Facts:

The case involves Noe S. Andaya as the petitioner and the People of the Philippines as the respondent. The events leading to this case began in 1986 when Andaya was elected as the president and general manager of the Armed Forces and Police Savings and Loan Association, Inc. (AFPSLAI), a non-stock and non-profit association engaged in savings and loan transactions. In an effort to increase AFPSLAI's capitalization, the Board of Trustees approved a Finder's Fee Program on June 1, 1988, which entitled any officer, member, or employee (except investment counselors) to a finder’s fee of one percent for soliciting investments of at least P100,000.

In September 1991, the Central Bank expressed concerns regarding AFPSLAI's precarious financial position due to alleged mismanagement, prompting an investigation by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). This investigation led to multiple criminal cases against Andaya, including the current case, which involved allega...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Noe S. Andaya, the petitioner, was elected president and general manager of AFPSLAI in 1986, a non-stock, non‑profit savings and loan association.
• AFPSLAI was authorized to engage in savings and loan transactions, and its management sought to increase capitalization and lending capacity.

Implementation of the Finder’s Fee Program

• In June 1988, the Board of Trustees approved Resolution No. RS‑88‑006‑048 establishing a Finder’s Fee Program.
• The program provided that any officer, member, or employee (except investment counselors) who could solicit an investment of not less than ₱100,000.00 would be entitled to a finder’s fee equivalent to 1% of the amount solicited.

Triggering of the Investigation and Criminal Case Filing

• In September 1991, a letter from the Central Bank alerted AFPSLAI’s precarious financial condition, attributed to alleged management deficiencies.
• Subsequently, Gen. Lisandro C. Abadia, Chairman of the Board, requested the NBI to investigate the alleged irregularities in AFPSLAI’s operations.
• This investigation resulted in several criminal cases being filed against petitioner, including the present case.

The Falsification Incident and Alleged Criminal Act

• On October 5, 1992, an information was filed charging petitioner with estafa through falsification of a commercial document.
• The specific allegation was that petitioner, as president and general manager, caused Disbursement Voucher No. 58380 to show that Diosdado Guilas was entitled to a finder’s fee of ₱21,000.00 when, in truth, no such payment was due to him.
• It was alleged that the fee should have been credited to Ernesto Hernandez, who had solicited an investment of ₱2,100,000.00 from Rosario Mercader for AFPSLAI.
• The misrepresentation allegedly resulted in petitioner encashing a Metrobank check for ₱21,000.00 and misappropriating the funds for personal benefit.

Trial Proceedings and Evidence

• Petitioner was arraigned on May 30, 1994, and pleaded not guilty to the charge.
• The prosecution presented key witnesses (Diosdado Guilas and Judy Balangue) who testified regarding the preparation of the disbursement voucher and the subsequent false assignment of the finder’s fee.
• On cross-examination, Guilas admitted that the Finder’s Fee Program did not prohibit placing the fee under another person’s name, while Balangue testified regarding the redirection of the fee from Ernesto Hernandez to Guilas.
• The defense, in turn, presented witnesses (Emerita Arevalo, Ernesto Hernandez, and petitioner himself), explaining that the fee was legitimately owed to Hernandez as a result of the investment transaction, and that the name substitution was done at Hernandez’s request to mitigate tax implications.
• Documentary evidence, such as the Certificate of Capital Contribution Monthly No. 52178, was introduced to substantiate the legitimate investment and ensuing fee obligation owed to Hernandez.

Trial Court Decision and Subsequent Motions

• On June 20, 2001, the trial court convicted petitioner of falsification of private document (not estafa) based on these findings:
• Petitioner caused the voucher to indicate that Guilas was entitled to ₱21,000.00, despite knowing that no fee was due to him.
• The voucher, though a private document, was falsified with criminal intent.
• Petitioner filed a motion for new trial on July 5, 2001, which was initially denied; however, the case was reopened in December 2001 to avoid a miscarriage of justice.
• On January 29, 2002, the trial court reconfirmed petitioner’s conviction, relying on the three essential elements of falsification:
• Preparation of a false entry in the disbursement voucher.
• Falsification in a private document.
• Alleged damage to AFPSLAI in the amount of ₱21,000.00.

Appellate Review and Supreme Court Involvement

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision in its September 29, 2004, ruling and denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
• In his appeal, petitioner argued that there was a variance between the allegations in the charging instrument (which alleged damage to AFPSLAI) and the trial court’s findings (which included intent to cause damage to the government).
• Petitioner further contended that such variance violated his constitutional right to be informed of the true nature and cause of the accusation against him.
• The Supreme Court, on review, found that the prosecution failed to prove that AFPSLAI suffered actual damage by the alleged misrepresentation, thus calling into question the valid basis for the conviction.

Issue:

Nature of the Offense Charged

• Whether petitioner's act of causing the disbursement voucher to erroneously indicate a finder’s fee payable to Diosdado Guilas constitutes falsification of a private document under the Revised Penal Code.
• Whether the alleged misrepresentation by petitioner satisfies the required elements of falsification, particularly the element of causing damage to a third party.

Variance Between the Information and the Trial Court’s Findings

• Whether the trial court erred by convicting petitioner for an element (intent to cause damage to the government) that was not explicitly charged in the information.
• Whether the introduction of such an uncharged element violates petitioner’s constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, thereby undermining his right to a fair defense.

Sufficiency of the Evidence on Damages

• Whether the prosecution adequately established that the falsification caused actual damage to AFPSLAI, as alleged in the information for a sum of ₱21,000.00.
• Whether the failure to demonstrate such damage renders the conviction unsustainable beyond reasonable doubt.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)