Case Summary (G.R. No. 263590)
Facts as Found by the Trial Court and Appellate Court
On the basis of an affidavit-complaint by member Manuel Torralba and two other barangay kagawads, the Ombudsman filed an information charging petitioners with falsifying Barangay Resolution No. T-95 dated September 24, 1995. The resolution on its face purported to show a regular sanggunian session held on that date at 2:00 P.M., listing attendance, motion and seconding members, a unanimous approval allocating P18,000 for seminar expenses, and bearing the signatures of the barangay secretary and chairman and the barangay seal. The complaining kagawads testified that no quorum was present on September 24, 1995 and that no such session or approval in fact occurred; on October 15, 1995 the sanggunian passed a resolution denying that any session was held on September 24, 1995.
Charge and Plea
The information charged petitioners, both public officials, with causing it to appear that persons participated in a proceeding when they did not, contrary to law (Art. 171(2) RPC). Both pleaded not guilty and proceeded to trial.
Evidence at Trial and Defense Position
Prosecution evidence consisted primarily of the testimony of the three complaining kagawads and a copy of Resolution T-95. The complainants established lack of quorum on the alleged date and the later October 15, 1995 resolution that repudiated the September 24 instrument. Petitioners admitted signing the document but maintained it was merely a draft or proposal prepared in the ordinary course (allegedly prepared and signed by Natalio as a customary practice before a scheduled meeting), was not used to procure funds, and that they lacked criminal intent. Petitioners also denied affixing the official seal and suggested that a complainant (Torralba) may have placed the seal.
RTC’s Findings and Rationale
The RTC found petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The court determined that Resolution T-95 had the outward appearance of a true and genuine public document: it bore a resolution number (not a draft label), specified attendance and procedural particulars (motion, second), contained certifying and attesting signatures, and carried the barangay seal. The RTC rejected the draft/proposal defense as implausible given the document’s content and appearance and the subsequent October 15, 1995 resolution of seven of eight kagawads denying the earlier purported session.
Court of Appeals’ Disposition
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision in full. The CA agreed that Res. T-95 was a public document under Sec. 19(a), Rule 132, and that the elements of falsification under Art. 171(2) RPC were established: petitioners were public officers who, taking advantage of their official positions, caused it to appear that sanggunian members participated in and approved a resolution when in fact they did not. The CA also found the penalty imposed by the RTC to be proper.
Legal Characterization of the Document
The Supreme Court agreed with lower courts that a barangay resolution constitutes a public document within the meaning of Sec. 19(a), Rule 132, as it is an official written act of a public body. The Court cited definitional authorities and emphasized that such enactments, particularly those appropriating public money, fall squarely within the category of public documents for purposes of prosecutions under Art. 171.
Elements of Art. 171(2) and Their Application
Art. 171(2) punishes a public officer who, taking advantage of his official position, falsifies a document by causing it to appear that persons participated in a proceeding when they did not. The Court reiterated the elements: (1) the offender is a public officer; (2) he takes advantage of his official position; (3) he falsifies a document by causing it to appear that persons participated in an act or proceeding; and (4) those persons did not in fact participate. Applying these elements, the Court found all to be satisfied: petitioners were public officials, used their official capacities to certify and attest the resolution, and the October 15, 1995 resolution together with testimonial evidence established non-participation of the sanggunian members.
On the Draft/Proposal Defense and Evidentiary Weight
The Court addressed the defense that the document was a mere draft or proposal, noting that the content and formal features of Res. T-95 (numbered resolution, recitation of attendance, naming of mover and seconder, certifying and attesting signatures, and barangay seal) were inconsistent with an unsigned draft. The Court relied on the trial court’s and CA’s credibility determinations and factual findings, emphasizing that appellate review under Rule 45 does not permit reweighing evidence except for very convincing reasons; none were present to overturn the concurrent factual findings below.
Criminal Intent, Prejudice, and Completion of the Offense
The Court rejected argument
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 263590)
Case Caption, Procedural Posture, and Court That Decided
- G.R. No. 168437; decision of the Supreme Court rendered January 8, 2009; opinion penned by Justice Velasco, Jr., with Justices Quisumbing (Chairperson), Carpio Morales, Tinga, and Brion concurring.
- Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 assails the Court of Appeals Decision dated June 6, 2005 in CA-G.R. CR No. 27963, which affirmed the July 28, 2003 decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 26, Santa Cruz, Laguna in Criminal Case No. SC-6712.
- RTC conviction: petitioners found guilty of falsification of public document under Article 171(2) of the Revised Penal Code; sentence imposed and affirmed on appeal.
- CA Decision authored by Associate Justice Perlita J. Tria Tirona, concurred in by Associate Justices Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis and Jose C. Reyes, Jr.
- RTC Decision authored by Judge Pablo B. Francisco.
Parties and Roles
- Petitioners: Laurinio Goma (Barangay Chairperson/Punong Barangay) and Natalio Umale (appears in RTC and CA decisions as "Umali") (Barangay Secretary/Kalihim).
- Private complainants / respondents: Manuel G. Torralba and two other members of the Sangguniang Barangay of Brgy. Cabanbanan, Pagsanjan, Laguna (Barangay Kagawads Manuel G. Torralba, Armando F. Cabantog, and Ricaredo dela Cruz).
- Other respondents: The Court of Appeals and the People of the Philippines.
- Investigating/filing authority: Office of the Ombudsman for Luzon (filed the Information with the RTC).
Facts — Underlying Transaction and Instrument
- Date and place: On or about September 24, 1995, in Barangay Cabanbanan, Pagsanjan, Laguna.
- The instrument: Barangay Resolution No. T-95 dated September 24, 1995 (Res. T-95), which on its face allocated PhP 18,000 for disbursement to defray seminar expenses for two barangay officials.
- Apparent contents and formalities of Res. T-95: indicates it was passed at an ordinary session of the Sangguniang Barangay held on September 24, 1995 at 2:00 P.M.; lists attendance of all Sangguniang members; identifies a motion by Kagawad Renato Dizon, seconded by Kagawad Ricaredo (Ricaredo) dela Cruz; bears the signatures of Natalio (as Barangay Secretary who certified the resolution) and Laurinio (as Punong Barangay who attested); bears the official seal of the barangay.
- Actual events per complaining witnesses: on September 24, 1995 no actual session of the sanggunian took place for lack of quorum; the three complaining kagawads went to the barangay health center for a pre-scheduled session which did not push through because, aside from them, only one other member (Laurinio) attended.
- Subsequent action by sanggunian: on October 15, 1995 the sanggunian held a special session and passed a resolution stating that no session was held on September 24, 1995 (thereby denying the passage of Res. T-95).
Charging Instrument and Arraignment
- Information filed in RTC (Crim. Case No. SC-6712; raffled to Branch 26) charged Laurinio Goma and Natalio A. Umali with falsification of a Resolution dated September 24, 1995, an official document, by representing that it was passed in a session with quorum and unanimous approval when no meeting was held as no quorum was mustered, and alleging commission in relation to their official positions, in connivance and conspiracy.
- Upon arraignment, both accused, with counsel, pleaded not guilty.
Evidence at Trial — Prosecution and Defense
- Prosecution witnesses: the three complaining barangay kagawads (Manuel G. Torralba, Armando F. Cabantog, Ricaredo dela Cruz) testified that no quorum met on September 24, 1995 and that Res. T-95 was nonetheless made to appear as if it had been passed unanimously that day.
- Physical evidence: a copy of Res. T-95 bearing the signatures of Natalio and Laurinio and the barangay dry seal.
- Defense witnesses/evidence: petitioners Laurinio and Natalio, and Assistant Municipal Treasurer Elizalde G. CabaleAo appeared in defense.
- Petitioners’ defense theory: they admitted affixing their signatures but contended that the subject resolution was only a proposal or draft which Natalio, as secretary, customarily prepared and signed in advance (allegedly a week before the scheduled session); they also maintained that the resolution was not the enabling instrument for release of the seminar funds; petitioners denied having affixed the barangay official seal and suggested that complainant Torralba may have affixed it due to ill-feeling.
RTC Ruling and Reasoning
- Decision dated July 28, 2003: RTC found both Laurinio and Natalio guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principals in falsification of public document under Article 171 of the RPC.
- Sentence imposed by RTC: each accused sentenced to imprisonment of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional as minimum to eight (8) years and two (2) months of prision mayor as maximum; costs against both accused.
- RTC factual findings: Res. T-95 had the appearance of a complete, true, and genuine document, sealed and signed by the Sanggunian secretary; the court found the defense theory of mere proposal or draft to be incredible and dismissed it for reasons set out in the decision.
- RTC’s detailed observations against the draft/proposal claim included that Res. T-95: (a) did not appear to be a proposed resolution in all aspects; (b) its opening paragraph stated its contents were copied from the minutes of an ordinary session on September 24, 1995 at 2:00 P.M.; (c) it announced names of members who attended; (d) it bore a resolution number rather than a proposed-resolution label; (e) the title stated the sanggunian had already approved the allocation of P18,000 for two barangay officials; (f) it identified the motion and seconding kagawads; and (g) Na