Case Summary (G.R. No. 5036)
Key Dates and Procedural Milestones
Relevant dates from the record: the certificate and account were dated May 31, 1906 and related to work performed in 1903–1904; the court below sustained a demurrer on October 7 (year in record); the appeal resulted in the present decision of the higher court. A criminal complaint was filed by the provincial fiscal, a demurrer by the accused was sustained by the trial court, and the fiscal appealed.
Applicable Law
The court analyzed the matter under the Penal Code provisions governing negligence and reckless negligence, specifically article 568 (quoted in the record) and article 581, which the court treats as identical in effect. Article 568 distinguishes acts committed with malice from those executed through reckless negligence and prescribes calibrated penalties (ranging from arresto mayor to prision correccional) depending on the gravity of the underlying act and the degree of negligence.
Facts
On May 31, 1906, Maleza, as municipal treasurer, certified and presented an account totaling P249.35, alleging payment to carpenters and day laborers for municipal building construction in 1903–1904 and purchases of nails; the account was approved by the municipal council and bore Adlaon’s signature at its foot. In truth, the amount was drawn and paid to Maleza himself, who had been commissioned by P. Cayetano Bastes to collect and receive a loaned sum made by Bastes to the municipal president and treasurer in 1903. Adlaon did not actually receive the funds, and both Maleza and Adlaon failed to tell the truth in their certification: Maleza certified payment for carpenters though he personally received the disbursed sum, and Adlaon certified receipt though he had not received it.
Procedural Posture
The provincial fiscal charged Maleza and Adlaon with the crime of falsification of a public document by reason of reckless negligence. The accused demurred to the complaint, asserting that the alleged facts did not constitute a crime, that the complaint was not legally drawn, and that multiple crimes were improperly charged in one complaint. The trial court sustained the demurrer on the ground that falsification of a public document by reason of reckless negligence did not exist as a crime. The fiscal appealed that ruling to the higher court.
Legal Issue
The dispositive legal issue was whether falsification of a public document by reason of reckless negligence is a cognizable offense under the Penal Code and, if so, whether the facts alleged in the complaint sufficiently described that offense.
Court’s Analysis
The court began with the conceptually foundational distinction between intentional (malicious) acts and unconscious or entirely unintentional acts, and then recognized an intermediate category—acts performed without malice but with culpable lack of care—characterized under the Penal Code as negligence or reckless negligence. The opinion explains that individuals have a duty to exercise reasonable care and foresight; failure to do so that results in the material harm associated with a crime may merit criminal culpability under the rubric of reckless negligence.
Article 568 was cited and its text applied to the general proposition that acts which, if done with malice, would constitute a grave crime, may, when done through reckless negligence, attract specified criminal penalties in lesser degrees. The court observed that the practical application of article 568 depends on the seriousness of the underlying act and whether malice is present, and that nomenclature (e.g., “homicide by reckless negligence,” “falsification of documents by reason of reckless negligence”) is appropriately used in analogous cases.
To support the proposition that falsification by reckless negligence is legally recognized, the court referred to prior Spanish-era jurisprudence and decisions under the Spanish Penal
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 5036)
Facts of the Case
- On May 31, 1906, Luciano Maleza, identified as treasurer of the municipality of Sevilla, Province of Bohol, certified an account of the same date showing payments for carpenters and day laborers who worked on the municipal building during 1903 and 1904, and the cost of certain packages of nails used therein.
- The certified account amounted to P249.35 and was approved by a resolution of the municipal council.
- Maleza certified that the services were rendered as stated, were necessary for the public interest, and that the articles purchased had been recorded in the municipal register.
- Gabriel Adlaon’s signature appears at the foot of the document, indicating he had received the said amount as the balance due of a former account.
- In truth, Maleza did not state accurate facts: the money was drawn and paid to Luciano Maleza himself, who had been commissioned by P. Cayetano Bastes to collect and receive the amount loaned by Bastes to the municipal president and treasurer of Sevilla in 1903.
- Adlaon, with reckless negligence, also failed to tell the truth: he stated he had received the money when in reality neither was the money paid for the carpenters’ work nor was it received by him.
Procedural History
- A complaint was filed by the provincial fiscal charging Luciano Maleza and Gabriel Adlaon with the crime of falsification of a public document by reason of reckless negligence.
- Counsel for the accused demurred to the complaint, on grounds that:
- The facts alleged did not constitute a crime;
- The complaint was not drawn according to law; and
- If the facts did constitute a crime, the complaint would be charging two crimes under the same pleading.
- On October 7, the court below sustained the demurrer, holding that the facts did not constitute the crime charged; the trial judge stated that “there neither exists, nor can there exist, any such crime as falsification of a public document by reason of reckless negligence.”
- The provincial fiscal appealed the order sustaining the demurrer to the higher court.
Legal Issue Presented
- Whether falsification of a public document “by reason of reckless negligence” is a cognizable crime under the Penal Code provisions applicable in the Islands, such that the facts alleged could sustain a criminal charge for that offense.
Applicable Statutory Provision Quoted
- Article 568 of the Penal Code (as presented in the decision) is quoted in full:
- "He who shall execute through reckless negligence an act that, if done with malice, would constitute a grave crime, shall be punished with the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum degree to prision correccional in its minimum degree, and with arresto mayor in its minimum and medium degrees if it shall constitute a less grave crime. 'He who in violation of the regulations shall commit a crime through simple imprudence or negligen