SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 221857, August 16, 2017
JESUS O. TYPOCO, JR., Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
G.R. No. 222020
NOEL D. REYES, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PERALTA, J.:
Before this Court are consolidated petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision1 dated October 15, 2015, and Resolution2 dated December 8, 2015 of the Sandiganbayan (SB) in SB-11-CRM-0159 finding petitioners Jesus O. Typoco, Jr. (Typoco) and Noel D. Reyes (Reyes) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Falsification of Public Document defined and penalized under Article 171, paragraphs (5) and (6) of the Revised Penal Code.
The factual antecedents are as follows:
Petitioners and their co-accused Aida B. Pandeagua (Pandeagua) and Angelina H. Cabrera (Cabrera) were charged with Falsification of Public Documents defined and penalized under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code. Petitioners were found guilty as charged, but their co-accused Pandeagua and Cabrera were acquitted for insufficiency of evidence. Also, the petitioners and the aforementioned accused, together with Arnulfo G. Salagoste (Salagoste), were charged with Violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act (R.A.) 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, but all the accused were acquitted of the charge.3
The instant petitions review the conviction of the petitioners of the crime of falsification, hence, the discussion will merely focus on the charge of falsification. The accusatory portion of the Amended Information for falsification states:
That on or about 21 April 2005, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in Camarines Norte, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, Jesus O. Typoco, Jr., Salary Grade 30; Noel D. Reyes, Salary Grade 22; and Aida B. Pandeagua, Salary Grade 9, holding the position of Governor, OIC-General Service Office, and Buyer II, respectively, all public officers, taking advantage of their public positions, acting together, conspiring and confederating with one another and with one Angelina H. Cabrera, owner of Cabrera's Drugstore and Medical Supply, did then and there falsify Purchase Order No. 0628 involving the purchase of various medicine by the Provincial Government by changing its original date from April 21, 2005 to May 20, 2005 in order to conceal that an order has been (sic) made with Cabrera's Drugstore and Medical Supply prior to the bidding conducted on May 18, 2005 to the damage and prejudice of the Provincial Government.When arraigned for the charge of falsification, petitioners and their co-accused Pandeagua and Cabrera pleaded not guilty to the offense charged. At the pre-trial conference of the two cases which were consolidated, petitioners and their co-accused admitted their respective official capacities as public officers at the time of the commission of the offense as contained in the Pre-Trial Order:
CONTRARY TO LAW.4
I. STATEMENT OF ADMITTED FACTS:Thereafter, joint trial on the merits ensued. To prove its case, the prosecution presented the testimony of Nemia Y. Noora (Noora), State Auditor III of the Commission on Audit (COA), assigned in Daet, Camarines Norte. She testified on the results of the post-audit conducted by their office relative to the transactions of the provincial government of Camarines Norte which included the purchase of medicines from Cabrera Drugstore and Medical Supplies (CDMS).6 The testimony of Provincial Accountant Myrna de Velez Sendon was dispensed with in view of the stipulations between the parties as to the authenticity of some documents and as to the lack of personal knowledge of witness on the execution of the documents.7 On the other hand, the defense presented the respective judicial affidavits of petitioners and their co-accused.8
"The accused individually admitted their respective official capacities as public officers at the time of the alleged commission of the offenses charged as follows:all of the Provicial Government of Camarines Norte, while accused Angelina H. Cabrera was a private individual during that same period of time.
- Jesus O. Typo co, Jr. - Governor;
- Noel D. Reyes - Officer-in-Charge, General Services Office;
- Aida B. Pandeagua - Buyer II, General Services Office; and
- Arnulfo G. Salagoste - Provincial Health Officer
x x x5
"x x x on the disbursement for payment of medicines for Medical Indigency Program amounting to P1,649,735.00 showed that:An annual financial audit on the Provincial Government of Camarines Norte was conducted by the COA. The results of the audit were embodied in its Annual Audit Report27 which revealed that: "(1) there was no attached list of individual recipients to the voucher, (2) the date of inspection was changed, and (3) Sales Invoice No. 4325 and PO were undated/apparently changed."28
- There are alterations in the Purchase Order and Purchase Request
- The dates of Delivery Receipt and Acceptance in the Sales Invoice were tampered vis-a vis in the Inspection and Acceptance Report of the agency.
- List of individual recipients of the drugs and medicines are not submitted to us.26
1. the respective dates of the Purchase Order, the Inspection and Acceptance Report, and the Sales Invoice were tampered/altered as there were erasures therein;Petitioner Typoco did not submit any reply/comment to the audit report despite his request for an extension of one (1) month.
2. the list of the individual recipients of the drugs and medicines were not submitted and unnumbered;
3. the Request and Issue Slip (RIS) that was requested by Dr. Arnulfo Salagoste and approved by former Governor Jesus O. Typoco, Jr. was undated and unnumbered;
4. the Report Utilization29 that was certified by accused Dr. Arnulfo Salagoste and Engr. Noel O. Reyes and approved by accused Governor Jesus O. Typoco, Jr. as to its accuracy and correctness was undated so that the audit team had no way to determine when the delivered medicines were actually disposed; and
5. there was no request/invitation from the BAC for the COA to attend the bidding.30
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:The Sandiganbayan found no civil liability against the accused, considering that the procured medicines were delivered by CDMS as evidenced by Sales Invoice No. 0628 dated April 28, 2005; the medicines were inspected by the Property Inspector as per Inspection and Acceptance Report; and there being no evidence of under delivery or overpricing or damage. Nonetheless, considering that the list of intended recipients were not submitted, the Sandiganbayan Decision was without prejudice to whatever liability that may arise for failure to deliver the subject medicines to their intended recipients.SO ORDERED.34
- In SB-U-CRM-0159 - finding the accused JESUS O. TYPOCO, JR. and NOEL D. REYES GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of falsification of public document defined and penalized under paragraphs (5) and (6) of Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code as charged in the Information and, with the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law and without any mitigating or aggravating circumstance, hereby sentencing each of them to suffer the indeterminate penalty of TWO (2) YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of prision correccional, as minimum, to EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor, as maximum, with accessories thereof and to pay a fine of TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P200,000.00) with costs against the accused, and ACQUITTING accused AIDA B. PANDEAGUA and ANGELINA H. CABRERA for insufficiency of evidence with cost de oficio.
- In SB-11-CRM-0160 - ACQUITTING the accused JESUS O. TYPOCO, JR., ARNULFO G. SALAGOSTE, NOEL D. REYES, AIDA B. PANDEAGUA and ANGELINA H. CABRERA with cost de oficio.
THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, FIRST DIVISION, GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE PETITIONER GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AS IT IS NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND PERTINENT JURISPRUDENCE.In G.R. No. 221857, petitioner Typoco anchored his petition on the following assigned errors:
THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, FIRST DIVISION, GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING "TO THE DAMAGE AND PREJUDICE OF THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT" AS ALLEGED IN THE INFORMATION UNDER SB-11-CRM-0519, NEGATING AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF CRIMINAL INTENT TO FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENT TO WHICH PETITIONER WAS FOUND GUILTY AS IT IS NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND PERTINENT JURISPRUDENCE.
THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, FIRST DIVISION, ERRED IN FINDING THAT PETITIONER CONSPIRED WITH HIS CO-ACCUSED TYPOCO, JR. THERE BEING NO CRIME COMMITTED TO CONSPIRE INTO WHICH IS NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND PERTINENT JURISPRUDENCE.38
THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, FIRST DIVISION, GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE PETITIONER GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT WHICH IS NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND/OR WITH THE APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT.Petitioner Reyes asserted in his petition that the correction was made on the subject PO without criminal intent. And that, in as much as the information for the crime of falsification of public document which includes damage and prejudice to the Provincial Government bolsters lack of intent to falsify, the absence of the same should have resulted to the acquittal of the petitioner on reasonable doubt. Petitioner Reyes averred that the acquittal of accused Pandeagua who was the one who actually made the act of alteration negates the finding that he was a co-conspirator and broke the alleged chain of conspiracy. He further claimed that the only purpose of the alleged alteration on the date appearing on the PO is no other than to reflect the truth. The error happened because the PO was merely copied from the PR and through the "copy and paste" command from the computer, all the encoded entries in the PR were transferred to the PO.
THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, FIRST DIVISION, GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE PETITIONER CONSPIRED WITH HIS CO-ACCUSED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT WHICH IS NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND/OR WITH THE APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT.
THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, FIRST DIVISION, GRAVELY ERRED IN THE NON-APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE LAID DOWN IN ARIAS AND MAGSUCI CASE WHICH IS NOT IN ACCORD WITH THE APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT.
THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, FIRST DIVISION, GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING "TO THE DAMAGE AND PREJUDICE OF THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT" AS ALLEGED IN THE INFORMATION UNDER SB-11-CRM-0519, IN THE APPRECIATION OF THE CASE WHICH IS NOT IN ACCORD WITH THE LAW AND APPLICABLE PERTINENT DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT.39
Article 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastic minister. - The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed P5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer, employee, or notary who, taking advantage of his official position, shall falsify a document by committing any of the following acts:The act of "altering true dates" requires that: (a) the date mentioned in the document is essential; and (b) the alteration of the date in a document must affect either the veracity of the document or the effects thereof.50x x x x
5. Altering true dates;
6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning;
x x x
In this regard, the Court takes note that accused Aida Pandeagua admitted that she was the public officer who prepared Purchase Request (PR) No. 0628 and PO No. 0628 on April 21, 2005, and Disbursement Voucher (DV) No. 101-04-04-2398 on April 26, 2005; that at the time she prepared said documents, she did not find anything irregular or mistake in the respective dates that she had typewritten therein until her superior in the GSO, accused Noel Reyes, instructed her to change the original date of the subject PO from "4/21/05" to "5/20/05" when it was returned to their office on May 23, 2005; and that at the time she prepared the subject PO on April 21, 2005, there was yet no bidding for the said purchase of medicines.It was sufficiently shown from the evidence adduced that PO No. 0628 was actually prepared on April 21,2005 prior to the conduct of public bidding, and that petitioner Reyes gave the directive to change the original date in the subject PO only on May 23, 2005, after the conduct of public bidding. Hence, the changing of the date in the subject PO from April 21, 200553 to May 20, 200554 was not a mere correction but an act of falsification to make it appear that a bidding was conducted prior to ordering the medicines from CDMS.
Undoubtedly, this alteration or change in the original date of the subject PO constitutes falsification of official document because it affected not only its veracity but it also changed the time when it was prepared and approved to make the document speak something false, i.e., that said PO was approved on "5-20-05" by accused Jesus O. Typoco, Jr. in favor of Cabrera Drugstore and Medical Supplies and after a public bidding was conducted on May 18, 2005, when in truth and fact the PO in question was already approved on April 21, 2005 without any public bidding. Hence, the crime of falsification of document by a public official under paragraphs 5 and 6 of Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code has been sufficiently established to sustain a verdict of conviction.52
This Court's observation was properly discussed by the Office of the Ombudsman in its comment to the petitions, thus:
- The date of inspection as stated in the Inspection and Acceptance Report was changed from "4-28-05" to "5-23-05". In the same document, the date of acceptance was also tampered and changed from "5-20-05" to "5-23-05". As in fact, there appears a note on the face of the disbursement voucher which reads: "Note: Supporting paper #15 inspection report inspected 5/20/05".
- The date of the Sales Invoice was changed from "4-28-05" to "5-23-05". The original date is the same as the original date of inspection. The new date appearing on the document is now "5-28-2005" which also means that the supplies were delivered on "5-28-2005". This alteration makes the new inspection date "5-23-05" questionable as it would be impossible to inspect the medicines on "5-23-05" if the delivery had been made on "5-28-2005".
For his part, petitioner Reyes claims that he ordered the alteration of the date in the purchase order "to reflect the truth." Aside from this bare allegation, however, Reyes has not presented any feasible explanation for all the other alterations and irregularities attending the documents supporting the transaction. For one, he has not explained why the disbursement voucher in the name of Cabrera Drugstores and Medical Supplies was also dated 26 April 2005, when the bidding was allegedly conducted on 18 May 2005. For another, he has not explained why the dates in the inspection and acceptance report and the sales invoice also had to be altered, if the original date indicated in the purchase order was a mistake. On the contrary, the dates in all the documents submitted by the local government of Camarines Norte to the COA clearly show that the order and delivery of machines transpired before the alleged conduct of bidding. It becomes utterly obvious that the alteration made on the purchase order and the other documents was for the sole purpose of making it appear that the order and delivery of medicines were done after the alleged bidding on 18 May 2005. The truth, however, is that an order had been placed as early as 21 April 2005, without the requisite public bidding.61Petitioner Typoco invokes the Arias doctrine which states that "all heads of offices have to rely to a reasonable extent on their subordinates and on the good faith of those who prepare bids, purchase supplies, or enter into negotiations."62
We can, in retrospect, argue that Arias should have probed records, inspected documents, received procedures, and questioned persons. It is doubtful if any auditor for a fairly-sized office could personally do all these things in all vouchers presented for his signature. The Court would be asking for the impossible. All heads of offices have to rely to a reasonable extent on their subordinates and on the good faith of those who prepare bids, purchase supplies, or enter into negotiations. If a department secretary entertains important visitors, the auditor is not ordinarily expected to call the restaurant about the amount of the bill, question each guest whether he was.present at the luncheon, inquire whether the correct amount of food was served, and otherwise personally look into the reimbursement voucher's accuracy, propriety, and sufficiency. There has to be some added reason why he should examine each voucher in such detail. Any executive head of even small government agencies or commissions can attest to the volume of papers that must be signed. x x x63 (Emphasis supplied)Simply put, when a matter is irregular on the document's face, so much so that a detailed examination becomes warranted, the Arias doctrine is unavailing.64 Petitioner Typoco, therefore cannot rely on the Arias doctrine because the falsification of the documents in it was not apparent. As discussed above, aside from the alteration in the subject PO, the other documents were also obviously tampered which could have not escaped his attention.
In this relation, it must be clarified that the ruling in Arias v. Sandiganbayan (Arias) cannot be applied to exculpate petitioners in view of the peculiar circumstances in this case which should have prompted them to exercise a higher degree of circumspection, and consequently, go beyond what their subordinates had prepared. In particular, the tampered dates on some of the RIVs, the incomplete certification by GSC SAO Mateo on the date of receipt of the CCIE items, the missing details on the Reports of Public Property Purchased and the fact that sixteen checks all dated January 15, 1992 were payable to PNP SSS should have aroused a reasonable sense of suspicion or curiosity on their part if only to determine that they were not approving a fraudulent transaction. x x x71As held in the case of Bacasmas v. Sandiganbayan, et al.72 when there are reasons for the heads of offices to further examine the documents in question, they cannot seek refuge by invoking the Arias doctrine:
Petitioners cannot hide behind our declaration in Arias v. Sandiganbayan charge just because they did not personally examine every single detail before they, as the final approving authorities, affixed their signatures to certain documents. The Court explained in that case that conspiracy was not adequately proven, contrary to the case at bar in which petitioners' unity of purpose and unity in the execution of an unlawful objective were sufficiently established. Also, unlike in Arias, where there were no reasons for the heads of offices to further examine each voucher in detail, petitioners herein, by virtue of the duty given to them by law as well as by rules and regulations, had the responsibility to examine each voucher to ascertain whether it was proper to sign it in order to approve and disburse the cash advance.The case of Cruz v. Sandiganbayan73 carved out an exception to the Arias doctrine, stating that:
Unlike in Arias, however, there exists in the present case an exceptional circumstance which should have prodded petitioner, if he were out to protect the interest of the municipality he swore to serve, to be curious and go beyond what his subordinates prepared or recommended. In fine, the added reason contemplated in Arias which would have put petitioner on his guard and examine the check/s and vouchers with some degree of circumspection before signing the same was obtaining in this case.Lastly, in criminal cases, to justify a conviction, the culpability of the accused must be established by proof beyond reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, as the accused enjoys a constitutionally enshrined disputable presumption of innocence. The court, in ascertaining the guilt of the accused, must, after having marshalled the facts and circumstances, reach a moral certainty as to the accused's guilt. Moral certainty is that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. Otherwise, where there is reasonable doubt, the accused must be acquitted.74
Endnotes:
** Additional Member in lieu of Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio, per Raffle dated August 16, 2017.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Rodolfo A. Ponferrada, with Associate Justices Efren N. De la Cruz and Rafael R. Lagos, concurring; rollo (G.R. No. 222020), pp. 26-55.
2Id. at 63-70.
3 The Sandiganbayan held that in spite of the evidence showing that there was violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 because the contract for the purchase of medicines was awarded without public bidding, the accused cannot be convicted of the said offense considering that "the offense charged is the act of falsifying" and "the offense proved is act of awarding the contract" without public bidding, thus the offense proved is not charged in the Information; id. at 53.
4Rollo (G.R. No. 222020), p. 72. (Emphasis ours)
5Id. at 28.
6Id. at 29.
7Id. at 30.
8Id. at 31-38.
9Id. at 39-42.
10 Exhibit "H," id. at 151.
11 Exhibit "G," id. at 150.
12 Exhibit "CC," id. at 164.
13 Exhibit "E," id. at 147.
14 Exhibit "M," id. at 156.
15 Exhibit "P," id. at 159.
16Rollo (G.R. No. 222020), p. 39.
17 Exhibit "7" - Cabrera, id. at 40.
18Id.
19Id.
20 Exhibit "K," id. at 154.
21Id. at 40.
22 Exhibit "Y," id. at 161.
23 Exhibit "X," id. at 160.
24Id. at 40.
25 Exhibit "A," id. at 84.
26Rollo (G.R. No. 222020), p. 40.
27 Exhibit "C," id. at 88.
28Rollo (G.R. No. 222020), p. 41.
29 Exhibit "O," id. at 158.
30Rollo (G.R. No. 222020), p. 41.
31Rollo (G.R. No. 221857), pp. 86-98.
32Rollo (G.R. No. 222020), pp. 252-253.
33Rollo (G.R. No. 221857), pp. 186-192.
34Id. at 54.
35Rollo (G.R. No. 222020), pp. 3-25.
36Rollo (G.R. No. 221857), pp. 3-26.
37Id. at 313-314.
38Rollo (G.R. No. 222020), p. 7.
39Rollo (G.R No. 221857), pp. 7-8.
40Rollo (G.R No. 222020), pp. 245-266.
41Rollo (G.R No. 221857), pp. 353-363.
42Rollo (G.R No. 222020), pp. 268-277.
43Rivera v. People, 749 Phil. 124, 141 (2014).
44Id.
45 The factual findings of the Sandiganbayan are conclusive upon this Court, except under any of the following circumstances:
(1) The conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmise and conjectures;
(2) The inference made is manifestly an error or founded on a mistake;
(3) There is grave abuse of discretion;
(4) The judgment is based on misapprehension of facts; and
(5) The findings of fact are premised on want of evidence and are contradicted by evidence on record. [Sanchez v. People, 716 Phil. 397, 403 (2013)].
46Jaca v. People, 702 Phil. 210, 238 (2013); SPO1 LihayLihay v. People, 715 Phil. 722, 728 (2013).
47 Amended Information, rollo (G.R. No. 222020), pp. 71-73.
48Garong v. People, G.R. No. 172539, November 16, 2016.
49Id., citing People v. Santiago Uy, 53 O.G. 7236 and U.S. v. Inosanto, 20 Phil. 376 (1911).
50 Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Book II, 13th Ed., pp. 202-203.
51Rollo (G.R. No. 222020), p. 204.
52Rollo (G.R. No. 221857), p. 46.
53Supra note 12.
54 Exhibit "DD," rollo (G.R. No. 222020), p. 165.
55Rivera v. People, supra note 43, at 153.
56 Judicial Affidavit of Pandeagua, p. 3, rollo (G.R. No. 221857), p. 282.
57Galeos v. People, 657 Phil. 500, 526 (2011).
58Ambil, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, 669 Phil. 32, 57 (2011).
59Galeos v. People, supra note 57, at 521, citing Regidor, Jr. v. People, 598 Phil. 714, 732 (2009); Lastrilla v. Granda, 516 Phil. 667, 688 (2006); Lumancas v. Mas, 400 Phil. 785, 798 (2000), and People v. Po Giok To, 96 Phil. 913, 918 (1955).
60Fullero v. People, 559 Phil. 524, 542 (2007).
61Rollo (G.R No. 222020), p. 258. (Underlining supplied)
62Rivera v. People, supra note 43, at 151.
63Garcia v. Office of the Ombudsman, 747 Phil. 445, 464 (2014).
64Id.
65 Sandiganbayan Decision, rollo (G.R. No. 222020), p. 41.
66Id. at 40.
67 576 Phil. 345, 355 (2008).
68Ombudsman v. Delos Reyes, Jr., 745 Phil. 366, 384 (2014).
69Rivera v. People, supra note 43, at 152.
70Supra note 46.
71SPO1 LihayLihay v. People, id. at 731. (Underscoring ours).
72 713 Phil. 639, 662 (2013).
73 504 Phil. 321, 334 (2005).
74Rivera v. People, supra note 43, at 153-154.