REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESSandiganbayan

Quezon City

FOURTH DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Plaintiff-Appellee

SB-lS-A/R-0002

For: FalsificationDocuments underof the RPC

of PublicArt. 171

-versus- Present:Quiroz, J.Cruz, J.,Jacinto, J.

EDWIN S. VILLARTA,Accused-Appellant. Promulgated on: I

-J a~\J u'y 1..'J / 1...0 I ~ Pv1J'

)(--------------------------_._-----------------------------------------------------------)(

DECISION

JACINTO, J.:

This is an appeal from the Joint Judgment' dated 22 April 2010 of theRegional Trial Court (Branch 6, Cebu City) in Criminal Cases Nos. CBU-74821-23 entitled "People of the Philippines, PlaintifJversus Edwin Villarta,Accused," finding accused-appellant EDWIN VILLARTA (appellant).guilty of three counts of violation of Article 171(2) of the Revised PenalCode (RPC).2

-: Appellant was charged In three Informations with identicalallegations, to wit:

Criminal Case No. CBU-74S21 -

That on or about the 12th day of June, 2002, or for (sic) sometimeprior or subsequent thereto, in Barangay Malubog, Cebu City, Province ofCebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,above-named accused, then public officer, being the Barangay Treasurerof Barangay Malubog, Cebu City, in such capacity and committing the

I Rol/o, Vo!. I, pp. 336-347.2 Falsification of Public Documents.

DECISIONPeople of the Philippines v. VillartaSB-15-AlR 0002Page 2 of9x-----------------------------------------x

offense in relation to office, taking advantage of his official position, withdeliberate intent, with intent to defraud and falsify, did then and therewill fully, unlawfully and feloniously falsify an official/public document,consisting of a Time Book and Payroll [General Form No. 7 (A)]evidencing payment for labor on "Road and Drainage CleaningMaintenance" at Barangay Malubog, Cebu City, for the period March 1,2002 to May 31, 2002, by certifying therein on his official oath that hepaid in cash to each of the person (sic) whose name appears thereon, theamount set opposite his name, after having presented himself, establishedhis identity, and affixed his signature or thumb mark on the spaceprovided therefor, thereby making and causing it to appear that the personslisted in the said Time Book and Payroll have each received the amountsset opposite their names and have affixed their signatures therein, when intruth and in fact, as accused very well knew that the persons named in thesaid Time Book and Payroll have not received said amounts and have riotaffixed their signatures therein as they have not rendered service for thejob/project during the period stated therein, thereby making untruthfulstatements in a narration of facts and causing it to appear that persons haveparticipated in an act or proceeding when they did not in fact soparticipate, to the detriment of public interest.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

The pertinent allegations in the Informations pertaining to CriminalCases Nos. CBU-74822 and CBU-74823 are similarly worded with that inCBU-74821 varying only as to the dates of the commission of the offensesand period covered by the Time Book and Payroll [General Form No. 7 (A)]said to have been falsified:

Crim. Case No. Date of alleged offense Period Coveredby payroll

CBU -74822 10thday of August 2002 or sometime July 1 - 30, 2002prior or subsequent thereto

CBU-74823 17thof July 2002 or sometime prior or June 2002subsequent thereto

During trial, the prosecution presented two witnesses, namely: (1)Juliet Almeda (Almeda), State Auditor III of COA; and, (2) FedericoBontilao (Bontilao), Barangay Captain of Barangay Malubog, Cebu City.Their testimonies may be summarized as follows: (i) in November 2002, theCommission on Audit (COA) investigated the disbursement of public fundsin connection with Barangay Malubog's Clean and Green Project; (ii) in thecourse of COA's investigation, it discovered that appellant, as the BarangayTreasurer certified under oath the barangays Time Book and Payroll[General Form No. 7 (A)] that public funds were disbursed for payment oflabor in connection with the "Road and Drainage Cleaning Maintenance" ofthe barangay for the period March 1 to 31,2002, July 1 to 30, 2002 and June2002 when in fact, no such services were rendered for said project and the t{

DECISIONPeople of the Philippines v. VillartaSB-IS-AlR 0002Page 3 of9x-----------------------------------------x

persons named in the Time Book and Payroll did not receive the amountsmentioned therein; (iii) after the audit investigation, and upon AuditorAlmeda's advice, appellant returned PI08,150.00 corresponding to the totalamount disbursed under the "Road and Drainage Cleaning Maintenance" forwhich he was issued Official Receipt No. 418453 W dated 24 October 2002;(iv) the said amount was subsequently deposited in the barangay's bankaccount.

After the prosecution rested its case, appellant filed a VerifiedDemurrer to Evidence' based on the following grounds: (i) the prosecutionfailed to establish probable cause to indict him for falsification of publicdocument; (ii) his right to be informed of the charges against him wasviolated because he had been arraigned for the crime of Malversation asreflected in the Order dated 2 February 2006;4 and (iii) the prosecution'switnesses failed to substantiate the allegations in the Informations.

The trial court denied appellant's demurrer in a Joint Order dated 17February 20095 as it held that the prosecution sufficiently established theelements of falsification. As to the error in the designation of the offense inthe 2 February 2006 Order, the trial court held that contrary to appellant'sclaim, he was sufficiently informed of the charges against him because thethree Informations for Falsification of Public Documents were actually readto him upon his arraignment.

Thereafter, defense presented appellant and former Barangay CaptainGerardo Dabuco as witnesses. Their testimonies may be summarized asfollows: (i) appellant prepared and certified the Time Book and Payrollsubject of the Informations prior to the implementation of the project uponinstruction of Barangay Captain Dabuco, in order to expedite the release ofthe funds from the City Hall; (ii) the project, however, did not push throughbecause of the prohibition to release or disburse public funds within 45 daysprior to an election; and (iii) in view thereof, appellant kept the money in hiscustody, and returned it after his tenure.

After trial, the trial court rendered the assailed Joint Judgment, thedispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, the court hereby finds the accused Edwin Villartaguilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Falsification of Public

3 Id., Vol. 1,207-227.4 Id., p. 99. The Order reads in part:

"The accused, Edwin Villarta, in these cases, CBU-74821, 74822 and 74823, all for malversation AIof public funds xxxx." 15 Id., pp. 251-259.

DECISION

People of the Philippines v. VillartaSB-IS-A/R 0002Page 4 of9x-----------------------------------------x

Documents (three counts) and sentences him to suffer the penalty of 2years, 4 months and 1 day of prision correccional as minimum to 8 yearsand 1 day of pr is ion mayor as maximum and to pay a tine ofP3,000.00 foreach count.

SO ORDERED.

Appellant filed a Verified Motion for Reconsideration' dated 7 June2010, which was denied in an Order' dated 7 July 2010. Hence, this appealon the following assignment of errors:"

THE HONORABLE RTC 6 OF CEBU CITY GRAVELY ERRED INFINDING ACCUSED GUILTY PER ITS APRIL 22, 2010 JOINTJUDGMENT; &

THE HONORABLE RTC 6 OF CEBU CITY GRAVELY ERRED INDISREGARDING AND/OR NOT NOTICING THE FABRICATEDDOCUMENTS/EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE PROSECUTION.

Appellant argues that there was no deliberate intent on his part todefraud the government or to falsify the Time Books and Payrolls. Thosedocuments were merely prepared ahead of the project to facilitate the releaseof funds. However, the barangay did not push through with the project andhe did not release the funds because of the 45-day election ban - duringwhich disbursements of public funds were prohibited. Thus, he returned thefunds corresponding to the unimplemented project.

Appellant further reiterates the same arguments he raised in theDemurrer to Evidence he filed with the trial court - that his right to beinformed of the nature of the accusations against him has been violatedwhen he was arraigned for a different offense from what was charged in theInformations as reflected in the 2 February 2002 Order. Finally, he arguesthat there is no evidence to prove that it was him who falsified the subjectdocuments.

Appellee, on the other hand, submits that appellant was properlyarraigned for the crimes charged and that the mention of "Malversation" inthe 2 February 2002 Order of the trial court was a mere typographical error.Appellee further submits that the totality of its evidence proves appellant'sguilt beyond reasonable doubt. 9

6 Id., pp. 363-370.7 Id., pp. 378-380.8 Appellant's Brief dated 6 February 2017, Rollo, pp. 36-53.9 Plaintiff-Appellee's Briefdated 29 May 2017, id., pp. 7\-90.

DECISIONPeople of the Philippines v. VillartaSB-IS-AlR 0002Page 5 of9x-----------------------------------------x

RULING OF THE COURT

Appellantarraignedcharged.

was properlyfor the crimes

The issue of whether appellant was arraigned for the correct offensesneed not be belabored further. Suffice it to state that contrary to hiscontention, what were read to him during his arraignment were theInformations for Falsification and the "Malversation" mentioned in the trialcourt's 2 February 2002 Order was merely a clerical error. As explained bythe trial court:

Moreover, even if the order issued by the court after thearraignment designated the offense as "malversation" instead of"falsification," the fact remains that what was read to the accused upon hisarraignment were the three Informations for Falsification ofOfficiallPublic Documents. It is the allegation in the Information whichprevail and not the caption. It cannot therefore be said that the accusedwas not properly informed of the nature of the accusation against him.l''

The COUli finds no reason to disagree with the trial court's ruling. Asaptly observed by appellee, if it were true that appellant was arraigned forinformations for Malversation, his counsel would have immediatelyobjected thereto in order to protect his rights.

There is evidence to sustainthe charges against appellant.

The elements of Falsification by a public officer under Art. 171, RPCare as follows:

1. That the offender is a public officer, employee or notary public;

2. That he takes advantage of his official position;

3. That he faIsifies a document by causing it to appear that aperson has participated in any act or proceeding; and

4. That such person did not in fact participate in the proceeding. I 1

r10 Rollo, Vo\. I, p. 258.11 LUIS B. RE YES, TilE REVISED PENAL CODE: CRIMINAL LAW, 215, 220 (7111 ed., 2008).

DECISIONPeople of the Philippines v. VillartaSB-15-AlR 0002Page 6 of9x-----------------------------------------x

It is undisputed that appellant was the Barangay Treasurer at the timehe committed the crimes charged. And, it has been held that "the offendertakes advantage of his official position in falsifying when he has the duty tomake or to prepare or otherwise intervene in the preparation of thedocument.?'? In this case, it was by virtue of his position that appellant hadaccess to and made the entries in the Time Book and Payroll thereby makingit appear that the workers listed therein were paid for their services under theClean and Green Project. 13 He testified:

ATTY. CAMIGUING

xxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxx

Q In these payrolls you certified that the workers listed herein in thispayroll received their wages?

A Yes.

Q And when you affixed your signature under Certification that thename of the person appears on the above roll, the amount set hisname, having presented himself, established his identity andaffixed his signature or thumb mark on the space providedthereupon therefore. That means to say that they were not paid?

A No.

xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx

Q And in our Exhibit also marked as "I," you also certified that thename appearing on this roll rendered services as indicated and forthe time stated. Is this correct?

A No.

Q So, in other words, you are saying that the persons listed in thispayroll and time book did not perform service to the Barangay?

A Yes.

Q And in this payroll marked as Exhibits "F", "I" and "L" youcertified under oath that they rendered service and you paid thecorresponding amount on the date and time stated in the payroll?

A It is usually what we did because we process the payroll firstbefore the job.

12 Id., citing People vs. Santiago Uy, 53 OG 7236 and U.S. vs. Inosanto, 20 Phil. 376.13 TSN, 5 May 2009, p. 3.

DECISION

People ofthe Philippines v. VillartaSB-I5-AlR 0002Page 70f9x-----------------------------------------x

Q In other words, Mr. Witness, you are making a false statement inthis payroll when you certified that you paid the persons listed inthat payroll?

A It would come out as false because it is usually what we did, Sir.We first process the payroll before they render services to thebarangay because it is very hard to process the payroll to the Citybecause the money from the City is difficult to have the moneyreleased and once the workers start they need their payimmediately so the Barangay Captain instructed me to process andthen the election ban came without the project being made. 14

Clearly, appellant made it appear in the Time Book and Payroll thatcertain workers were paid for the Clean and Green Project when in fact, noworker rendered service, much less was paid for services therein becausesuch project never pushed through. The Court cannot give credence to hisclaim that it was the practice of the barangay to process the payroll first toexpedite the release of funds from the City. There are ways to expedite therelease of funds without appellant having to certify in the Time Book andPayroll that certain workers were paid for services rendered for a project thathad yet to be undertaken.

The Time Book and Payroll subject of this case are public documents,being official records of the barangay. Appellant's acts which he claims tohave resorted to only to expedite the release of funds, only betray hiscavalier treatment of such documents. These are exactly the very acts thatare punished in Art. 171 of the RPC as it has been held that - the principalthing punished is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of thetruth as therein solemnly proclaimed. I 5 In this connection, and as correctlyheld by the trial court, damage to the government or to third persons is notan essential element of the crime.

In sum, the trial court correctly found appellant guilty as charged as itheld:

The court finds that the prosecution has duly proven all theaforementioned elements of the offense of Falsification of PublicDocuments. It has established that as Barangay Treasurer of BarangayMalubog, Cebu City, the accused prepared the Time Books and Payroll insupport of a non-existent Clean and Green Project. He made it appear thatcertain workers signed the said documents and received payments, whenin truth and in fact, the project never pushed through and no such workwas done. After an audit was conducted and a complaint was filed, theaccused returned the money that was intended for the project. Thus, the r

14 Id., pp. 4-5.15 Pacasum v. People, G.R. No. 180314, 16 April 2009.

DECISIONPeople ofthe Philippines v. VillartaSB-lS-AJR 0002Page 8 of9x-----------------------------------------x

accused argued that no public money was lost and that he had no intent todefraud. The argument holds no water. Falsification of a public documentis consummated upon the execution of the false document and criminalintent is presumed upon the execution of the criminal act. Erring publicofficers' (sic) failure to attain their objectives, if that really be the case, isnot determinative of their guilt or innocence. The simulation of a publicdocument, done in a manner so as to give it the appearance of a true andgenuine instrument, thus leading others to errors as to its authenticity,constitutes the crime of falsification. In fine, the element of gain or benefiton the part of the offender or prejudice to a third party as a result of thefalsification, or tarnishing of a document's integrity is not essential tomaintain a charge for falsification of public documents. What is punishedin falsification of public document is principally the undermining of thepublic faith and the destruction of truth as solemnly proclaimed therein. Inthis particular crime, therefore, the controlling consideration lies in thepublic character of a document, and the existence of any prejudice causedto third persons or at least, the intent to cause such damage becomesimmaterial.

The cOUl1,likewise, cannot give credence to the contention of theaccused that he could not be held liable because the project did not pushthrough due to an election ban. This does not explain why the accusedmade it appear that work was done and that the workers received their payand duly signed the Time Books and Payroll. If indeed the project did notmaterialize for the said reason, there was no need for the accused to resortto falsifying those documents. 16

WHEREFORE, the Joint Judgment of the Regional Trial Court(Branch 6, Cebu City), convicting accused-appellant EDWIN VILLARTAof Falsification of Public Documents under Article 171 (2) of the RevisedPenal Code in Criminal Cases Nos. CBU-74821-23 is AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED.

WE CONCUR:~$Associate Justice

Chairperson

16 Pages 11-12 of Joint Judgment, Ro/lo, Vol. I, p, 336-347; Citation omitted.

DECISIONPeople of the Philippines v. VillartaSB-lS-AlR 0002Page 9 of9x-----------------------------------------x

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached inconsultation with the Justices of the Court's Division.

~.l(Associate Justice

Chairperson, Fourth Division

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and theDivision Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the aboveDecision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned tothe writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

r