Case Digest (G.R. No. 240402-20)
Facts:
Cesar P. Alpay v. People of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 240402-20, June 28, 2021, the Supreme Court Third Division, Inting, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Cesar P. Alpay, then outgoing Mayor of Unisan, Quezon, was charged in thirty-nine (39) informations for violation of Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) (Falsification by Public Officer, Employee or Notary or Ecclesiastic Minister). The informations alleged that on or about June 30, 2004 petitioner caused the falsification of disbursement vouchers and supporting documents to make it appear that named beneficiaries received financial assistance under the “Isang Bayan, Isang Produkto, Isang Milyong Piso” program (pursuant to Executive Order No. 176), when in fact the beneficiaries allegedly received hand tractors or motor engines purchased by the municipality without public bidding.
The factual background tracks petitioner’s use of the P1,000,000 allocation under EO 176 for the municipality’s SMEs. In the second quarter of 2004 petitioner planned distribution of portions of the assistance to selected farmers and fishermen to acquire motor engines and hand tractors; on June 30, 2004 he invited beneficiaries to his residence and distributed cash simultaneous with acquisition of equipment. Municipal Accountant Teresita Musca and Municipal Treasurer Bernardita de Jesus testified that 42 disbursement vouchers bearing petitioner’s pre-signature were transmitted in a “reversed-process” (petitioner signed before municipal auditor/treasurer certifications), that receipts were unsigned at time of processing, and that checks issued were not returned to the Treasurer’s Office in the usual manner for distribution.
At trial only six of the named beneficiaries testified for the prosecution, 20 testified for the defense, and 13 recanted earlier testimony. Some beneficiaries denied signing the disbursement vouchers or receiving checks; others later testified in petitioner’s favor. The Commission on Audit reportedly concluded the municipality’s purchase of equipment should have been subject to public bidding.
The Sandiganbayan, Fifth Division rendered judgment on April 24, 2018 (pened by Asst. Justice Rafael R. Lagos with Mendoza‑Arcega and Corpus‑Manalac, JJ., concurring), acquitting petitioner in Criminal Case Nos. SB‑10‑CRM‑0045, 0046, 0047, 0049, 0052, 0053, 0060, 0062, 0064, 0068, 0072, 0073, 0075, 0076, 0077, 0078, 0079, 0080, 0081 and 0082, but convicting him in Criminal Case Nos. SB‑10‑CRM‑0048, 0050, 0051, 0054, 0055, 0056, 0057, 0058, 0059, 0061, 0063, 0065, 0066, 0067, 0069, 0070, 0071, 0074 and 0083 for falsification under Article 171 RPC and imposing the indeterminate penalty of six (6) months and one (1) day of prision correccional to six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, and a P5,000 fine in each case. Petitioner’s M...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Sandiganbayan err in finding petitioner guilty of 19 counts of falsification under Article 171 of the RPC?
- Did the Sandiganbayan err in denying petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration for lack of interest on his counsel’s part to pros...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)