SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 217680, May 30, 2016
FELIX L. ARRIOLA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
MENDOZA, J.:
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari, filed by petitioner Felix L. Arriola (Arriola), seeking to reverse and set aside the September 15, 2014 Decision1 and the March 6, 2015 Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 34921, which affirmed the Consolidated Judgment,3 dated April 12, 2012, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 17, Manila, in twenty one (21) falsification of public document cases.
The Antecedents
Petitioner Arriola and Ma. Theresa Tabuzo (Tabuzo), a.k.a. Girlie Moore (Tabuzo) were indicted for twenty-one (21) counts of Falsification of Public Document, defined and penalized under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). The 21 separate Informations4 filed against Arriola and Tabuzo were consolidated before the RTC and docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 03-219432 to 03-219452.
Arriola voluntarily surrendered and was allowed to post bail for his provisional liberty.5 When arraigned on May 27, 2004, he entered a plea of not guilty to the charges.6 Meanwhile, Tabuzo was finally apprehended on June 14, 2004 and upon arraignment, she also pleaded not guilty to the charges.7 Tabuzo was subsequently released on the basis of a personal bail which she posted on November 5, 20048. During the pre-trial for Arriola, the parties stipulated, among others, that he was an employee of the Manila City Hall.9 The pre-trial for Tabuzo was terminated10 because of her non-appearance. Considering that Tabuzo absconded, trial in absentia proceeded against her.
As synthesized by the RTC, the facts are as follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
In the year 2002, Gregg Business Agency, a local accounting firm, needed to procure community tax certificates (CTCs) for twenty one (21) of its clients. It then appeared that Rosalinda Pagapong (Pagapong), its Liaison Officer, was instructed by the owner to coordinate with a certain "Girlie Moore" to obtain the same. This was the same "Girlie Moore" who personally visited the accounting firm on January 17, 2002 to get the names of the clients after receiving a total amount of P38,500.00 to process the CTCs. She promised that she will deliver the CTCs by January 19, 2002.The Ruling of the RTC
However, it was only on January 31, 2002, after frequent follow-ups, that Pagapong was able to obtain from "Girlie Moore" the CTCs. They met at the Inner Court of the Manila City Hall located at the ground floor. A soon as Pagapong received the CTCs, she proceeded to the Releasing Area of the Office of the City Treasurer to secure an Order of Payment and presented the CTCs as a requirement. It was at such instance that, upon verification, the CTCs were found to be fake or falsified. Pagapong was thereafter subjected to investigation at the Office of the City Treasurer.
At around 4:30 in the afternoon of the same day, Liberty M. Toledo, then the City Treasurer of Manila, was apprised of the falsified CTCs with Serial Nos. 15492830 to 15492850 found in the possession of Pagapong. The CTCs bearing the same serial numbers were counter-checked from the files of the Office of the City Treasurer and were found to have been actually stamped as "UNEMPLOYED" under "MANILA, CLASS A - ONLY," having been issued to unemployed residents of the City of Manila for a fee of P5.00 each. Further verification from the records disclosed that the CTCs with the same serial numbers were requisitioned by and issued to Felix Arriola, Local Treasury Operations Officer I of the Office of the City Treasurer of Manila. A subsequent inquiry with Pagapong revealed that the CTCs were obtained from "Girlie Moore." Another verification with the Department of Public Services (DPS) revealed that the woman who posed as "Girlie Moore" was actually Ma. Theresa Tabuzo, then employed as Manila Aide I assigned at District 4 of the City of Manila.
The requisition of Community Tax Certificates in the name of accountable officer Felix L. Arriola was the subject of stipulation between the prosecution and the defense per Order, dated September 20, 2006 which stated, in lieu of the intended testimony of prosecution witness Priscilla M. Panganiban, OIC of the Accountable Forms Section of the Office of the City Treasurer of Manila, viz:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryThe supposed presentation of prosecution witness Evelyn Uy was considered waived in view of her non-appearance during the hearing of April 16, 2009.xxx xxx xxx xxx
2. x x x that on January 18, 2002, accused Felix Arriola was issued one thousand pieces of Community Tax Certificates "A" as evidenced by his signature on the Requisition Form dated January 18, 2002;
3. x x x per Accountable Forms Control Card, accused Felix Arriola was issued Community Tax Certificates "A" on January 18, 2002, one thousand pieces, with Serial Nos. 15492401 to 15493400, inclusive;
4. that accused Felix Arriola remitted on January 21, 2002 the triplicate copies of the Community Tax Certificate "A" Nos. 15492601 to 15492900, which were issued to him on January 18, 2002; and
5. x x x the triplicate copies of the Community Tax Certificate Nos. 15492801 to 15492850 were remitted by accused Felix Arriola on January 21, 2002 and these were all Class A Community Tax Certificates.cralawredxxxx
For his defense, accused Felix L. Arriola interposed the defense of denial.
Accused Arriola averred that he is presently employed as Revenue Examiner of the Office of the City Treasurer of Manila tasked with the duty of computing business taxes and collecting tax deficiencies. In the course of his employment as such, he denied having known the person of Ma. Theresa Tabuzo nor of having participated in the falsification of CTCs which specifically implicated Ma. Theresa Tabuzo.
In the year 2002, he admitted to have occupied the position of an accountable officer who held the responsibility of requisitioning CTCs. He had five (5) employees then under him who issued the CTCs to individual taxpayers and it was to them that he gave the CTC booklets for such purpose. Such booklets were under Class "A" at the cost of P5.00 each. He further averred that after receiving the amount of P250.00 from each booklet from the collectors, he immediately remitted the same to the Office of the City Treasurer.
On January 28, 2002, he recounted that Community Tax Certificate No. 15492830 was issued by Elena Ronquillo as the booklet which contained the same was given to said Elena Ronquillo. The booklets which were returned to him no longer contained the originals thereof as what was returned were the duplicate and triplicate copies; hence, he had no control in the issuance of the originals. From his assessment of the duplicate and triplicate copies of the booklets, he found no unusual alterations of any portions thereof. When he was thus summoned for questioning by Ms. Rosalie Reyes, OIC of the Administrative Division, he denied any implication in the issuance of falsified CTCs. He likewise denied having written the entries in the questioned CTCs. He endeavored to ask Elena Ronquillo of the purported anomaly but the latter also denied knowledge of the same. He likewise denied having known Rosalinda Pagapong.11cralawred
WHEREFORE, the Appeal is hereby DENIED. The Consolidated Judgment dated 12 April 2012 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 17, in Criminal Case Nos. 03-219433-03-219452, is AFFIRMED.Arriola moved for reconsideration of the September 15, 2014 decision, but his motion was denied by the CA in its March 6, 2015 Resolution.
SO ORDERED.13cralawred
The Court's RulingISSUESA. The evidence for the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of petitioner beyond reasonable doubt.14ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
B. The authorities cited to support the conviction of petitioner are not applicable.15cralawred
The Court cannot fully agree with the RTC and the CA that the foregoing pieces of circumstantial evidence inexorably led to the conclusion that the petitioner falsified the subject CTCs.
1) That on January 18, 2002, Arriola requisitioned from the Accountable Forms Section of the Office of the City Treasurer of Manila the issuance of One Thousand (1,000) pieces of Class A CTCs as evidenced by his signature appearing on the Requisition Slip,22 dated January 18, 2002, marked as Exhibit "J" for the prosecution; 2) That as shown in the Accountable Forms Control Card,23 marked as Exhibit "K" for the prosecution, Arriola was issued One Thousand (1,000) pieces of Class A CTCs with inclusive control numbers from 15492401 to 15493400; 3) That Class A CTCs were issued only to unemployed residents of the City of Manila for a standard fee of P5.00 each; 4) That on January 21, 2002, Arriola remitted the amount of P1,500.00 representing the collection for the issued Class A CTC Nos. 15492601 to 15492900 as well as the triplicate copies thereof; 5) That the collection for the triplicate copies of CTC Nos. 15492830 to 1549285024 were among those remitted by Arriola on January 21, 2002 and these were all Class A CTCs; 6) That on January 31, 2002, Tabuzo delivered to Rosalinda Pagapong (Pagapong), the Liaison Officer of Gregg Business Agency, the CTCs with control numbers 15492830 to 15492850, now categorized as Class B CTCs because a higher fee was charged for each CTC ranging from P143.00 to P5,005.00, depending on the declared taxable income of the taxpayers. 7) That Gregg Business Agency paid Tabuzo the amount of P38,500.00 for securing the latter CTCs; 8) That the CTCs found in the possession of Pagapong were fake as the CTCs bearing the same control numbers had already been issued to unemployed residents of Manila per files of the Office of the City Treasurer.
Co-accused Ma. Theresa Tabuzo, being a mere Manila Aide l from the Department of Public Service, could not be isolated for having alone committed the crimes charged. Obviously, she has no direct hand in the requisitioning and issuance of community tax certificates from the Office of the City Treasurer. An insider would have accomplished the falsifications. It would, therefore, summon a conspiratorial act to accomplish the misdeed.The conclusion by the RTC that Arriola was the perpetrator of the falsification simply because the booklet, which contained the Class A CTCs bearing control numbers 15492830 to 15492850, was among those issued to him upon his request was speculative. It must be stressed that the subject CTCs found in the possession of Pagapong were different from, and were mere replicas or imitations of, the Class A CTCs with Serial Numbers 15492830 to 15492850. This is evident from the fact that the Class A CTCs were already issued to the unemployed residents of Manila on January 21, 2002 while those handed over by Tabuzo to Pagapong were issued much later or on January 28, 2002. Not a shred of definitive evidence was proffered by the prosecution to prove that Arriola, between the time he received the booklets of CTCs on January 18, 2002 and before their issuance to the unemployed residents of Manila, had the Class A CTCs with control numbers 15492830 to 15492850 duplicated or copied and that, thereafter, supplied the details written on the CTCs found in the possession of Pagapong. There is absolutely no proof of what transpired during that interval. The prosecution, in effect, asked the courts merely to guess or to surmise that A must have falsified the Class A CTCs during such interregnum.
With the connection of accused Felix L. Arriola with the Cash Division of the Office of the City Treasurer of Manila, it did not take a fertile imagination to extend his complicity of the crime to that of co-accused Ma. Theresa Tabuzo.xxxx
In this case, the intolerable delay in the delivery of subject CTCs by accused Ma. Theresa Tabuzo to Gregg Business Agency could only explain her dependency on the complicity of another connected with the Office of the City Treasurer. As already adverted to, she could not possibly commit the crimes alone. It then highly appeared that the falsification was traced to the accountability of accused Felix L. Arriola who, by his own sordid means, must have duplicated the Class-A CTCs with serial numbers 15492830 - check to 15492850-check to misrepresent them as Class-B CTCs.30ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary[Emphases Supplied]
xxx And where there is a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of an accused, he must be acquitted even though his innocence may be questioned, for it is not sufficient for the proof to establish a probability, even though strong, that the fact charged is more likely to be true than the contrary. Proof beyond reasonable doubt, more than mere likelihood, requires moral certainty - a certainty that convinces and satisfies the reason and conscience of those who are to act upon it.36cralawredWHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.
Endnotes:
1 Penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, with Associate Justice Elihu A. YbaƱez and Associate Justice Carmelita S. Manahan, concurring; rollo, pp. 90-103.
2 Id. at 105-106.
3 Penned by Acting Presiding Judge Ma. Theresa Dolores C. Gomez-Estoesta; id. at 75-88.
4 Records, pp. 2-43.
5 Id. at 102.
6 Id. at 139,
7 Id. at 186.
8 Id. at 189.
9 Id. at 275.
10 Id. at 308.
11 Id. at 78-81.
12 Id. at 620-630.
13Rollo, p. 102.
14 Id. at 11.
15 Id. at 15.
16Libuit v. People, 506 Phil. 591, 599 (2005).
17Cornes v. Leal Realty Centrum Co., Inc., 582 Phil. 528, 549 (2008).
18People v. Ayola, 416 Phil. 861, 871 (2001).
19People v. Sinco, 408 Phil. 1, 12 (2001).
20People v. Limpangog, 444 Phil. 691, 709 (2003).
21Rollo, p. 81.
22 Records, p. 642.
23 Id. at 643-644.
24 Id. at 631-637.chanrobleslaw
25 Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, People v. Canlas, 423 Phil. 665, 677 (2001).
26People v. Flores, 389 Phil. 532, 541 (2000).
27People v. Abillar, 400 Phil. 245, 249 (2000).
28 TSN, dated August 17, 2006, pp. 17-20.
29Rollo, p. 81.
30 Id. at 84-85.
31People v. Monje, 438 Phil. 716, 733 (2002).
32People v. Ayola, supra note 18, at 873-874.
33People v. Galvez, 548 Phil. 436, 470 (2007).
34People v. Canlas, supra note 25, at 684-685.
35Crisostomo v. Sandiganbayan, 495 Phil. 718 (2005).
36Ambagan v. People, G.R. Nos. 204481-82, October 14, 2015.