degree of
consanguinity. Given the Filipino
cultural trait of valuing strong kinship and extended family ties, it was
unlikely for Galeos who had been working for several years in the municipal
government, not to have known of his close blood relation to Ong who was a
prominent public figure having ran and won in the local elections four times
(three terms as Mayor and as Vice-Mayor in the 1998 elections), after serving
as OIC Mayor of the same municipality in 1986 until 1988.
The same thing can be said of Ong, whose
unbelievable claim that he had no knowledge that a first cousin (Galeos) was
working in the municipal government and appointed by him to a permanent
position during his incumbency, was correctly disregarded by the Sandiganbayan.
It was simply unthinkable that as a resident of Naga,
Conspiracy
need not be shown by direct proof of an agreement of the parties to commit the
crime,[39]
as it can be inferred from the acts of the accused which clearly manifest a
concurrence of wills, a common intent or design to commit a crime.[40]
In this case, Ong administered the oaths
to Galeos and Rivera in the subject SALN not just once, but three times, a
clear manifestation that he concurred with the making of the untruthful
statement therein concerning relatives in the government service.
Falsification
by making
untruthful statements
in the Certification re:
compliance with the
prohibition on nepotism
As chief executive and the proper
appointing authority, Ong is deemed to have issued the certification
recommending to the CSC approval of Galeos’ appointment although he admitted
only the authenticity and due execution of Exhibit “I”. Since Ong was duty bound to observe the
prohibition on nepotistic appointments, his certification stating compliance
with Section 79[41] of R.A. No. 7160 constitutes
a solemn affirmation of the fact that the
appointee is not related to him
within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity. Having executed the certification despite his
knowledge that he and Rivera were related to each other within the fourth
degree of affinity, as in fact Rivera was his cousin-in-law because the mother
of Rivera’s wife is the sister of Ong’s mother, Ong was guilty of falsification
of public document by making untruthful statement in a narration of facts. He also
took advantage of his official position as the appointing authority who, under
the Civil Service rules, is required to issue such certification.
The importance of the certification submitted
to the CSC by the proper appointing authority in the local government unit,
regarding compliance with the prohibition against nepotism under R.A. No. 7160
cannot be overemphasized. Under Section
67, Book V, Chapter 10 of the Administrative Code of 1987, a head of
office or appointing official who issues an appointment or employs any person
in violation of Civil Service Law and Rules or who commits fraud, deceit or
intentional misrepresentation of material facts concerning other civil service
matters, or anyone who violates, refuses or neglects to comply with any of such
provisions or rules, may be held criminally liable. In Civil
Service Commission v. Dacoycoy,[42]
we held that mere issuance of
appointment in favor of a relative within the third degree of consanguinity or
affinity is sufficient to constitute a violation of the law. Although herein petitioners were prosecuted
for the criminal offense of falsification of public document, it becomes
obvious that the requirement of disclosure of relationship to the appointing
power in the local government units simply aims to ensure strict enforcement of
the prohibition against nepotism.
Relevant then is our pronouncement in Dacoycoy:
Nepotism
is one pernicious evil impeding the civil service and the efficiency of its
personnel. In Debulgado, we stressed
that “[T]the basic purpose or objective of the prohibition against nepotism
also strongly indicates that the prohibition was intended to be a comprehensive
one.” “The Court was unwilling to restrict and limit
the scope of the prohibition which is textually very broad and comprehensive.” If
not within the exceptions, it is a form of corruption that must be nipped in
the bud or abated whenever or wherever it raises its ugly head. As we said in
an earlier case “what we need now is not only to punish the wrongdoers or
reward the ‘outstanding’ civil servants, but also to plug the hidden gaps and
potholes of corruption as well as to
insist on strict compliance with existing legal procedures in order to abate any
occasion for graft or circumvention of the law.”[43]
(Emphasis supplied.)
The prosecution having established
with moral certainty the guilt of petitioners for falsification of public
documents under Article 171 (4) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, we
find no legal ground to reverse petitioners’ conviction.
WHEREFORE,
the petitions are DENIED. The Decision dated
With
costs against the petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
|
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice |
|
|
WE
CONCUR: CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice Chairperson |
|
|
ARTURO D.
BRION Associate Justice |
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
|
JOSE CATRAL Associate Justice |
|
A T T
E S T A T I O N
I
attest 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.
|
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES 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 1987 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.
|
|
RENATO C. CORONA Chief Justice |
* Designated additional member per Special
Order No. 944-A dated
[1] Rollo
(G.R. Nos. 174730-35), pp. 51-73. Penned by Associate Justice
Diosdado M. Peralta (now a Member of this Court) and concurred in by Associate
Justices Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro (also now a Member of this Court) and
Efren N. Dela Cruz.
[2] TSN,
[3] Exhibits “J” and “K”, folder of exhibits.
[4] Exhibits “A” and “B”, id.
[5] Exhibits “C” and “F”, id.
[6] Exhibit “D”, id.
[7] Exhibits “E” and “G”, id.
[8] Exhibit “I”, id.
[9] Records, Vol. I, pp. 13-16.
[10]
[11] Separate folders.
[12] Records, Vol. 1, p. 181.
[13]
[14] “Quinciana” in some parts of the TSN.
[15] TSN,
[16] Exhibit “A,” folder of exhibits.
[17] TSN,
[18]
[19]
[20] Rollo (G.R. Nos. 174730-37), pp. 69-72.
[21]
[22]
[23] Rollo
(G.R. Nos. 174845-52), p. 18.
[24] Rollo (G.R. Nos. 174730-37), pp. 192-193, 203-207.
[25]
[26] Fullero
v. People, G.R. No. 170583, September 12, 2007, 533 SCRA 97, 114, citing Santos v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos.
71523-25, December 8, 2000, 347 SCRA 386, 424.
[27] Id., citing
Luis B. Reyes, The Revised Penal
Code, Criminal Law (14th Edition, Revised 1998), BOOK TWO,
ARTS. 114-367, p. 216, People v. Uy, 101
Phil. 159, 163 (1957) and
[28] Regidor,
Jr. v. People, G.R. Nos. 166086-92, February 13, 2009, 579 SCRA 244, 263,
citing Lastrilla v. Granda, G.R. No.
160257, January 31, 2006, 481 SCRA 324, 345, Lumancas v. Intas, G.R.
No. 133472, December 5, 2000, 347 SCRA 22, 33-34, further citing People v. Po Giok To, 96 Phil. 913, 918
(1955).
[29] G.R. No. 76212,
[30] 107 Phil. 888, 890-891 (1960).
[31] http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/conclusion-of-law/.
[32] Bartolo
v. Sandiganbayan, Second Division,
G.R. No. 172123,
[33]
[34] Adm. Matter No. P-985,
[35] VII (Prohibitions on Appointments), 2(b).
[36] Luis B. Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Book Two, (17th Edition,
Rev. 2008), p. 223.
[37] Art. 175, Rule XXII, Rules and Regulations
Implementing the Local Government Code of 1991.
[38] Sec. 3. x x x
x x x x
(k) “Relatives” refers to any
and all persons related to a public official or employee within the fourth
civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, including bilas, inso and balae.
[39] People
v. Herida, G.R. No. 127158,
[40] People
v. Lenantud, G.R. No. 128629,
[41] Sec.
79. Limitation on Appointments. - No person shall be
appointed in the career service of the local government if he is related within
the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity to the appointing or
recommending authority.
[42] G.R. No. 135805,
[43]