LTC.
ROBERTO K. GUILLERGAN G.R. No. 185493
(Ret.),
Petitioner, Present:
CARPIO, J., Chairperson,
- versus - NACHURA,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,*
ABAD, and
MENDOZA, JJ.
PEOPLE OF THE
Respondent. Promulgated:
February 2, 2011
x
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
ABAD,
J.:
This case is about the conviction of an accused for an offense other than that charged in
the Information based on a claim that
the essential elements of the offense of which he was convicted are also
elements of the offense charged in the Information.
The Facts and the Case
On June 20, 1995 the Office of the
Ombudsman indicted petitioner Roberto K. Guillergan (Guillergan) for estafa through falsification of public
documents before the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case 22904.[1]
The evidence shows that sometime in
1987, petitioner Guillergan, a Lieutenant Colonel in the Armed Forces of the Philippines
(AFP), directed Master Sergeant Edna Seclon (Seclon), Chief Clerk of the
Comptroller’s Office, to cause the preparation of the payrolls of their
civilian intelligence agents (CIAs) with supporting time record and book. The agents’ names were copied and, based on their
appointment papers, certified as correct by Guillergan and then approved by Brigadier
General Domingo T. Rio (
Each time the processing unit
returned the payrolls for lack of signatures of the payees, Guillergan would direct
Technical Sergeant Nemesio H. Butcon (Butcon), the Budget and Fiscal
Non-Commissioned Officer, to affix his initial on the “Remarks/Sig” column of the payrolls to complete the requirements
and facilitate the processing of the time record, book, and payrolls.[3]
Also
on Guillergan’s instruction, the CIAs’ payrolls in Region 6 for 1987, totaling P732,000.00,
were covered by cash advances payable to Captain Roland V. Maclang, Jr. (Maclang,
Jr.), which advances were issued upon his request as disbursing officer for that
purpose. When ready, Guillergan received
the corresponding cash or checks then turned them over to
At the end of 1987, P787,000.00 in “administrative
funds” to be paid out to contractors for repairs in the men’s barracks, the firing
range, the guesthouse and others. But
On April 14, 1989 the AFP
Anti-Graft Board filed a complaint[6]
against
After preliminary investigation,
the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas issued a resolution[7]
dated May 24, 1991, recommending the dismissal of the case for lack of merit. On April 21, 1992, however, the ombudsman
investigator issued a memorandum, recommending the filing of charges of illegal
use of public funds against
On June
20, 1995, however, the Office of the Special Prosecutor recommended the filing
of charges against all the accused before the Sandiganbayan.
Consequently, an Information was filed against them for estafa under Article 315,
par. 2(a),[9] in
relation to Article 171[10]
of the RPC.
While the
case was pending,
On January 20, 2006, the parties submitted
a stipulation of facts with motion for judgment[12] based
on such stipulations. On June 30, 2008, the Sandiganbayan Second
Division rendered judgment,[13]
finding Guillergan guilty of falsification penalized under Article 172[14]
of the RPC and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for 2 years
and 4 months as minimum to 4 years, 9 months and 10 days as maximum. The court acquitted the other accused on the ground
of lack of proof of their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The
Issues Presented
The
issues presented in this case are:
1. Whether
or not the Sandiganbayan can convict Guillergan of violation of Article 172 of the RPC under an Information that charged him with estafa in relation to Article 171
of the code; and
2. Whether
or not petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
falsification of public documents.
The
Court’s Rulings
The Information
alleged that Guillergan committed falsification
by making it appear in several public documents that P1,519,000.00 in AFP funds intended for the CIAs’ payroll were paid for
that purpose when in truth these were just given to Rio, resulting in damage and prejudice to the government.
Although the charge was estafa in
relation to Article 171 of the RPC, the facts alleged in the information
sufficiently made out a case for violation of Article 172 of which Guillergan
was convicted. What is important is that
the Information described the latter
offense intelligibly and with reasonable certainty, enabling Guillergan to
understand the charge against him and suitably prepare his defense.[15]
What is punished in falsification of a
public document is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of the
truth as solemnly proclaimed in it.[16] Generally,
the elements of Article 171 are:
1) the offender is a public officer, employee, or notary public; 2) he takes
advantage of his official position; and 3) that he falsifies a document by
committing any of the ways it is done.[17]
On
the other hand, the elements of falsification of documents under paragraph 1,
Article 172 are: 1) the offender is a private individual or a public officer or
employee who did not take advantage of his official position; 2) the offender committed
any of the acts of falsification enumerated in Article 171; [18]
and 3) the falsification was committed in a public or official or commercial
document.[19] All of the foregoing elements of Article 172 are
present in this case.
First.
Guillergan was a public officer when he
committed the offense charged. He was
the comptroller to the PC/INP Command in Region 6. While the Information said that he took advantage
of his position in committing the crime, the Sandiganbayan found that his work as
comptroller did not include the preparation of the appointments and payrolls of
CIAs. Nor did he have official custody
of the pertinent documents.[20] His official function was limited to keeping
the records of the resources that the command received from
Second.
The Information
alleged that Guillergan committed the offense charged by “causing it to appear
that persons participated in an act or a proceeding when they did not in fact
so participate.”[22] In People v. Yanson-Dumancas,[23]
the Court held that a person may induce another to commit a crime in two ways: 1)
by giving a price or offering a reward or promise; and 2) by using words of
command. In this case, the Sandiganbayan
found that Guillergan ordered Butcon to sign the “receive” portion of the payrolls
as payee to make it appear that persons whose names appeared on the same had
signed the document when they in fact did not.[24]
Third.
There is no dispute that the falsification
was committed on the time record, book, and payrolls which were public
documents.
What is more, given that some of the essential elements of
Article 171 constitute the lesser offense of falsification of public documents
under Article 172, then
the allegations in the Information were
sufficient to hold Guillergan liable under Article 172.
As a
rule, the Court regards as conclusive on it the factual findings of the
Sandiganbayan unless these fall under certain established exceptions.[25] Since none of those exceptions can be
identified in this case, the Court must accord respect and weight to the
Sandiganbayan's findings. It had the
better opportunity to examine and evaluate the evidence presented before it.[26] As aptly pointed out by the Sandiganbayan, to
wit:
There are tell-tales signs that the agents
listed on the payrolls did not receive their salaries. First, x x x Guillergan declared that he
personally turned over the entire amount of [P1,519,000.00] to Gen. Rio.
Second, Butcon’s narration that he was
instructed by Guillergan, to [affix his] initial at the receive portion of the
payrolls. Lastly, according to the records of the case, the office of
Guillergan had no business in processing the payroll of these personnel. x x x
Additionally, the appointment papers
from which these payrolls were based do not reveal any information about the
acceptance of the appointments by the agents. In a letter dated April 14, 1989 of the
Anti-Graft Board of the Armed forces of the
The
only conclusion x x x is the deliberate falsification of the payrolls; causing
it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they
did not in fact so participate.[27]
The
Court finds no error in the decision of the Sandiganbayan that found Guillergan
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Falsification of Public Documents under
Article 172 of the RPC.
WHEREFORE,
the Court DENIES the petition and AFFIRMS the Sandiganbayan’s decision
dated June 30, 2008 and Resolution dated January 7, 2004 which found petitioner
Roberto K. Guillergan guilty of violation of Article 172 of the Revised Penal
Code in Criminal Case 22904.
SO ORDERED.
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T.
CARPIO
Associate
Justice
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate
Justice Associate Justice
JOSE
CATRAL
Associate
Justice
ATTESTATION
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.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
CERTIFICATION
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.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief Justice
* Designated as additional member
in lieu of Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta, per raffle dated January 31,
2011.
[1]
Rollo, pp. 33-36.
[2]
Affidavit of Edna Seclon, id. at 175.
[3]
Affidavit of Nemesio H. Butcon, id. at 176.
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). — Any person who shall defraud another by any
of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by:
x
x x x
2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or
fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the
fraud:
(a) By using fictitious name, or falsely
pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit,
agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar
deceits.
[10]
Art. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastic
minister. — The penalty of prision
mayor and a fine not to exceed P5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon
any public officer, employee, or notary who, taking advantage of his official
position, shall falsify a document by committing any of the following acts:
1. Counterfeiting or imitating any
handwriting, signature or rubric;
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;
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.
[11]
Records, Volume 2, p. 768.
[12]
Rollo, pp. 52-70.
[13]
[14]
Art. 172. Falsification by private individual and use of falsified documents.
— The penalty of prision correccional
in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not more than P5,000
pesos shall be imposed upon:
1. Any private individual who shall
commit any of the falsifications enumerated in the next preceding article in
any public or official document or letter of exchange or any other kind of
commercial document; and
2. Any person who, to the damage of a
third party, or with the intent to cause such damage, shall in any private
document commit any of the acts of falsification enumerated in the next
preceding article.
Any
person who shall knowingly introduce in evidence in any judicial proceeding or
to the damage of another or who, with the intent to cause such damage, shall
use any of the false documents embraced in the next preceding article, or in
any of the foregoing subdivisions of this article, shall be punished by the
penalty next lower in degree.
[15]
[16]
Lastrilla v. Granda, G.R. No. 160257, January 31, 2006, 481 SCRA
324, 345, citing Lumancas v. Intas, 400 Phil. 785, 798 (2000), further
citing People v. Po Giok To, 96 Phil. 913, 918 (1955).
[17] Regidor,
Jr. v. People, G.R. Nos. 166086-92, February 13, 2009, 579 SCRA 244, 263.
[18]
Supra note 10.
[19]
Daan v. Sandiganbayan, G.R.
Nos. 163972-77, March 28, 2008, 550 SCRA 233, 247, citing Reyes, Luis B., The
Revised Penal Code (1981); see also Adaza
v. Sandiganbayan, 502 Phil. 702 (2005).
[20]
Rollo, p. 72.
[21]
Affidavit of Guillergan, id. at 174.
[22]
Revised
Penal Code, Book Two, Title Four, Art. 171, par. 2.
[23]
People v. Yanson-Dumancas, 378 Phil. 341, 359 (1999).
[24]
Bernardino v. People, G.R.
Nos. 170453 and 170518, October 30, 2006, 506 SCRA 237, 247-248.
[25]
The exceptions are: 1) the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on
speculation, surmise and conjecture; 2) the inference made is manifestly an
error or founded on a mistake; 3) there is grave abuse of discretion; 4) the
judgment is based on misapprehension of facts; 5) the findings of fact are
premised on a want of evidence and are contradicted by evidence on record; and
6) said findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence
on which they are based. (Cadiao-Palacios
v. People, G.R. No. 168544, March 31, 2009, 582 SCRA 713, 724-725.)
[26]
Regidor, Jr. v. People, supra
note 17, at 269, citing Pactolin v. Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division),
G.R. No. 161455, May 20, 2008, 554 SCRA 136, 145-146.
[27]
Rollo, pp. 47-48.