Title
Malaba vs. Sandiganbayan
Case
G.R. No. 186329
Decision Date
Aug 2, 2017
A DA official falsified travel documents to reconcile rescheduled events, acquitted due to lack of criminal intent and procedural errors.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 232522)

Facts:

  • Parties and Roles
    • Abusama M. Alid (Accused) – Assistant Regional Director, Department of Agriculture (DA), Regional Field Office No. XII, Cotabato City.
    • Frisco M. Malabanan (Co-accused) – Program Director, Ginintuang Masaganang Ani Rice Program, DA Field Operations Office, Diliman, Quezon City.
  • Travel, Cash Advance and Document Alterations
    • On 27 July 2004, Alid obtained a ₱10,496 cash advance for an official trip to attend a DA turnover ceremony and follow up GMA Rice Program funds scheduled for 28–31 July 2004.
    • The turnover ceremony was postponed; Alid nonetheless proceeded to Manila on 22 August 2004 (PAL Flight PR 188).
    • In preparing his Post Travel Report (1 September 2004), Alid falsely dated the trip to 28–31 July 2004, and submitted:
      • A PAL ticket altered from “22 AUG 2004, Cotabato–Manila–Cotabato” to “28 JUL 2004, Davao–Manila–Cotabato.”
      • An undated Certificate of Appearance, signed by Malabanan, attesting that Alid appeared in DA Central Office from 28–31 July 2004.
  • Charges and Proceedings
    • SB-07-CRM-0072 – Falsification of Post Travel Report (Article 171, RPC).
    • SB-07-CRM-0073 – Falsification of the PAL ticket (Article 171, RPC).
    • SB-07-CRM-0074 – Conspiracy to falsify the Certificate of Appearance (Article 171, RPC).
    • The Sandiganbayan granted preventive suspension (90 days) of both accused; their Rule 65 petitions to the Supreme Court challenged this order.
    • Sandiganbayan Decision (23 June 2011):
      • Acquitted Alid in SB-07-CRM-0072 and SB-07-CRM-0074.
      • Convicted Alid in SB-07-CRM-0073 for falsification of a private document (Article 172(2), RPC), sentencing him to 1 year & 1 day to 3 years 6 months & 21 days prision correccional + ₱500 fine.
    • Motions for reconsideration denied; Alid filed a Rule 45 petition (G.R. No. 198598) for review of the SB conviction; Malabanan and Alid filed separate Rule 65 petitions (G.R. Nos. 186329, 186584-86) on preventive suspension.

Issues:

  • Whether the Rule 65 petitions in G.R. Nos. 186329 and 186584-86 challenging the Sandiganbayan’s preventive suspension order are moot and academic.
  • Whether the Sandiganbayan committed reversible error in convicting Alid under Article 172(2), RPC (falsification of a private document), when the Information charged him under Article 171, RPC, and whether the elements of Article 172(2) were properly alleged and proved.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.