FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 167671 September 3, 2008

RICARDO S. SANTOS, JR.
1
, petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE O T!E P!ILIPPINES
2
, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
CORONA, J."
In this petition for review on certiorari nder R!e "# of the R!es of Cort, petitioner Ricardo S.
Santos, $r. assai!s the $!% 2&, 2''" decision
(
and )pri! *, 2''# reso!tion
"
of the Cort of )ppea!s
+C),.
On Octo-er ., 1/&/, for separate infor0ations for 0a!versation of p-!ic fnds thr fa!sification of
p-!ic doc0ents were fi!ed in the Cort of First Instance
#
of Ri1a! +CFI,, 2ranch V, 3e1on Cit%
a4ainst petitioner and nine others.
&
These cases were doc5eted as Cri0ina! Case Nos. 36/*.(, 36
/*.", 36/*.* and 36/*...
*
)fter tria!, the CFI fond petitioner and his co6accsed 7edro
Ve!asco
.
4i!t% -e%ond reasona-!e do-t as principa!s of the co0p!e8 cri0e of 0a!versation thr
fa!sification of p-!ic doc0ents nder )rtic!es 21* and 1*1 of the Revised 7ena! Code +R7C,.
/
)!!
of the accsed who were convicted appea!ed the conso!idated decision
1'
of the CFI to the C).
9owever, a!! of the0 e8cept petitioner died drin4 the pendenc% of the appea!. In the dispositive
portion of its assai!ed decision, the C) he!d:
#!EREORE, the instant appea! is PARTIALL$ GRANTED. The assai!ed decision of the
then Cort of First Instance of Ri1a!, 2ranch V, 3e1on Cit%, in Cri0ina! Case;s< Nos. 36/*.(,
36/*.", 36/*.* and 36/*.., is here-% %ODIIED, in that the accsed6appe!!ant Ricardo S.
Santos, $r. is AC&'ITTED in Cri0ina! Case;s< Nos. 36/*.(, 36/*." and 36/*.., -t is he!d
4i!t% -e%ond reasona-!e do-t of the cri0e of F)=SIFIC)TION OF 7>2=IC DOC>?ENT, as
defined and pena!i1ed nder )rtic!e 1*2, para4raph 1, of the Revised 7ena! Code, in re!ation
to )rtic!e 1*1, para4raph 2, of the sa0e code 888
11
The C) he!d that petitioner was a principa! -% indce0ent,
12
-ased on the testi0on% of state
witness 9enr% Cr1
1(
that petitioner indced hi0 to si4n the trave! e8pense vocher +E8hi-it ))61,,
s-@ect of Cri0ina! Case No. 36/*.* in e8chan4e for receivin4 a share of the proceeds of the c!ai0
even if he was not entit!ed thereto.
7etitioner finds it incred!os that the C) -e!ieved the testi0on% of Cr1 with respect to AE8hi-it
))61A -t not Cr1Bs testi0on% with respect to AE8hi-its C, 9, I, D, E, E1 and E2.A
1"
9ence, petitioner
ar4es that the C) erred in findin4 hi0 4i!t%, as a principa! -% indce0ent, of fa!sification of a
p-!ic doc0ent.
De disa4ree.
The credi-i!it% of a witness is !eft pri0ari!% to the @d40ent of the tria! @d4e. 9e is in a vanta4e
position to assess the witnessB de0eanor, condct and attitde nder 4re!in4 e8a0ination -ecase
he has the direct opportnit% to o-serve the witness on the stand.
1#
The facta! findin4s of the
appe!!ate cort are a!so 4iven 4reat wei4ht especia!!% if in co0p!ete accord with the findin4s of the
!ower cort.
1&
In ho!din4 that the eva!ation of the testi0onies of witnesses 0st -e !eft to the tria!
cort as the a4enc% in the -est position to o-serve the witnessesB de0eanor on the witness
stand,
1*
the C) 0ere!% app!ied a we!!6sett!ed r!e. De find no reason to r!e otherwise.
The C) acFitted petitioner in Cri0ina! Case Nos. 36/*.(, 36/*." and 36/*.. after it fond:
;That< the testi0onies of -oth prosection witnesses, 9enr% Cr1 and To!entino C. ?endo1a
;did< not esta-!ish with 0ora! certaint% the c!pa-i!it% of the accsed6appe!!ant for the
fa!sification of the s-@ect trave! e8pense vochers.
1.
This prononce0ent did not state that Cr1 !ied. The C) 0ere!% stated that Cr1Bs testi0on% was
insfficient or inadeFate to sstain petitionerBs conviction for fa!sification in Cri0ina! Case Nos. 36
/*.(, 36/*." and 36/*... In Cri0ina! Case No. 36/*.* however, the C) fond Cr1Bs testi0on% in
re!ation to AE8hi-it ))61A sfficient to prove that petitioner co00itted the cri0e of fa!sification of
p-!ic doc0ents nder para4raph 1, )rtic!e 1*2 in re!ation to para4raph 2, )rtic!e 1*1 of the R7C.
Fa!sification of doc0ents nder para4raph 1 of )rtic!e 1*2 refers to fa!sification -% a private
individa! or a p-!ic officer or e0p!o%ee who did not ta5e advanta4e of his officia! position, of
p-!ic, private or co00ercia! doc0ents. Its e!e0ents are:
+1, that the offender is a private individa! or a p-!ic officer or e0p!o%ee who did not ta5e
advanta4e of his officia! positionG
+2, that he co00itted an% of the acts of fa!sification en0erated in )rtic!e 1*1G and
+(, that the fa!sification was co00itted in a p-!ic, officia! or co00ercia! doc0ent.
1/
7etitioner was a dis-rsin4 officer of the 2rea of =ands.
2'
9e was a p-!ic officia!. Dhi!e the CFI
did not state in its decision that petitioner too5 advanta4e of his position in the 4overn0ent in
co00ittin4 the cri0e, the C) 0ade a 0ore definite prononce0ent to this effect.
21
7etitionerBs
fnctions as dis-rsin4 officer did not inc!de the dt% to 0a5e, prepare or otherwise intervene in
the preparation of the fa!sified trave! e8pense vocher. 9is fnction was on!% to pa% pa%ees of
treasr% warrants and other cash vochers or pa%ro!!s.
22
Nonethe!ess, he too5 the !i-ert% of
intervenin4 in the preparation of the trave! e8pense vocher in Festion. The first e!e0ent for the
cri0e nder para4raph 1 of )rtic!e 1*2 of the R7C was present.
The second e!e0ent was !i5ewise there. 7etitioner a!!e4ed!% co00itted the cri0e -% Acasin4 it to
appear that persons participated in an act or a proceedin4 when the% did not in fact so
participate.A
2(
Its reFisites are:
+1, that the offender cased it to appear in a doc0ent that a person or persons participated
in an act or proceedin4sG and
+2, that sch person or persons did not in fact so participate in the act or proceedin4.
2"
2oth the CFI and the C) fond that petitioner as5ed Cr1 to si4n the fa!sified vocher on the
pro0ise of a share of the proceeds, even if Cr1 was not entit!ed it.
7etitioner c!ai0s that he co!d not have indced Cr1 to fa!sif% the trave! e8pense vocher -ecase
he did not have the power of spervision or contro! over Cr1. De disa4ree. The power of
spervision or contro! over another does not prec!de indce0ent. ) person 0a% -e indced to
co00it a cri0e in two wa%s: +1, -% 4ivin4 a price or offerin4 a reward or pro0ise and +2, -% sin4
words of co00and.
2#
In this case, petitioner was fond -% -oth the CFI and the C) to have offered
Cr1 a share of the proceeds in e8chan4e for his act of fa!sification. That pro0ise was the
indce0ent for the fa!sification.
Fina!!%, the parties never dispted the findin4 that the trave! vocher was a p-!ic doc0ent. De see
no reason to depart fro0 the findin4s of the CFI and C).
#!EREORE, the petition is here-% DENIED. The $!% 2&, 2''" decision and )pri! *, 2''#
reso!tion of the Cort of )ppea!s areAIR%ED.
Costs a4ainst petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, C.J., Chairperson, Carpio, Azcuna, Leonardo-de Castro, JJ., concr.
oot(ote)
1
In the CFI decision, he was referred to as Ricardo Santos.
2
The Cort of )ppea!s was ori4ina!!% i0p!eaded as a respondent -t the Cort e8c!ded it
prsant to Section ", R!e "# of the R!es of Cort.
(
7enned -% )ssociate $stice 7er!ita $. Tria6Tirona and concrred -% )ssociate $stices
R-en T. Re%es +now )ssociate $stice of the Spre0e Cort, and $ose C. Re%es, $r. of the Si8th
Division of the Cort of )ppea!s. Rollo, pp. #&6*#.
"
Id., p. ...
#
Now Re4iona! Tria! Cort.
&
The co6accsed were: Vedasto ?artine1, De!fin ?a0-o%oc, Isa4ani Sa-iniano, Ra0on )!a0,
2en@a0in Na-on4, 7edro Ve!asco, 9enr% Cr1, Crisanta Santos and Cora1on Nepo0ceno.
The CFI dis0issed the case a4ainst 2en@a0in Na-on4, Crisanta Santos and Cora1on
Nepo0ceno on a de0rrer to evidence. 9enr% Cr1 -eca0e a state witness. The CFI
acFitted after tria! Ra0on )!a0. Rollo, pp. 1(61", 1&.
*
36/*.( pertained to the trave! e8pense vocher of Rene 7!anas. 36/*." pertained to three
trave! e8pense vochers of Constante Sia4an. 36/*.* pertained to two trave! e8pense
vochers of 9enr% Cr1. 36/*.. pertained to three trave! e8pense vochers of David de!a
7ena. Id., pp. #/6&'.
.
Vedasto ?artine1, De!fin ?a0-o%oc and Isa4ani Sa-iniano were fond 4i!t% -e%ond
reasona-!e do-t as principa!s in the cri0e of 0a!versation nder )rtic!e 21* of the Revised
7ena! Code. Decision of the CFI dated Dece0-er 11, 1/*/. Id., p. #(
/
Id.
1'
Id., pp. ("6#".
11
Id., p. *".
12
A;T<he prosection was a-!e to prove -e%ond reasona-!e do-t the 4i!t of the accsed6
appe!!ant, as principa! -% indce0ent, of the cri0e of fa!sification of p-!ic doc0ent as
defined and pena!i1ed nder )rtic!e 1*2, para4raph 1, in re!ation to )rtic!e 1*1, para4raph 2,
of the Revised 7ena! Code, for the fa!sification of trave! e8pense vocher 888 in Cri0ina!
Case No. 36/*.*.A Id., p. *(.
1(
9enr% Cr1 was one of the accsed in Cri0ina! Case No. 36/*.*. In fact, the trave!
e8pense vocher a!!e4ed!% fa!sified was in his na0e. 9e was !ater on dischar4ed as a state
witness.
1"
Treasr% warrants which were issed prsant to trave! e8pense vochers s-@ects of
Cri0ina! Case Nos. 36/*.(, 36/*." and 36/*... Rollo, p. *2.
1#
See People v. Major Comiling, C.R. No. 1"'"'#, " ?arch 2''", "2" SCR) &/., *2'.
1&
Lantin v. CA, C.R. No. 12*1"1, (' )pri! 2''(, "'2 SCR) 2'2, 2'*.
1*
Rollo, p. *(.
1.
Id., p. *2.
1/
Re%es, =is 2., The Revised 7ena! Code, 2oo5 Two, Fifteenth Edition +2''1,, Re8 2oo5 Store,
Inc., p. 21/.
2'
Rollo, p. "/.
21
Id., p. *(.
22
Id., p. 22(.
2(
Revised 7ena! Code, 2oo5 Two, Tit!e For, )rt. 1*1, par. 2.
2"
Re%es, =is 2., The Revised 7ena! Code, 2oo5 Two, Fifteenth Edition +2''1,, Re8 2oo5 Store,
Inc., p. 2'*.
2#
People v. Yanson-umancas, (*. 7hi!. ("1, (#1 +1///,.