Republic of the Philippines - Sandiganbayan Home...

Republic of the PhilippinesSandiganbayan

Quezon City* * *

FIFTH DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff,

CRIM. CASE NO. 27783-versus-

Present: CORTEZ-ESTRADA, Chairperson

JURADO, and DIAZ-BALDOS, JJ. FLORENCIO L. ADVINCULA, _____January 18, 2007___________

Accused. PromulgatedX-------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

DECISION

Jurado, J.:

Florencio L. Advincula, Provincial Agriculturist of Samar, stands charged with the crime of Falsification, defined and penalized under Article171, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code in the information which reads as follows:

“That on the 31st day of August 2000 at the Municipality of Catbalogan, Province of Samar, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused FLORENCIO L. ADVINCULA, a high ranking public officer, being the Provincial Agriculturist of the Provincial Government of Samar, acting in such capacity and committing the offense in relation to office and while taking advantage of his official position, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously made some untruthful statements in the narration of facts, by making it appear and stating in his Personal Data Sheet (CS Form 212) that he has no pending criminal and administrative cases and that he had not been made administratively liable by any office or tribunal, when in truth and in fact, as the accused very well knew that he had a pending criminal case before the

People vs. Advincula Criminal Case No. 27783DECISIONPage 2 of 25 x-------------------------------------------x

Sandiganbayan, docketed as Criminal Case No. 25446 entitled People of the Philippines vs. Florencio L. Advincula, and that he had also a pending administrative case before the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas, docketed as OMB-VIS-ADM-2000-0465, entitled Dominador Garalza vs. Florencio L. Advincula, and furthermore, accused had been meted a one (1) month suspension for Simple Misconduct also by the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas.

CONTRARY TO LAW.”

On April 29, 2003, the court issued the Order of Arrest and the Hold Departure Order against accused.1 Upon being served with the Order of Arrest on May 28, 2003 at his given address, accused posted cash bond for his provisional liberty.2

On July 25, 2003, accused, with the assistance of counsel, was arraigned and he pleaded not guilty to the charge.3

Upon the Order of the court dated July 25, 2003, the parties submitted their respective Pre-Trial Briefs.4 At the pre-trial conference held on October 6, 2003, the parties entered into the following stipulations as embodied in the Pre-Trial Order, to wit:

Stipulation of Facts

1. That at anytime material to this case, accused Florencio L. Advincula was a public officer, being the Provincial Agriculturist of the Provincial Government of Samar;

2. That accused Florencio L. Advincula signed his Personal Data Sheet (Form 212) on August 31, 2000, in

1 Record, pp. 29 and 262 Id., pp. 38-423 Id., p. 584 Id., pp. 66-71; 77-82


accordance with the Order of the Provincial Governor of Samar requiring all Chiefs of Offices of the province to submit and update their Personal Data Sheet. The defense admits the signature of the accused on said PDS but the data sheet was in the handwriting of the personnel officer;

3. That accused indicated in Item No. 25 of his August 31, 2000 Personal Data Sheet that he has no pending administrative and criminal cases. The defense admitted the signature of the accused with the qualification that he had no hand in the preparation of the entries;

4. That at the time of the preparation and accomplishment of the subject Personal Data Sheet, accused had a pending criminal case before the Sandiganbayan docketed as Criminal Case No. 25446, entitled: “People of the Philippines vs. Florencio L. Advincula”, and that he had also a pending administrative case before the Office of the Ombudsman for Visayas, docketed as OMB-VIS-ADM 2000-046, entitled: “Dominador Garalza vs. Florencio L. Advincula”, admitted by the defense subject to the question of jurisdiction;

5. That in Item No. 27 of the August 31, 2000 Personal Data Sheet prepared and accomplished by the accused, he also indicated that he has not been convicted of any administrative offense. Defense admitted the signature in the Personal Data Sheet but the entries were made in the handwriting of the personnel officer;

6. That on August 16, 1999 or almost one (1) year since (sic) accused prepared and accomplished the subject Personal Data Sheet, he was suspended from office for a period of one (1) month without pay as an alternative penalty for having been found guilty of Simple Misconduct in the case docketed as OMB-VIS-ADM-98-0302. Defense admitted the signature of the accused only;

7. That accused submitted his Personal Data Sheet (PDS) on August 31, 2000 as part of his Civil Service Commission Records and in compliance with the Order of the Provincial Governor of Samar, through the Acting Provincial Administrator in a Memorandum dated July 27, 2000;


8. That the deadline for submission of the PDS was August 31, 2000.

xxx xxx xxx

Common Issues

1. Whether or not accused made an [sic] untruthful statements in his Personal Data Sheet accomplished on August 31, 2000 by indicating therein that he has no pending criminal and administrative cases and that he had not been administratively held liable by the Office of the Ombudsman for Visayas;

2. Whether or not accused had taken advantage of his official position and had willfully made untruthful statements in his PDS by affixing his signature on the document;

3. Whether or not this Court has jurisdiction over the instant case for Falsification of Public Document.

xxx xxx xxx.5

Evidence for the Prosecution

The prosecution presented three witnesses, namely: Nelia Cruz Redito, Victoria Sabillon Chiu and Reynaldo S. Borja. The testimony of Borja was however dispensed with as the defense agreed to stipulate on the Memorandum dated September 1, 1999 (Exhibit “F”) designating the said witness as officer-in-charge of the Office of the Provincial Agriculturist in view of the one-month suspension of Florencio Advincula.6

5 Ibid., pp. 84-866 Ibid., p. 122


Nelia Cruz Redito testified that as head of the Personnel Section of the Provincial Government of Samar, she takes charge of all matters pertaining to personnel and acts as custodian of personnel files which include the 201 files and the Personal Data Sheets (PDS).

She explained that the PDS is submitted by an employee as one of the requisites for appointment and whenever the same is required by higher authorities.

She opined that it is mandatory for an employee to accomplish the PDS personally since the same reflects his personal circumstances of which he is the one knowledgeable. When the same is prepared or accomplished by a third person and the employee concerned affixes his signature therein, it is presumed that the latter did the preparation or accomplishment thereof. This is because there is a declaration in the last part of the PDS that the answers given are true and correct.7

Identifying the PDS of accused dated August 31, 2000 (Exhibit “A”), she revealed that what provoked the accomplishment of the said PDS was the Memorandum dated July 27, 2000, signed by Acting Provincial Administrator Leo N. Dacaynos and addressed to all Provincial Chiefs of Offices.8 She would not know of any motive or purpose on the part of accused in submitting an updated PDS other than in compliance with the said directive.9

She clarified on cross-examination that the only ones who have access to the personal files or the 201 files of the provincial employees are the ones in charge of the records and the person concerned 7 TSN, October 7, 2003, pp. 5-78 Id., pp. 11-129 Id., pp. 26-27


himself. The same may however be requested by higher-ups or by the governor, to be specific.10 There had been no request for accused’s PDS of August 31, 2000 so she would not know how complainant Romeo Dicen obtained a copy of this document.11

She learned of this case only when she received the subpoena from this court and pursuant thereto, she brought to court the 201 files of accused since the subpoena did not state a specific document.12

Also, it was only while testifying in court that she came to know that this case involved the subject PDS of accused.13

Victoria Sabillon Chiu, Records Officer III of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Visayas, testified that her functions are to docket complaints, certify copies of records, see to the flow of documents, answer queries to matters pertaining to cases filed with their office and accommodate requests for records of such cases.14

She further testified that there were several cases filed against accused but she became familiar only with three (3) of them, namely: OMB-V-3-00-524; OMB-V-ADM-00-465; and, OMB-V-ADM-98-0302. In OMB-V-ADM-98-0302, accused was found guilty of Simple Misconduct and was meted the penalty of one-month suspension per the Resolution dated May 18, 1999 of the Office of the Ombudsman- Visayas (Exhibit “G”).15 Accused sought reconsideration of the said resolution but the same was denied per the Order16 [dated August 30, 1999] of the said office.17

10 Id., pp. 17-1811 Id., pp. 20-2112 Id., pp. 18-1913 Id., pp. 19-2014 TSN, February 1, 2005, pp. 5-615 Id., pp. 6-916 Exhibit “H”17 TSN, February 1, 2005, pp. 10-11


The Order to implement the suspension18 was accordingly

issued and transmitted to the Provincial Governor of Samar who implemented the same and who informed the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas of such implementation in his letter dated August 30, 1999, Exhibit “I”.19

She admitted on cross-examination that her testimony is centered on documents in her custody as Records Officer. She has no personal knowledge of what really transpired relative to the cases filed against accused.20

The prosecution filed its “Formal Offer of Exhibits” - Exhibits “A” to “H” with sub-markings21 all of which were admitted by the court per its Resolution dated September 7, 2005.22 It also submitted a Memorandum.23

Evidence for the Defense

The defense presented as witnesses Micaela M. Rosales and accused Florencio L. Advincula himself.

Micaela M. Rosales, presently an Agricultural Technician in the Office of the Provincial Agriculturist of the Province of Samar, testified that she has been the personnel officer-designate of the said office since 1996 per Office Order No. 22, Series of 1996 (Exhibit “2”). 18 Exhibit “E”19 TSN, February 1, 2005, pp. 11-1520 Id., pp. 17-1821 Record, pp. 156-16122 Id., p. 16223 Id., pp. 196-218


As such, she keeps the 201 files of the personnel of the same office which include the appointments, Personal Data Sheets, Statements of Assets and Liabilities and other records pertaining to personnel.24

Sometime in July 2000, she received a Memorandum from the Provincial Administrator of Samar (Exhibit “1”) directing the updating of the PDS of all personnel including those in the Office of the Provincial Agriculturist. She gave the said memorandum to Guarina A. Uy, Administrative Officer III, for dissemination to the employees.25

By August 31, 2000 which was the deadline for the submission of the PDS, all the employees had been able to submit their updated PDS except the accused Provincial Agriculturist. She learned of this fact only at around 9:00 o’clock of the same date when the office liaison officer, Dolores Quizon, arrived in the office and so informed her. Forthwith, she relayed the information to Administrative Officer Guarina A. Uy who then asked her to fill up the PDS of accused using the data in accused’s PDS found in his 201 file.26 She was reluctant at first but later agreed to do as told in her desire to help accused.27She explained that at that time, accused was out on field work as he often was.28

From the 201 file of accused, she found only the PDS dated November 12, 1987 and signed by accused, with the entries therein being in the handwriting of accused (Exhibit “3”).29 She copied from the said PDS the data that she entered in the August 31, 2000 PDS

24 TSN, November 14, 2005, pp. 7-1125 Id., pp. 11-1226 Id., pp. 13-1727 Id., pp. 29-3028 Id., pp. 15-1629 Id., pp. 19-20


with the corresponding changes as to the ages of the children as well as the references considering the length of time that has elapsed since its accomplishment in 1987. As to the references, she asked the administrative officer who to indicate as such as some of the original references already died.30

She admitted having written the check mark opposite or before the printed word “No” in answer to Questions Nos. 25 and 27.31

She got through with the PDS at around 11:00 in the morning and then handed it over to the accused’s secretary, Ms. Neria Miniano, for accused’s signature.32She did not get to know what happened to the PDS thereafter as she did not get a copy thereof. She has no personal knowledge as to whether the same was submitted to the Personnel Office in the Provincial Capitol by the liaison officer.33

She affirmed her statements in her affidavit dated March 28, 2001 (Exhibit “4”) that she submitted to the Office of the Ombudsman for the Visayas in relation to this case.34 Clarifying on cross-examination that she accomplished the subject PDS all by her lonesome in just one sitting, she denied that there are two different penmanship therein as observed by the prosecution submitting that if ever there is such a difference, the same could be attributed to the fact that the PDS was hurriedly accomplished.35

30 Id., pp. 17-2231 Id., pp. 23-2432 Id., pp. 24-2533 Id., pp. 26-2734 Id. pp. 28-2935 TSN, November 15, 2005, p. 21


Florencio L. Advincula who has been the Provincial Agriculturist of Samar since 1998 testified that his main functions as such are to formulate plans/programs and to implement the same for the agricultural development of the Province of Samar, with its twenty-five (25) towns seven (7) of which are coastal towns and one (1) city, by conducting irrigation services to the farmers, on-going immunization program to avoid occurrence of perennial diseases, seminars for the farmers and providing some livelihood alternatives. He is in the field fifteen (15) days in a month for these undertakings.36

Sometime in July 2000, he received a Memorandum from the Office of the Provincial Administrator directing all personnel to submit their respective Personal Data Sheets for an update of the records on trainings and seminars attended. However, he just put this matter aside there having been many tasks that needed to be done and considering that the deadline for the submission was still days ahead.37

He narrated that on August 10, 2000, he was in Calbayog City; on the 11th, he was in the office; on the 12th up to the 19th, he was in Manila; on the 22nd, he was in Tacloban City; on August 30 and 31, he was in Baybay [Leyte]. However, at around 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon of August 31, 2000, he went back to the office as he would usually do whenever there was still time to do so. Finding at this particular time many people needing to see him, he attended to them first and, thereafter, to the documents in his table – queries, various

36 TSN, November 16, 2005, pp. 6-837 Id., pp. 8-10


communications, appointments, schedules, seminars, loan applications and so forth. There was also his PDS which, according to his secretary, had already been filled up and prepared by Ms. Micaela M. Rosales and which was subject to his approval.38

Presented with the PDS in question, he affirmed that the entries therein except his signature were made by Ms. Rosales copied from his PDS dated November 12, 1987 on file and in the latter’s custody. Ms. Rosales took it upon herself to prepare the PDS considering that there was a deadline for its submission. The entries in the updated PDS and the one on file are similar except for the references and ages of his children. 39

He signed the PDS that was accomplished by Ms. Rosales simply to comply with the directive of the Provincial Administrator to make an update on the training and seminars attended stressing that he was not applying for any promotion as he was already occupying the highest position in the office.40Neither was he motivated by any intent to gain.41

He gave the PDS back to his secretary, Ms. Miriam Miniano, and he did not know what happened to it thereafter, not even whether it was filed by the liaison officer, Ms. Dolores Quizon.42 He learned later when he received notice from the Office of the Ombudsman for the Visayas that a case for perjury, docketed as OMB VIS Crim. 2000-1162, had been filed against him sometime in May 200243 and it was

38 Id., pp. 11-1539 Id., pp. 17-2040 Id., pp. 23-2441 Id. p. 3242 Id., pp. 23-2543 Id., pp. 25-27


only when he received a copy of the complaint that he realized there were errors in the entries on Items Nos. 25 and 27 in his PDS.44 He submitted a counter-affidavit relative to this case (Exhibit “4”).45

Identifying the complainant in this case as one Romeo Dicen, he was surprised how said Romeo Dicen was able to get a copy of the subject PDS when, to his understanding, the same is kept by the Human Resource Management Officer (HRMO) and by the court in case of a case where it is involved.46

He is aware that that the PDS contains information personal to the one accomplishing or signing it and he does not delegate the task of doing so except only in the case of the subject PDS because of the urgency for its submission and he had no reason to doubt the competence of the administrative officer [who prepared it].47

He admitted on cross-examination that when he signed the subject PDS, he was aware of Item No. 31 which refers to the declaration that the answers given in the PDS are true and correct but explained that he did not give it much importance as he was focused more on satisfying the directive from the Provincial Administrator on the updating of the records regarding training and seminars attended.48

44 Id., pp. 31-3245 Id., pp. 28-3046 Id., pp. 30-31 47 Id., p. 3948 Id., pp. 46-47


He also admitted that prior to August 31, 2000, he knew of the other cases filed against him as, in fact, he was personally attending to them. One such case was for Simple Misconduct.49

In answer to queries from the court, he clarified that there had been changes as to the references – two (2) new names had been written thereat in lieu of the two (2) deceased references which names were supplied by the administrative officer. However, he became aware of this only when this case cropped up.50

The defense orally made a formal offer of its documentary evidence consisting of Exhibits “1” to “4”, inclusive, all of which were admitted by the court per its Order dated November 16, 2005.51It also filed a Memorandum.52

Findings of Fact Accused Florencio L. Advincula has been the Provincial

Agriculturist of the Province of Samar since 1998.

Sometime in July 2000, the Provincial Administrator of Samar, in a Memorandum to all Provincial Chiefs of Offices, required all personnel of the province to submit an updated Personal Data Sheet to reflect their present qualifications brought about by augmented attainment in education, training and seminars on or before August 31, 2000.

49 Id., pp. 39-4150 Id., pp. 48-5051 Record, pp. 176-17752 Id., pp. 219-235


Finding the deadline for the submission of the required PDS still some time ahead and considering that he had more pressing matters to attend to, accused put on hold the preparation thereof.

By August 31, 2000, all the personnel of the Office of the Provincial Agriculturist had submitted their respective PDS except the herein accused Provincial Agriculturist himself. As accused who normally spends fifteen (15) days in a month doing his work outside his office was on field work at that time, Personnel Officer-Designate Micaela M. Rosales took it upon herself to prepare the required PDS and the entries therein she copied from those contained in the PDS of accused dated November 12, 1987 on file only with changes respecting the ages of the children and the references two (2) of whom having already died. She had also written the check mark opposite or before the printed word “No” in answer to Questions Nos. 25 and 27 indicating that accused has no pending administrative case/criminal case and that he has not been convicted of any administrative offense, respectively. Thereafter, she left the prepared PDS with the secretary of accused, Ms. Miriam Miniano, for the approval and signature of accused.

At around 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon of August 31, 2000, accused arrived in his office from Baybay, Leyte, as he would always do whenever there was still time left. He attended to his callers first and then to the various documents on top of his table. There was also his PDS which, according to his secretary, had already been prepared by Ms. Micaela Rosales. He signed the said PDS claiming that he did so solely for the purpose of compliance with the directive for the update of the records regarding training and seminars attended and then handed over the PDS to his secretary who caused the same to be


submitted to the Personnel Section of the Provincial Government of Samar.

Subsequently, the complainant, one Romeo Dicen, had somehow gotten hold of the said PDS or a copy thereof and filed a complaint founded on the said PDS with the Office of the Ombudsman for the Visayas which was docketed as OMB-VIS-CRIM-2000-1162. This complaint metamorphosed into the present criminal indictment.

The instant controversy stemmed from the answers to Questions Nos. 25 and 27 of the PDS of accused dated August 31, 2000. By the check marks written opposite or before the word “No” in answer to the said questions, it is in effect shown that accused has no pending administrative case/criminal case and that he had not been convicted of any administrative case. The truth, however, is that as of August 31, 2000, two (2) cases against accused, one criminal and the other, administrative, – OMB-VIS-ADM-CRIM 2000-0524 and OMB-VIS-ADM-2000-0465- have been pending with the Office of the Ombudsman for the Visayas and Criminal Case No. 25446, with the Sandiganbayan. Also, he had been adjudged liable in OMB-VIS-ADM-98-0303 for Simple Misconduct for which he was meted a penalty of suspension for one (1) month. Accused had knowledge of all these cases.

Discussion

The crime of Falsification with which the herein accused is charged is defined and penalized under Article 171, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides:


Art. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastical minister: - The penalty of prison 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:Xxx xxx xxx4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts.Xxx xxx xxx

For the crime herein charged 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;3. That he falsifies a document by making untruthful

statements in a narration of facts.53

Falsification by making untruthful statements in a narration of facts is in turn established by the concurrence of the following elements:

1. That the offender makes in a document statements in a narration of facts;

2. That he has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him;

3. That the facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false; and,

4. That the perversion of truth in the narration of facts was made with the wrongful intent of injuring a third person.54

The issue in this case is whether or not accused Florencio L. Advincula is liable for the crime as herein charged.

53 Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts is one of the eight (8) modes by which falsification under Art. 171 of the Revised Penal Code may be committed.

54 G.R. No. L-67472, July 3, 1987, Dario C. Cabigas vs. People of the Philippines; Enemecio vs. Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas, 419 SCRA 82; this element may be dispensed with as regards falsification of official or public document, the reason for this being that in falsification of public document, the principal thing punished is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of the truth as therein solemnly proclaimed, People vs. Po Giok To, 96 Phil. 913, 918 [1955]


Accused is basically charged with having made entries in his PDS dated August 31, 2000 in compliance with the Memorandum of the Provincial Administrator of Samar, while being the Provincial Agriculturist of Samar, to the effect that he has no pending administrative and criminal cases and that he had not been convicted of any administrative offense when, in truth and in fact as accused well knew, there were pending with the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas an administrative case and a criminal case against him, docketed respectively as OMB-VIS-ADM-2000-0465 and OMB-VIS-CRIM-2000-0524; a criminal case before the First Division of the Sandiganbayan, docketed as Criminal Case No. 25446; and, that he had been found liable for Simple Misconduct and for which he was meted the penalty of one-month suspension by the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas in OMB-VIS-ADM-98-0302.

The evidence has established that accused, being the Provincial Agriculturist of Samar, is a public officer within the purview of the Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code; that he took advantage of his official position when he signed the PDS as he had the duty to accomplish/prepare the PDS the same having been required of him by higher authority;55 and, that it has been reflected in the PDS by the check marks “NO” in answer to Questions Nos. 25 and 27 that he had at the time no pending administrative/criminal cases and that he had not been found liable for any administrative offense when the answer should have, in fact, been “YES” which cases accused was well aware of.

55 In the cases of People vs, Santiago Uy , 53 O.G. 7236 and U.S. vs. Inosanto, 20 Phil. 376, cited in II Revised Penal Code by Reyes, it was held that the offender takes advantage of his official position when (1) he has the duty to make or to prepare or otherwise to intervene in the preparation of the document; or, (2) he has the official custody of the document which he falsified, p. 202


The evidence has also shown that while it appears that the PDS was accomplished/prepared entirely by the Personnel Officer in the absence of accused in order to beat the deadline for its submission, the same can be considered to have been accomplished/prepared by accused himself by the fact that he signed the same. Hence, the entries therein made by the Personnel Officer, for all intents and purposes, are truly his.

The erroneous statements made by accused in the subject PDS as to the pendency of an administrative and criminal cases against him as well as to the fact of his conviction in an administrative case the truth of which he had a legal obligation to disclose, in essence, constitute making untruthful statements in a narration of facts, the very act penalized under paragraph 4, Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code.

Indeed, the evidence appears to have established that the disputed answers to Questions Nos. 25 and 27 of the PDS are contrary to the truth which answers, though actually done by the Personnel Officer, were presumptively made by accused as signified by his signature. But would this suffice to hold accused liable as charged?

We resolve the question in favor of accused.

Accused essentially put up the defense of good faith and/or lack of criminal intent, claiming that his principal concern in preparing/signing the PDS was to comply with the Memorandum requiring the updating of the provincial employees’ record of education, training and seminars and not for any other purpose.


A circumspect consideration of the facts and circumstances obtaining in this case reveals the absence of criminal intent or malice on the part of accused when he prepared and/or signed the PDS. Accused has clearly manifested his lack of criminal intent in signing the PDS which showed that he had no pending cases and he had not been convicted of any administrative case as will be explained hereafter.

. The subject PDS was accomplished and/or prepared and submitted solely in compliance with the July 27, 2000 Memorandum of the Provincial Administrator of Samar for the update on the qualifications of all personnel of the province, the text of which reads:

“In view of the various changes in your present qualification which may be brought about by augmented attainment in education, training and seminars, this office finds it imperative to require all personnel of the province the submission of an updated Personal Data Sheet (CSC Form 212) in one copy.

These records will form part of your 201 files. Submit said documents to the Personnel Section on or before August 31, 2000.”

Accused thus claims and, rightly so, that he prepared and/or signed the PDS to comply with what was being required in the Memorandum which was only to update the record on training and seminars attended, stressing that he was not applying for any promotion as he was already occupying the highest position in the office. In this connection, it is relevant to point out that in Civil Service Commission vs. Sta Ana,56 the Supreme Court found respondent liable for falsification of a document by making an untruthful statement in a narration of facts, as defined under Article 171, paragraph 4, of the Revised Penal Code, when he stated in his Personal Data Sheet (PDS) 56 386 SCRA 1


dated August 5, 1996 under Item 18 that he passed the Career Service Professional examination when in fact he knew that he did not pass the same which PDS he submitted in support of his application for promotion to enhance his qualification and, as a consequence, increase his chances of being considered for promotion.

Further, considering the fact that accused got to sign the PDS almost at closing time of August 31, 2000 which was the deadline for its submission and when he had just arrived in the office from an out-of-town trip not to mention that he also had visitors to attend to and documents to peruse at that time, it is fair to assume that he was focused on and mainly concerned with the correct information as to the training and seminars attended being stated in the PDS and that, understandably, he could not have noticed the disputed answers the same having been indicated simply by inconspicuous check marks which, it must again be noted, were written by the Personnel Officer and not by accused.

Also, prosecution witness Victoria Sabillon Chiu whose testimony was centered on documents in her custody as Records Officer testified on the pendency of cases against accused with the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas and, as to the pendency of the criminal case before the Sandiganbayan, the same is not denied and is easily verifiable from court records. Certainly, accused, like everyone else, would not consciously lie on facts that are on record. To do so is simply absurd and will not serve accused any purpose. Moreover, given the not-so-urbanized character of a community like Catbalogan, Samar, where everybody practically knows everybody and where talks in the sort of cases filed against somebody or one having been convicted of any offense spread like wildfire and therefore are


practically known to all, it was entirely useless for accused to deliberately lie on the same facts.

Another thing going for accused which would somehow show absence of any intent to falsify his answers to Questions Nos. 25 and 27 of his PDS is the fact that it was only when he received a copy of the complaint against him that he realized the errors in the said answers. In other words, up to the time of his receipt of the complaint, he had no idea that he ever did enter in his PDS falsified statements.

Interestingly, neither did the prosecution question the good faith of accused nor did it present evidence to show that accused acted with malice or any evil motive when he prepared and signed his PDS.

Conformably with the time-honored principle that there can be no crime when the criminal mind is wanting, we find the defense put forth by accused as good and valid a basis to exculpate accused from culpability. In Tabuena vs. Sandiganbayan,57the Supreme Court held that good faith is a valid defense for it negates criminal intent on the part of accused; and, as stated in the old cases of United States vs. Catolico58and United States vs. Elvina:59

“To constitute a crime, the act must, except in certain

crimes made such by statute, be accompanied by criminal intent or by such negligence or indifference to duty or to consequences as, in law, is equivalent to criminal intent. The maxim is actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit res – a crime is not committed if the mind of the person performing the act complained of is innocent.”

57 G.R. No. 103501-03, February 17, 1997, and its companion case of Peralta vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 103507.

58 18 Phil 50459 24 Phil. 230


The Supreme Court also made a similar pronouncement in People vs. Pacana,60 where it declared that:

“Ordinarily, evil intent must unite with an unlawful act for there to be a crime. Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea. There can be no crime when the criminal mind is wanting.”

and in Llamoso vs. Sandiganbayan61 where it ruled that:

“We hold that the accused are not criminally liable because they had no criminal intent. Making no concealment or evasion, they admitted that there was a false entry. They acted in good faith. They may be disciplined administratively for the irregularity but their inclusion of Aninipo in the payroll is outside the pale of criminal law.”

xxx xxx xxx “In the instant case, as in the Arceo case, it cannot be said that accused perverted the truth in including Aninipo in the payroll in order to attain any felonious objective. Their honest motive was to enable Cagais to receive his compensation which he needed very badly.”

In Layug vs. Sandiganbayan where the petitioner was charged with falsification under Article 171, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code,62the Supreme Court declared that in all criminal prosecutions for offenses under the Revised Penal Code, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had criminal intent to commit the offense charged, citing the case of Beradio vs. Court of Appeals63 and therein stated that:

“Of great weight in our criminal justice system is the principle that the essence of an offense is the wrongful intent (dolo), without which it cannot exist. Actus non facit reum, nisi

60 47 Phil. 4861 138 SCRA 9262 338 SCRA 156, 16863 191 Phil. 153, 163; 103 SCRA 567


mens sit rea, the act itself does not make a man guilty unless his intentions were so. Article 3 of the Revised Penal Code clearly indicates that malice or criminal intent (dolo) in some form is an essential requisite of all crimes and offenses defined in the Code, except in those cases where the element required is negligence (culpa).”

It cannot be gainsaid that, in this case, the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that accused had criminal intent when he accomplished/prepared his PDS of August 31, 2000.

It is fundamental in any criminal prosecution that before the accused may be convicted of a crime, his guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.64 Clearly, this has not been done in this case.

WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, accused Florencio L. Advincula is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime of Falsification under Article 171, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code.

The cash bond posted by accused for his provisional liberty is hereby cancelled and ordered released to said accused subject to the usual auditing and accounting rules and regulations. The Hold Departure Order issued against him is hereby lifted and set aside.

The facts from which civil liability may arise do not exist.

SO ORDERED. Quezon City, Philippines, December 13, 2006.

64 People vs. Soberano, 281 SCRA, 438


ROLAND B. JURADOAssociate Justice

WE CONCUR:

MA. CRISTINA CORTEZ-ESTRADA TERESITA V. DIAZ-BALDOS

Chairperson 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.

MA. CRISTINA CORTEZ-ESTRADAChairperson, Fifth Division


C E R T I F I C A T I O N

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13, of the Constitution and the Division Chairman’s Attestation, it is hereby certified 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.

TERESITA J. LEONARDO – DE CASTROPresiding Justice

Date post:	24-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	vohuong
View:	217 times
Download:	3 times

Republic of the Philippines - Sandiganbayan Home...

Documents