Title
Siquian vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 82197
Decision Date
Mar 13, 1989
A mayor falsified a public document by certifying funds for a non-existent position, leading to his conviction for falsification under the Revised Penal Code.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 82197)

Facts and Procedural History

  1. In June 1975 Jesusa Carreon applied for a clerkship with Mayor Siquian. He directed her to report for work and initiated appointment proceedings.
  2. On July 1, 1975, Siquian signed Certification of Availability of Funds (CSC Form 203) stating that funds existed for the new clerk position. Carreon took her oath and served July–December 1975 without pay.
  3. No municipal ordinance or budget for FY 1975-1976 had been enacted; under PD 477 the 1974-1975 budget and plantilla were deemed re-enacted, and they contained no such clerk position or appropriation.
  4. Carreon filed a complaint in April 1976. Trial court convicted Siquian of falsification of a public document (RPC Art. 171(4)) and imposed an indeterminate penalty and fine. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue

Whether the petitioner, taking advantage of his official position, falsified a public document by certifying the availability of funds for a non-existent position, thereby violating Article 171(4) of the Revised Penal Code.

Applicable Law

  • 1973 Constitution (in force 1975)
  • Revised Penal Code, Article 171(4): falsification of public documents by making untruthful statements in a narration of facts
  • PD No. 477, Sections on deemed re-enactment of prior year’s budget and plantilla
  • Revised Administrative Code provisions on budget and council duties
  • Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 5, Series of 1975 (requirement of fund certification)

Analysis – Elements of Falsification (Article 171(4))

  1. Untruthful Narration of Facts
    • The certification stated, “funds for the position are available,” though no ordinance or budget item existed for that clerkship.
  2. Legal Duty to Disclose Truth
    • As the designated signatory of CSC Form 203, the Mayor was legally obliged to verify and truthfully certify the existence of funds.
  3. Absolute Falsity
    • Under the re-enacted 1974–1975 plantilla, the position did not exist and no appropriation was made. There was not even “colorable truth.”

Analysis – Conclusion of Law vs. Fact

  • The court held that certifying fund availability is a factual determination—requiring reference to budget records—rather than a legal conclusion. Petitioner’s awareness of the absent position and funds rendered the statement a false narration of fact.

Analysis – Criminal Intent and Good Faith

  • Public-document falsification under Article 171 does not require intent to harm or gain from a third party.
  • Good-faith defense fails: as presiding officer and signatory of the very budget and plantilla ordinances, Siquian knew they lacked the position and appropriation.

Analysis – Abuse of Official Position

  • “Taking advantage of his office” is satisfied by Siquian’s role in preparing and signing the certification essential to Carreon’s appointment.

Analys

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.