THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 241164, August 14, 2019
CRIZALINA B. TORRES, PETITIONER, v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
A. REYES, JR., J.:
This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 filed by Crizalina B. Torres (petitioner) under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeks the reversal of the Decision2 dated February 22, 2018 and Resolution3 dated August 1, 2018, both issued by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 39386.
The charges involved the petitioner's alleged falsification of the following: (1) August 2010 Daily Time Record (DTR); (2) September 2010 DTR; (3) October 2010 DTR; (4) November 2010 DTR; (5) Application for Leave for October4 to 29, 201 0; (6) and Application for Leave for November 8 to December 10, 2010. She allegedly falsified the respective signatures of officers on her DTRs, making it appear that they verified the same and that she reported for work despite not doing so. Also, she supposedly altered the date of filing of her Applications for Leave, making it appear that they were filed on September 17, 2010 instead of January 18, 2011.10 The petitioner pleaded not guilty during her arraignment and after the termination of the pretrial conference, trial on the merits ensued.11CRIMINAL CASE NO. 13-300681
That in or about the month of August 2010 or sometime prior or subsequent thereto in the City of Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above-named accused, CRIZALINA B. TORRES, a low ranking public officer, being then an Intelligence Agent I of the National Bureau of Investigation-Western Mindanao Regional Office (NBI-WERMO) (sic) with Salary Grade 10, taking advantage of her position and committing the offense in relation to office, did then and there willingly, unlawfully and feloniously falsified or caused to be falsified her Daily Time Record (DTR) for the month of August 2010, a public document, by counterfeiting or imitating NBI-WENRO (sic) Assistant Regional Director (ARD) Embido's signature thereby making it appear that ARD Embido verified her DTR as to the prescribed office hours, when in truth and in fact accused knew fully well that ARD Embido did not verify and sign her DTR, to the damage and prejudice of public interest.
Contrary to law.4 (Emphasis in the original)CRIMINAL CASE NO. 13-300682
That in or about the month of September 2010 or sometime prior or subsequent thereto in the City of Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above-named accused, CRIZALINA B. TORRES, a low ranking public officer, being then an Intelligence Agent I of the National Bureau of Investigation-Western Mindanao Regional Office (NBI-WERMO) (sic) with Salary Grade 10, taking advantage of her position and committing the offense in relation to office, did then and there willingly, unlawfully and feloniously falsified or caused to be falsified her Daily Time Record (DTR) for the month of September 2010, a public document, by making it appear that she. reported at the NBI-WENRO (sic) for all working days of September, when in truth and in fact, accused knew fully well that on 21 September 2010 she left the office and never reported back to work and by falsifying the signature of NBI-WEMRO Assistant Regional Director (ARD) Oscar L. Embido, accused made it appear that ARD Embido verified her DTR as to the prescribed office hours when in truth and in fact he did not, to the dama1e and prejudice of public interest.
Contrary to law.5 (Emphasis in the original)CRIMINAL CASE NO. 13-300683
That in or about the month of October 2010 or sometime prior or subsequent thereto in the City of Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above-named accused, CRIZALINA B. TORRES, a low ranking public officer, being then an Intelligence Agent I of the National Bureau of Investigation-Western Mindanao Regional Office (NBI-WERMO) (sic) with Salary Grade 10, taking advantage of her position and committing the offense in relation to office, did then and there willingly, unlawfully and feloniously falsified or caused to be falsified her Daily Time Record (DTR) for the month of October 2010, a public document, by making it appear that she reported at the NBI-WENRO (sic) for all working days of October, when in truth and in fact, accused knew fully well that on 21 September 2010 she left the office and never reported back to work and by counterfeiting or imitating the signature of NBI-WEMRO EX-O Vicente Essex E. Minguez, accused made it appear that EX-O Minguez verified her DTR as to the prescribed office hours for and in behalf of NBI-WEMRO Regional Director Manuel A. Almendares when in truth and in fact he did not, to the damage and prejudice of public interest.
Contrary to law.6 (Emphasis in the original)CRIMINAL CASE NO. 13-300684
That in or about the month of January 2011 or sometime prior or subsequent thereto in the City of Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above-named accused, CRIZALINA B. TORRES, a low ranking public officer, being then an Intelligence Agent I of the National Bureau of Investigation-Western Mindanao Regional Office (NBI-WERMO) (sic) with Salary Grade 10, taking advantage of her position and committing the offense in relation to office, did then and there willingly, unlawfully and feloniously falsified or. caused to be falsified her Application for Leave for 4 to 29 October 2010, a public document, by altering the true date of said application, thereby making it appear that she applied for a leave of absence on 17 September 2010, when in truth and in fact, accused knew fully well that she only applied and submitted her application for leave on 18 January 2011 or after she took her absences and by falsifying the signature of NBI-WEMRO Assistant Regional Director (ARD) Oscar L. Embido, accused made it appear that ARD Embido approved said application for leave when in truth and in fact he did not, to the damage and prejudice of public interest.
Contrary to law.7 (Emphasis in the original)CRIMINAL CASE NO. 13-300685
That in or about the month of November 2010 or sometime prior or subsequent thereto in the City of Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above-named accused, CRIZALINA B. TORRES, a low ranking public officer, being then an Intelligence Agent I of the National Bureau of Investigation-Western Mindanao Regional Office (NBI-WERMO) (sic) with Salary Grade 10, taking advantage of her position and committing the offense in relation to office, did then and there willingly, unlawfully and feloniously falsified or caused to be falsified her Daily Time Record (DTR) for the month of November 2010, a public document, by making it appear that she reported at the NBIWENRO (sic) for all working days of November, when in truth and in fact, accused knew fully well that on 21 September 2010 she left the office and never reported back to work and by counterfeiting or imitating the signature of NBI-WEMRO EX-O Vicente Essex E. Minguez, accused made it appear that EX-O Minguez verified her DTR as to the prescribed office hours for and in behalf of NBI-WEMRO Regional Director Manuel A. Almendares when in truth and in fact he did not, to the damage and prejudice of public interest.
Contrary to law.8 (Emphasis in the original)CRIMINAL CASE NO. 13-300686
That in or about the month of January 2011 or sometime prior or subsequent thereto in the City of Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above-named accused, CRIZALINA B. TORRES, a low ranking public officer, being then an Intelligence Agent I of the National Bureau of Investigation-Western Mindanao Regional Office (NBI-WERMO) (sic) with Salary Grade 10, taking advantage of her position and committing the offense in relation to office, did then and there willingly, unlawfully and feloniously falsified or caused to be falsified her Application for Leave for 8 November to 10 December 2010, a public document, by altering the true date of said application, thereby making it appear that she applied for a leave of absence on 17 September 2010, when in truth and in fact, accused knew fully well that she only applied and submitted her application for leave on 18 January 2011 or after she took her absences and by falsifying the signature of NBI-WEMRO Assistant Regional Director (ARD) Oscar L. Embido, accused made it appear that ARD Embido approved said application for leave when in truth and in fact he did not, to the damage and prejudice of public interest.
Contrary to law.9 (Emphasis in the original)
WHEREFORE, the court finds the accused, Crizalina B. Torres, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of six (6) counts of Falsification of Public Document under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code. Accordingly, there being neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances attendant herein and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, she is hereby sentenced as follows:The petitioner subsequently appealed the RTC 's Decision, arguing that there was no direct evidence presented by the prosecution that she authored and submitted the subject DTRs and applications for leave.SO ORDERED.21
- In Criminal Case No. 13-300681 - 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 and to pay a fine of FIVE HUNDRED PESOS (P500.00), without costs;
- In Criminal Case No. 13-300682 - 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 and to pay a fine of FIVE HUNDRED PESOS (P500.00), without costs;
- In Criminal Case No. 13-300683 - 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 and to pay a fine of FIVE HUNDRED PESOS (P500.00), without costs;
- In Criminal Case No. 13-300684 - 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 and to pay a fine of FIVE HUNDRED PESOS (P500.00), without costs;
- In Criminal Case No. 13-300685 - 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 and to pay a tine of FIVE HUNDRED PESOS (P500.00), without costs; and
- In Criminal Case No. 13-300686 - 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 and to pay a fine of FIVE HUNDRED PESOS (P500.00), without costs.
WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED and the assailed Decision dated 26 October 2016 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.Petitioner sought reconsideration of the assailed Decision, but the same was denied in assailed Resolution dated August 1, 2018.
SO ORDERED.22 (Emphasis in the original)
WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT RENDERED THE ASSAILED DECISION AND RESOLUTION, THE SAME NOT BEING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW OR WITH APPLICABLE JURISPRUDENCEMaintaining that the decision of the CA, along with the RTC, was made contrary to existing laws and jurisprudence, the petitioner argues that there is no direct evidence presented by the prosecution showing she caused the falsification and submission of the subject documents. She reiterates that none of the witnesses for the prosecution was able to categorically state that it was petitioner who submitted the subject DTRs and Applications for Leave with the NBI Personnel Division. The foregoing thus casts serious doubts as to the identity of the true perpetrator and her guilt for the crimes charged.
x x x Direct evidence is not a condition sine qua non to prove the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt. For in the absence of direct evidence, the prosecution may resort to adducing circumstantial evidence to discharge its burden. Crimes are usually committed in secret and under conditions where concealment is highly probable. If direct evidence is insisted on under all circumstances, the prosecution of vicious felons who commit heinous crimes in secret or secluded places will be hard, if not impossible, to prove. x x x25Certainly, in crimes involving the falsification of a public document, it is possible that secrecy and other surreptitious means may have been employed by the perpetrator precisely to conceal the true nature of a document he claims to be legitimate. In such a case, it is only logical and proper for the prosecution to resort to the presentation of circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct evidence to establish the guilt of the accused.
Art. 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 elements of falsification under the aforesaid provision are as follows: (1) the offender is a public officer, employee, or a notary public; (2) the offender takes advantage of his or her official position; and (3) The offender falsifies a document by committing any of the acts of falsification under Article 171 of the RPC.26
1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric;
2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate;
x x x x
4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts;
5. Altering true dates;
x x x
Very truly yours, (SGD) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG III Deputy Division Clerk of Court |
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 8-23.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Francisco and concurred in by Associate Justices Magdangal M. De Leon and Rodil V. Zalameda (now a Member of the Court); id. at 122-138.
3 Id. at 155-156.
4 Id. at 124.
5 Id. at 124-125.
6 Id. at 125.
7 Id. at 125-126.
8 Id. at 126-127.
9 Id. at 127.
10 Id. at 124-127.
11 Id. at 127.
12 Id. at 128-129.
13 Id. at 129.
14 Id. at 132.
15 Id. at 129.
16 Id.
17 Id. at 130.
18 Id. at 131.
19 Id.
20 Id. at 28-56.
21 Id. at 55-56.
22 Id. at 137.
23 Id. at 332-355.
24 762 Phil. 630 (2015).
25 Id. at 678-679.
26Malabanan v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 186329, August 2, 2017, 834 SCRA 21, 37-38.
27Fullero v. People of the Philippines, 559 Phil. 524, 539 (2007).
28Rollo, pp. 303-304.
29 Id. at 250-254.
30 Id. at 240.
31 Id. at 209.
32Isabelita vda de Daya v. Heirs of Gavino Robles, 612 Phil. 137, 144 (2009).
33 Sec. 1, Republic Act No. 4103, An Act to Provide for an Indeterminate Sentence and Parole for All Persons Convicted of Certain Crimes by The Courts of the Philippine Islands; To Create a Board of Indeterminate Sentence and to Provide Funds Therefor and for other Purposes.