Case Digest (A.M. No. 02-8-23-0)
Facts:
Re: Fake Decision Allegedly in G.R. No. 75242, A.M. No. 02-8-23-0, February 16, 2005, Supreme Court En Banc, Callejo, Sr., J., writing for the Court.This administrative proceeding began when Dario G. Silvestre, Senior Manager, Credit and Appraisal Management OPS of the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP), furnished the Supreme Court with photocopies of an alleged two‑page decision and related documents purportedly of the Court’s Second Division, docketed G.R. No. L-75242, and purportedly promulgated May 19, 2000. The photocopies bore the names and signatures of Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. and several Associate Justices and included a March 2, 2000 “Resolution,” a March 3 notice, an August 14, 2000 certification by Clerk of Court Luzviminda D. Puno, an alleged Clerk letter to the SCRA publisher, an RTC order of December 28, 1999, an Original Certificate of Title No. 12390, a sketch plan, and other LRA correspondence; Villanueva presented these to DBP in June 2002 seeking financing for a housing project.
Court records showed the true docket entry for G.R. No. 75242 corresponded to Manila Resource Development Corporation v. NLRC and Ruben Manahan, decided September 4, 1992, thus raising suspicion that the Supreme Court documents were forged. On September 24, 2002 the Court directed the NBI to conduct a discreet investigation and ordered Silvestre to identify who supplied the spurious documents and narrate how they were delivered.
Silvestre swore (Nov. 25, 2002) that in June 2002 Teodora N. Villanueva presented him the photocopied package; his on‑the‑spot verification at the Court revealed the signatures and documents to be forged. The NBI performed surveillance and an agents’ investigation (Agent Marfil et al.) and sought a certification from the Clerk of Court that the questioned documents were not issued by the Court; it also subpoenaed various individuals. The NBI’s field reports recommended temporary closure because the chain of evidence was incomplete and the Court personnel who assisted Silvestre could not be identified with certainty; it also reported no evidence tying Villanueva, Jaime Borjal or Felicisimo Arellano as the forgers or beneficiaries.
The Court’s Office of the Chief Attorney (OCAT) evaluated the materials, found multiple indicia of simulation and forgery on the face of the Decision and Resolution (improper docketing, impossible composition of a division, signature and form defects, substantive legal irregularities), verified absence of any G.R. case titled University of the Philippines v. Saint Mary Crusade in the Judicial Records Office, and questioned authenticity of the RTC Order dated December 28, 1999. OCAT recommended reopening the investigation, securing certifications from appropriate Court and LRA officials, and prosecuting those responsible under Articles 171, 172 and 175 of the Revised Penal Code and, if appropriate, under the Anti‑Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019). The Court referred the matter to OCAT (Sept. 21, 2004) and received OCAT’s report (Dec. 8, 2004). The Court adopted OCAT’s recommendations in the present en b...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Are the Decision and Resolution presented to the DBP authentic, or were they simulated/falsified?
- Should the Court direct the issuance of certifications and the resumption of the NBI investigation and authorize filing of criminal complaints, and, if so, who should represent the Court as complainant?
- Did the NBI properly justify its temporary closure of the investigation in...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)