G.R. No. 186329 - Malaba vs. Sandiganbayan

Case Summary (G.R. No. 186329)

Key Dates

Relevant travel and document dates: alleged trip originally scheduled for 28–31 July 2004 but deferred; actual PAL ticket dated/issued 2 August 2004 reflecting a 22 August 2004 flight; Post Travel Report prepared 1 September 2004. Informations were filed 24 October 2007. Sandiganbayan decision convicting Alid in SB-07-CRM-0073 dated 23 June 2011; Supreme Court decisions on related petitions rendered 2 August 2017.

Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis

Governing constitution: 1987 Philippine Constitution (Article III, Section 14(2) — right of accused to be informed of nature and cause of accusation). Penal provisions: Article 171 (falsification by public officer) and Article 172 (falsification by private individuals and use of falsified documents) of the Revised Penal Code. Rules cited: Sections 4 and 5, Rule 120, Rules of Criminal Procedure (variance between allegation and proof; included offenses).

Facts: Travel, Documents, and Liquidation

Alid obtained a cash advance and later submitted a Post Travel Report dated 1 September 2004 declaring travel on 28–31 July 2004. He attached a PAL ticket altered to change the issue/flight date from 22 August 2004 to 28 July 2004 and to change the origin from Cotabato to Davao. He also attached an undated Certificate of Appearance signed by Malabanan attesting that Alid appeared at the DA Central Office from 28–31 July 2004. Post-audit revealed discrepancies, prompting charges.

Informations and Nature of Charges

Three Informations were filed: SB-07-CRM-0072 (falsification of Post Travel Report by a public officer under Article 171), SB-07-CRM-0073 (falsification of the PAL ticket), and SB-07-CRM-0074 (conspiracy to falsify the Certificate of Appearance). The SB-07-CRM-0073 Information alleged alterations to PAL ticket No. 07905019614316 and charged Alid under the theory of falsification by a public officer (Article 171).

Lower Court Proceedings and Outcome

Both accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution secured a preventive suspension pendente lite from the Sandiganbayan (90 days, later implemented by the DA). After trial, the Sandiganbayan acquitted Alid and Malabanan in SB-07-CRM-0072 and SB-07-CRM-0074 but convicted Alid in SB-07-CRM-0073 for falsification of a private document under paragraph 2 of Article 172, sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment and a fine. Motions for reconsideration were denied.

Relief Sought Before the Supreme Court

Alid and Malabanan filed Rule 65 petitions challenging the preventive suspension orders (docketed G.R. Nos. 186329 and 186584–86). Alid separately filed a Rule 45 petition under G.R. No. 198598 seeking reversal of his conviction in SB-07-CRM-0073.

Mootness Ruling on Suspension Petitions

The Court dismissed the Rule 65 petitions as moot and academic because the preventive suspension order had been implemented by the DA and Alid had retired on 30 June 2009. Under established doctrine, supervening events that foreclose practical relief render such petitions non-justiciable.

Fundamental Right: Being Informed of Nature and Cause of Accusation

The Court emphasized the constitutional right of an accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation (Art. III, Sec. 14(2), 1987 Constitution) and the related Rules of Criminal Procedure provisions governing variance between allegation and proof (Rule 120, Sections 4 and 5). A conviction cannot stand where the offense of conviction is not charged nor necessarily included in the Information.

Variance Analysis Between Article 171 and Article 172

Article 171 penalizes falsification by public officers taking advantage of official position; its elements include being a public officer, taking advantage of office, and committing an act of falsification as enumerated. Article 172 contains several subdivisions: paragraph 1 penalizes private individuals who commit falsifications in public/official/commercial documents; paragraph 2 penalizes falsification of private documents where damage to a third party or intent to cause such damage exists. The Court noted that paragraph 2 of Article 172 requires, as an additional independent element, damage or intent to cause damage — an element absent from Article 171.

Violation of the Right to Be Informed (Ground for Reversal)

The conviction imposed by the Sandiganbayan expressly punished Alid under paragraph 2 of Article 172 (falsification of a private document with damage or intent to damage), yet the Information had charged falsification by a public officer under Article 171. Because paragraph 2 of Article 172 includes elements (damage/intent to damage) not alleged in the Article 171 Information, the conviction under paragraph 2 violated Alid’s constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. The Court held that Alid could not be convicted of paragraph 2 Article 172 where that specific offense was not charged or necessarily included in the Article 171 charge.

Inclusion Doctrine and Paragraph 1 of Article 172

The Court analyzed whether a lesser offense under paragraph 1 of Article 172 (falsification by a private individual in a public/official/commercial document) was necessarily included in the Article 171 charge. It determined that Article 171 encompasses the elements of paragraph 1 of Article 172 when the public officer did not take advantage of official position (i.e., the officer lacked duty to prepare or custody over the document). Consequently, paragraph 1 is a lesser-included offense and could be the appropriate subject of conviction if fully proven and legally proper.

Characterization of the PAL Ticket as a Commercial Document

The Court agreed with the view that the PAL ticket functioned as a commercial document — analogous to a sales invoice memorializing a commercial transaction between carrier and passenger — and therefo

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 186329)

Summary of the Parties and Consolidation

The matter involves three consolidated petitions arising from a common set of facts.
Petitioners:
- Dr. Frisco M. Malabanan, Program Director of the Ginintuang Masaganang Ani Rice Program (GMA Rice Program), DA Field Operations Office, Diliman, Quezon City.
- Abusama Mangudadatu Alid (Alid), Assistant Regional Director, Department of Agriculture, Regional Field Office No. XII, Cotabato City.
Respondents include the Sandiganbayan (1st Division), Office of the Special Prosecutor, the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, and the People of the Philippines.
Dockets referenced: G.R. No. 186329 (Malabanan), G.R. Nos. 186584-86 (Alid, Rule 65 petitions), and G.R. No. 198598 (Alid, Rule 45 petition).

Material Facts

On 27 July 2004, Alid obtained a cash advance of P10,496 for official travel purportedly for 28–31 July 2004 to attend the DA turnover ceremony and to follow up funds for the GMA Rice Program.
The scheduled turnover ceremony was deferred and did not push through on the intended dates.
On 22 August 2004, Alid took Philippine Airlines (PAL) Flight PR 188 from Cotabato City to Manila on PAL Ticket No. 07905019614316.
Alid attended the turnover ceremony at the DA Central Office in Quezon City on 23 August 2004 and returned to Cotabato City on 24 August 2004 by a flight evidenced by a ticket issued in exchange for the PAL Ticket.
On 1 September 2004 Alid instructed his secretary to prepare liquidation papers; his Post Travel Report declared the travel dates as 28–31 July 2004.
Attached to the Post Travel Report was an altered PAL Ticket: the date "22 AUG 2004" was changed to "28 JULY 2004", and the flight route "Cotabato-Manila-Cotabato" was altered to "Davao-Manila-Cotabato."
Alid also attached an undated Certificate of Appearance signed by Malabanan as Director of the GMA Rice Program, stating that Alid appeared at the DA Central Office in Quezon City from 28–31 July 2004 to attend the turnover ceremony and to follow up funds for GMA Rice Program projects.
Post-audit discovered discrepancies in the supporting documents, which led to investigation and subsequent criminal charges for falsification.

Informations and Criminal Charges

SB-07-CRM-0072: Information charging Abusama M. Alid with falsifying his Post Travel Report (an official document) by making it appear that he traveled on 28 July 2004 to attend the turnover ceremony and follow up funds, when in truth he did not; charge framed under falsification by a public officer (Article 171 context in the Information).
SB-07-CRM-0073: Information charging Alid with falsifying the PAL plane ticket No. 07905019614316 by inserting and erasing dates and place-of-origin entries to make it appear issued/purchased on 28 July 2004 and to show origin as Davao, when the actual date and origin were different (alleging alterations that changed the document’s meaning); prosecution alleged falsification of a genuine document attached to liquidation voucher.
SB-07-CRM-0074: Information charging Alid and Malabanan with conspiring to falsify an undated Certificate of Appearance, making it appear that Alid appeared at DA Central Office from 28–31 July 2004 to attend the turnover ceremony and follow up GMA funds, when in truth they knew he did not; charge alleged falsification of an official/public document.

Pleas, Pretrial Action and Preventive Suspension

Upon arraignment, both Alid and Malabanan pleaded "not guilty."
Prosecution filed a Motion to Suspend Accused Pendente Lite; the Sandiganbayan granted preventive suspension for 90 days in a Minute Resolution dated 29 October 2008.
Motions for reconsideration were denied by Minute Resolution dated 30 January 2009.
Malabanan filed a Rule 65 Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition (docketed G.R. No. 186329) to challenge the preventive suspension order and to seek a writ of prohibition against the Sandiganbayan.
Alid filed a separate Rule 65 Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition (docketed G.R. Nos. 186584-86) likewise challenging the suspension order and seeking a temporary restraining order.

Trial in the Sandiganbayan and the Sandiganbayan Decision

The Sandiganbayan proceeded with the criminal cases and rendered a Decision dated 23 June 2011.
Disposition by the Sandiganbayan:
- SB-07-CRM-0072: Acquitted Abusama M. Alid for insufficiency of evidence, with costs de oficio.
- SB-07-CRM-0073: Found Abusama M. Alid guilty beyond reasonable doubt of falsification of a private document under paragraph 2 of Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code. With application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law and no mitigating/aggravating circumstances, sentenced to indeterminate penalty of one (1) year and one (1) day to three (3) years, six (6) months and twenty-one (21) days of prision correccional as minimum and maximum respectively, and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Pesos (P500.00), with costs.
- SB-07-CRM-0074: Acquitted Abusama M. Alid and Frisco M. Malabanan for insufficiency of evidence, with costs de oficio.
Both accused moved for reconsideration; prosecution filed partial motion for reconsideration as to acquittals; the Sandiganbayan denied motions in a Resolution dated 6 September 2011.

Petitions to the Supreme Court and Issues Raised

Alid filed a Rule 45 Petition for Review (docketed G.R. No. 198598) seeking reversal of the Sandiganbayan Decision and Resolution insofar as SB-07-CRM-0073 (the conviction) is concerned.
Petitioner’s principal defenses on appeal included: (1) that Alid was not the person who altered the plane ticket; and (2) that he had no intent to cause damage.
Although Alid did not raise a due-process challenge to notice of the nature and cause of the accusation, the Supreme Court may review any question in a criminal case on appeal, including those not raised by the parties.

Supreme Court’s Disposition — Mootness of Rule 65 Petitions

The Rule 65 petitions in G.R. Nos. 186329 and 186584-86 (challenging preventive suspension) were dismissed as moot and academic.
Rationale:
- A case becomes moot and academic when supervening events render the controversy non-justiciable such that any declaration would have no practical value.
- The preventive suspension order had been implemented by the Department of Agriculture on 17 March 2009.
- Alid had retired from government service on 30 June 2009.
- Because of these supervening events, there was no longer a live controversy concerning the suspension order; thus the Rule 65 petitions should be dismissed fo