G.R. No. 202867 - People vs. Labiaga

Case Summary (G.R. No. 202867)

Key Dates and Documentary Milestones

17 October 2001: Mayor Tadena requested creation of the Municipal Administrator position by letter.
10 December 2001: Sangguniang Bayan adopted First Version of Municipal Ordinance No. 2001-013 (First Version).
11 January 2002: Sangguniang Bayan deliberated and passed the Second Version. Paragraph (a) of the 4th Whereas Clause provided that the Municipal Administrator "shall not be created unless 2% of the Mandatory 5% Salary Increase for 2002 be implemented."
14–15 January 2002: Second Version transmitted to and received by the Office of the Municipal Mayor.
23 January 2002: A copy of the Second Version, bearing Tadena’s signature, was returned to the Sangguniang Bayan but with the first page substituted and paragraph (a) altered to read that the Municipal Administrator "shall be created and the 2% of the Mandatory 5% Salary Increase for 2002 be implemented."
25 January 2002: Sangguniang Bayan issued Resolution No. 007, noting the substitution and deleting paragraph (a) as altered.
28 August 2002: Ombudsman reversed its initial dismissal and directed filing of an Information.
4 July 2014: Information filed by the Office of the Special Prosecutor charging Tadena with falsification.
Proceedings culminated in conviction by the Sandiganbayan; the Supreme Court denied the petition for review.

Applicable Law and Legal Framework

Constitution: 1987 Philippine Constitution (applicable as the decision postdates 1990).
Penal Provision: Article 171, paragraph 6, Revised Penal Code (falsification of public document), which includes as an act punishable the making of "any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning."
Local Government Code: Section 54, R.A. No. 7160 (limits the local chief executive’s participation in enactment of ordinances to approval or veto).
Evidence Rules: Section 31, Rule 132 (alteration in document, explanation required of party producing altered document) and Section 19, Rule 132 (public documents defined).
Relevant jurisprudence cited by the courts in the prompt: Typoco, Jr. v. People and other cited authorities governing elements of falsification, desistance, and voluntary surrender.

Procedural History

A complaint for falsification of public document was filed by the Sangguniang Bayan Secretary with the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman initially dismissed the complaint but, upon a motion for reconsideration, ordered the filing of an Information. The Office of the Special Prosecutor filed the Information on July 4, 2014. Tadena pleaded not guilty; the parties stipulated certain facts at pre‑trial and identified the principal issues. The Sandiganbayan convicted Tadena on September 15, 2016; the Sandiganbayan denied his motion for reconsideration on December 7, 2016. The petition for review to the Supreme Court was denied.

Issues Presented on Review

Whether there was inordinate delay violating the right to speedy disposition of the case warranting dismissal.
Whether the private complainant’s alleged desistance justified dismissal.
Whether the Sangguniang Bayan document that was altered was a genuine public document and whether the alteration satisfied the elements of falsification under Article 171(6).
Whether Tadena acted with official authority or concurrence of the sanggunian members, or in good faith, such that criminal liability should be negated or mitigated.
Whether voluntary surrender merited appreciation as a mitigating circumstance.

Elements of Falsification under Article 171 (as Applied)

The Court applied the conventional tripartite approach to falsification by a public officer: (1) the offender is a public officer; (2) the offender takes advantage of his official position in falsifying a document; and (3) the offender falsifies a document by, among other acts, making an alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning. The Typoco, Jr. formulation was used to further break down the third element into (a) an alteration or intercalation; (b) made on a genuine document; (c) the alteration changed the document’s meaning; and (d) the change caused the document to speak something false.

Court’s Findings on Factual and Evidentiary Matters

Public Officer: The parties stipulated Tadena was municipal mayor; this element was undisputed.
Advantage of Official Position: The Court found two bases for concluding Tadena took advantage of his official position: (a) Section 54 of the Local Government Code confines the chief executive’s participation to approval or veto, not to unilateral editing; and (b) Tadena had official custody of the Second Version because the Sangguniang Bayan Secretary transmitted it to his office for appropriate action. The Court rejected Tadena’s defense that changing the wording formed part of the legitimate local legislation process.
Existence of Alteration: The prosecution produced the original Second Version (Exhibit E), the altered Second Version (Exhibit F), and Resolution No. 007 (Exhibit G) documenting the substitution and alteration; these exhibits were admitted and their due execution and truthfulness were effectively acknowledged by the defense. Testimony by the Sangguniang Bayan Secretary and observation by the Vice‑Mayor corroborated that the first page had been substituted and paragraph (a) was changed. The record thus established that an alteration/intercalation occurred.
Genuineness of Document: The Second Version was a written official act of the Sangguniang Bayan (a public document under Section 19, Rule 132), and a genuine copy had been transmitted to the Mayor. The alteration was therefore made in a genuine public document.
Change of Meaning and Falsity: The original Second Version conditioned creation of the Municipal Administrator on implementation of the 2% of the mandatory 5% salary increase. The altered version removed the condition and stated creation would occur and the 2% would be implemented. This materially changed the ordinance’s meaning and represented a false intent purportedly of the legislative body. Thus all components of Article 171(6) were satisfied.

Court’s Assessment of Defenses: Concurrence, Good Faith, and Inconsistent Explanations

Concurrence of Sangguniang Bayan: Tadena claimed the changes were made with concurrence of the majority of Sangguniang Bayan members. The Court found no proof of such concurrence; bare assertions were self‑serving and insufficient to rebut documentary and testimonial evidence showing alteration without proper authorization.
Good Faith: The Court reviewed the concept of good faith (Civil Service Commission v. Maala) and concluded that good faith is a question of intention to be inferred from conduct. The Court found Tadena’s conduct—originating the proposal, vetoing the First Version, then altering and returning the Second Version—demonstrated taking advantage of his office rather than an honest, innocent mistake. Inconsistent defenses during trial and in the petition (inadvertent signing due to workload; calling a meeting to correct errors; claiming concurrence; claiming fiscal prudence) undermined his claim of honest intention. Hence good faith was not credited.

On Desistance and Right to Speedy Disposition

Inordinate Delay: The Court declined to entertain the claim of inordinate delay because determination of inordinate delay is primarily a qu

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 202867)

Court, Citation and Holding

Decision of the Supreme Court, Second Division, G.R. No. 228610, March 20, 2019; reported at 850 Phil. 214; opinion by J. Reyes, Jr.
Holding summarized at the outset: a municipal mayor who changed the wordings of a municipal ordinance is guilty of falsification by a public officer of a public document.
The petition for review on certiorari is denied; the Sandiganbayan Decision dated September 15, 2016 and its December 7, 2016 Resolution in SB-14-CRM-0327 are affirmed.
Concurrence by Carpio, Acting C.J. (Chairperson), Perlas-Bernabe, Caguioa, and Lazaro-Javier, JJ.

Factual Background — chronological and document-specific facts

17 October 2001: Accused Floro T. Tadena, then Municipal Mayor of Sto. Domingo, Ilocos Sur, wrote a letter to the Sangguniang Bayan requesting creation of the position of Municipal Administrator.
10 December 2001: The Sangguniang Bayan adopted the First Version of Municipal Ordinance No. 2001-013 (appropriation of annual municipal budget for 2002). Paragraph (a) of the 4th "Whereas Clause" in the First Version provided: "(a) The position 'MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATOR' shall not be created unless the proposed needs of all the Offices of the municipality will be satisfied through Supplemental Budgets and provided further that the Mandatory 5% Salary Increase for 2001 be implemented."
Tadena vetoed the First Version and returned it with a veto message requesting deletion of the conditions and substitution with the agreement reached at a previous heads-of-offices conference, stating the conditions were unrealistic and demanding and noting the consensus had been that the Municipal Administrator would be created at a later date.
11 January 2002: The Sangguniang Bayan deliberated and passed the Second Version. Paragraph (a) of the 4th "Whereas Clause" in the Second Version stated: "(a) The position 'MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATOR' shall not be created unless 2% of the Mandatory 5% Salary Increase for 2002 be implemented."
14 January 2002: Sangguniang Bayan Secretary Rodel M. Tagorda transmitted a copy of the Second Version to Mayor Tadena for information, approval and appropriate action.
15 January 2002: The transmittal letter and the copy of the Second Version were received by the Office of the Municipal Mayor.
23 January 2002: The Office of the Municipal Mayor returned the copy of the Second Version with Tadena’s signature, but the first page had been substituted and paragraph (a) of the 4th "Whereas Clause" appeared altered to read: "(a) The position 'MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATOR' shall be created and the 2% of the Mandatory 5% Salary Increase for 2002 be implemented."
25 January 2002: The Sangguniang Bayan issued Resolution No. 007 deleting paragraph (a) of the 4th "Whereas Clause" of Municipal Ordinance No. 2001-013 and recorded their observation that the first page had been substituted and paragraph 5 changed to reflect the language observed in the returned copy.
Final Version: The Sangguniang Bayan later enacted and implemented a Final Version which contained the same matters as the Second Version except the alleged falsified details; the First and Second Versions were not implemented but were retained in municipal records.
Administrative and criminal complaint sequence:
- Secretary Tagorda filed a complaint for falsification of public document with the Office of the Ombudsman.
- Ombudsman initially dismissed the complaint; upon Motion for Reconsideration, the Ombudsman reversed that dismissal by Order dated 28 August 2002 and directed filing of an Information.
- 4 July 2014: The Office of the Special Prosecutor of the Ombudsman filed an Information charging Tadena with falsification of public document under Article 171, paragraph 6 of the Revised Penal Code.
Arraignment: Tadena pleaded not guilty.
Pre-trial stipulations included: Tadena was a high-ranking public official (Municipal Mayor) at the time of the alleged offense; Tagorda was Secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan at the time.
Trial evidence included documentary exhibits (original Second Version, altered Second Version, and Resolution No. 007 identified as Exhibits E, F, and G) and testimony and judicial affidavit of Tagorda.
15 September 2016: Sandiganbayan (SB) rendered a Decision in Criminal Case No. SB-14-CRM-0327 finding Tadena guilty beyond reasonable doubt; December 7, 2016 Motion for Reconsideration by Tadena was denied.
Tadena filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court challenging the SB rulings and conviction.

Procedural History and Key Dates

Administrative complaint by Tagorda filed with the Office of the Ombudsman (date not specified in source beyond sequence).
Ombudsman initially dismissed the case; Motion for Reconsideration filed; Ombudsman issued Order (28 August 2002) directing filing of Information.
Information filed by OSP (Ombudsman) on 4 July 2014.
Warrant of arrest issued on 1 August 2014; Tadena posted bail on 20 August 2014 and admitted surrendering to the First Division Clerk of Court thereafter.
Sandiganbayan Decision convicting Tadena: 15 September 2016; SB resolution denying reconsideration: 7 December 2016.
Supreme Court resolution: 20 March 2019 — petition denied; SB decision and resolution affirmed.

Issues Raised by Petitioner (Tadena) in the Petition

Motion to dismiss for inordinate delay in the prosecution of the case — contention that his right to speedy disposition was violated.
That the complainant (Tagorda) judicially admitted losing interest in prosecution after the Ombudsman’s dismissal and desisted, and that the Motion for Reconsideration was filed by a lawyer not authorized by the complainant, thus invalidly reviving the case.
That the Sandiganbayan erred in treating the document as a genuine document when, petitioner asserts, it was not.
That changes to the ordinance were made with the actual participation and concurrence of the majority members of the Sangguniang Bayan.
That petitioner acted in good faith and without criminal intent in making the changes.
That petitioner was acting in the course of the local legislation process and was authorized to make changes prior to final enactment.
That any doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused and that the prosecution failed to overcome the presumption of innocence.
That the Sandiganbayan failed to appreciate mitigating circumstances in his favor (including voluntary surrender).

People’s (OSP/Ombudsman) Position and Replies to Petitioner’s Contentions

The OSP contended that Tadena’s right to speedy disposition was not violated; the issue was already raised and the SB’s denial of the Motion to Quash/Motion to Dismiss attained finality when Tadena did not pursue further relief.
The Ombudsman and OSP maintained the preliminary investigation and filing of the Information were conducted with dispatch and promptness; prosecution was not attended with inordinate delay.
The OSP asserted that all elements of falsification by a public officer were present and that Tadena admitted on record that he made the changes to the municipal ordinance.
The OSP argued that Tagorda’s affidavit of desistance did not repudiate the material allegations in the Information and that his main reason for desistance was to keep peace in the municipality.
The OSP argued the SB properly disrega