Zoleta vs.

Sandiganbayan July 29, 2015

G.R. No. 185224 July 29, 2015

Complaint against Mary Ann Gadian, and Sheryll Desiree Tangan before the Office of the Ombudsman-
Mindanao (Ombudsman) for participating in the scheme of questionable grants and donations to
fictitious entities using provincial funds.

COA conducted an audit and found irregularities in financial assistance given to Women in Progress.

Zoleta is the president of WIP

Zoleta, along with others was charged malversation of public funds by falsification of public documents,
making it appear thatfinancial assistance had been sought by Women In Progress and knew fully well
that no financial assistance had been requested by the said group.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Constantino-Zoleta is guilty of Malversation.

RULING:

Yes, she is found guilty

Elements are (a) that the offender be a public officer; (b) that he had custody or control of funds or
property by reason of the duties of his office; (c) that those funds or property were public funds or
property for which he was accountable; and (d) that he appropriated, took, misappropriated or
consented, or through abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take them. All the
elements of the crime were clearly and sufficiently proved by the prosecution.

SC emphasized that malversation is committed either intentionally or by negligence.

We also agree with the Sandiganbayan’s ruling that falsification was a necessary means to commit the
crime of malversation.

Sales vs. Adapon October 5, 2016 G.R. No. 171420, October 05, 2016
Aurora A. Sales, a US immigrant who has resided in said country since 1980, Benjamin D. Adapon and Teofilo D.
Adapon are siblings of late Spouses Adapon.

Ofelia C. Adapon is the spouse of Benjamin.

That in the absence of Aurora, and without her knowledge and consent, the subject property was subdivided
several times and most of it were parceled out among the defendants in varying areas and registered in their
names and a deed was executed without her knowledge or real signature.
She authorized her son in law, Sales, to proceed with criminal proceedings along with an affidavit subscribed and
sworn to before Vice-Consul Maria Lourdes C. Legaspi in New York City, USA, claiming that the deed of extra-
judicial settlement attached to the motion to dismiss.

The rest of the Adapon's claim that her daughter Victoria assured them that she had authority in behalf of her
mother and contend that they could not be charged for use of falsified document since they have no knowledge of
the alleged falsity of the deed.

The complaint was dismissed because of lack of appearance of private respondent who will be subjected to some
clarificatory questions on certain matters.

ISSUE:

The sole issue is whether or not the CA erred in ordering the dismissal of the complaint because of the petitioner's
failure to appear at the clarificatory hearing set by the investigating prosecutor.

RULING:

Yes, the CA erred. Aurora's personal presence was excusable because of her advanced age and the distance of her
place of residence at the time.

Secondly, the records already contained sufficient evidence upon which the investigating prosecutor could make a
finding of probable cause.

Thirdly, she was represented in the proceedings by her son-in-law Jerico B. Sales, whom she had constituted as her
agent for purposes of pursuing the criminal case.

A preliminary investigation is not a trial but the officer conducting the same investigates or inquires into the facts
concerning the commission of the crime with the end in view of determining whether or not an information may
be prepared against the accused.

There was also probable cause against the accused as per Article 172, paragraph 3.

1) The documents is false (as embraced in Article 171 and 172, paragraphs 1 & 2);

2) The offender had knowledge that such document was false (People v. Facundo, [CA], 43 O.G. 5088); and

3) The offender introduced in evidence in any judicial proceeding such false or falsified document.

Accused failed to present Victoria who they claimed to prove their claim.

Constantino vs. People April 8, 2019

G.R. No. 225696 April 8, 2019

https://www.duralegis.com/2020/09/atty-constantino-v-people.html

Atty. Bernardo T. Constantino, a notary public, took advantage of his position to willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously cause Saliganan to appear in the LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT of Cabrales.
Cabrales was in fact not present in the excution and had supposed witnesses to corroborate his claim.

ISSUE>:Whether or not the CA erred in convicting the accused of f falsifying a public document under
Article 171(2) of the Revised Penal Code.

RULING:

Yes, they erred in convicting him.

It was found that they disregarded one crucial detail from its finding of facts: Dr. Asuncion signed the
Joint Acknowledgment after it was notarized by petitioner.

Based on the findings of the trial court, at the time petitioner notarized the Last Will and Testament,
only three (3) witnesses had signed it. The trial court, however, did not make any finding that petitioner
had falsified the participation of the three (3) witnesses who attested and subscribed to its due
execution

Dr. Asuncion also admitted that his signature was genuine and that he was aware of what he was
signing.

Constantino is not criminally liable

Goma vs. CA January 8, 2009

Laurinio and Natalio, as barangay chairperson and secretary, respectively, falsified a barangay resolution
and taking advantage of thrit positions allocating funds as disbursement for a seminar for the two
officials .

Witnesses claimed that a scheduled session did not go through since only Laurinio came.

Accused claims that alleged that said resolution was nothing more than a mere proposal or a draft which
Natalio, as was the practice, prepared and signed a week before.

ISSUE: Whether Res. T-95 may be characterized as a public document to bring the case, and render
petitioners liable on the basis of the evidence adduced, under Art. 171(2) of the RPC

RULING:

It is a pubic document.

it bears to stress that in falsification under Art. 171(2) of the RPC, it is not necessary that there be a
genuine document; it is enough that the document fabricated or simulated has the appearance of a true
and genuine... document or of apparent legal efficacy.
Falsification of a public... document is consummated upon the execution of the false document.

criminal intent is presumed upon the execution of the criminal act.

Borlongan vs. Pena May 5, 2010

Atty. Peña instituted a civil case for recovery of agent’s compensation and other cost against Urban
Bank.

Atty. Peña anchored his claim for compensation on the Contract of Agency stating that when he to
perform such acts necessary to prevent any intruder and squatter from unlawfully occupying Urban
Bank’s property.

Urban Bank claims that they never appointed the respondent as agent or counsel. They presented a
letter signed by Isabela Sugar Company, Inc. (ISCI), the original owner of the subject property.

documents were presented in an attempt to show that the respondent was appointed as agent by ISCI
and not by Urban Bank or by the petitioners

Peña claimed that said documents were falsified because the alleged signatories did not actually affix
their signatures, and the signatories were neither stockholders nor officers and employees of ISCI.

The Judge subsequently issued warrants for the arrest of the petitioners. Petitioners filed an Omnibus
Motion to Recall Warrants of Arrest and insisted that they were denied due process because they were
not afforded the right to submit their counter-affidavits. And avers that since they were not afforded to
submit their counter-affidavit, the trial judge merely relied on the complaint-affidavit and attachments
of the respondent in issuing the warrants of arrest, in contravention of the Rules. Petitioners further
prayed that the information be quashed for lack of probable cause.

ISSUE: Whether or not Petitioners are entitled to submit counter-affidavit before determining if warrant
of arrest shall be issued against them.

RULING: No. The prosecutor may take the appropriate action based on the affidavits and other
supporting documents submitted by the complainant. It means that the prosecutor may either dismiss
the complaint if he does not see sufficient reason to proceed with the case, or file the information if he
finds probable cause. The prosecutor is not mandated to require the submission of counteraffidavits.
Probable cause may then be determined on the basis alone of the affidavits, without infringing on the
constitutional rights of the petitioners. What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and personal
responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause. But the judge is
not required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses. Following established doctrine
and procedure, he shall (1) personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by
the prosecutor regarding the existence of probable cause, and on the basis thereof, he may already
make a personal determination of the existence of probable cause; and (2) if he is not satisfied that
probable cause exists, he may disregard the prosecutor’s report and require the submission of
supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of probable
cause In determining probable cause for the issuance of the warrant of arrest there is no provision of
law or procedural rule which makes the submission of counter-affidavits mandatory before the judge
can determine whether or not there exists probable cause to issue the warrant.

he crime to which petitioners were charged was defined and penalized under second paragraph of
Article 172 in relation to Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code.

Art. 172. Falsification by private individual and use of falsified documents

2. Any person who, to the damage of a third party, or with the intent to cause such damage, shall in any
private document commit any of the acts of falsification enumerated in the next preceding article.

The falsity of the document and the defendants’ knowledge of its falsity are essential elements of the
offense.

Unionbank vs. People February 28, 2012

Facts:

Desi Tomas executed and signed the Certification against Forum Shopping. Then, she was charged of
deliberately violating Article 183 of the RPC (perjury) “by falsely declaring under oath in the Certificate
against Forum Shopping in the second complaint that she did not commence any other action or
proceeding involving the same issue in another tribunal or agency”. The Certification was notarized in
Makati City but was submitted and used in Pasay City, while the Information against Union Bank and
Tomas was filed in Makati.

Tomas filed a Motion to Quash. She argued that the venue was improperly laid since it is the Pasay City
Court (where the Certificate against Forum Shopping was submitted and used) and not the MeTC-Makati
City (where the Certificate against Forum Shopping was subscribed) that has jurisdiction over the perjury
case.

The MeTC-Makati City denied the Motion to Quash, ruling that it has jurisdiction over the case since the
Certificate against Forum Shopping was notarized in Makati City. The MeTC-Makati City also ruled that
the allegations in the Information sufficiently charged Tomas with perjury.

The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari before the RTC-Makati City to annul and set aside the MeTC-
Makati City orders on the ground of grave abuse of discretion. The petitioners anchored their petition on
the rulings in United States v. Canet and Ilusorio v. Bildner which ruled that venue and jurisdiction
should be in the place where the false document was presented.

Issue:

Whether or not the proper venue of perjury under Article 183 of the RPC should be – Makati City, where
the Certificate against Forum Shopping was notarized, or Pasay City, where the Certification was
presented to the trial court.

Held:

The SC denied the petition and held that the MeTC-Makati City is the proper venue and the proper court
to take cognizance of the perjury case against the petitioners.

The criminal charged was for the execution by Tomas of an affidavit that contained a falsity. Article 183
of the RPC is indeed the applicable provision; thus, jurisdiction and venue should be determined on the
basis of this article which penalizes one who “makes an affidavit, upon any material matter before a
competent person authorized to administer an oath in cases in which the law so requires.” The
constitutive act of the offense is the making of an affidavit; thus, the criminal act is consummated when
the statement containing a falsity is subscribed and sworn before a duly authorized person.

Based on these considerations, SC held that its ruling in Sy Tiong is more in accord with Article 183 of the
RPC and Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. To reiterate for the
guidance of the Bar and the Bench, the crime of perjury committed through the making of a false
affidavit under Article 183 of the RPC is committed at the time the affiant subscribes and swears to his or
her affidavit since it is at that time that all the elements of the crime of perjury are executed. When the
crime is committed through false testimony under oath in a proceeding that is neither criminal nor civil,
venue is at the place where the testimony under oath is given. If in lieu of or as supplement to the actual
testimony made in a proceeding that is neither criminal nor civil, a written sworn statement is
submitted, venue may either be at the place where the sworn statement is submitted or where the oath
was taken as the taking of the oath and the submission are both material ingredients of the crime
committed. In all cases, determination of venue shall be based on the acts alleged in the Information to
be constitutive of the crime committed.

Civil Service Commission vs. Vergel de Dios February 4, 2015

G.R. No. 203536 February 4, 2015

The CSC conducted an investigation after receiving an anonymous complaint that several employees of
San Rafael Water District employed a fixer to pass the CSC's Career Service Professional Examination.

CSC Director Aurora C. De Leon received a phone call implicating Vergel de Dios. Integrated Records
Management Office of the Central Office of the CSC revealed that there were discrepancies in the
signatures and pictures in her personal data sheets and on the picture seat plan used for said
examination.

Vergel de Dios claims that it was her who took the exam. Her witness however, admitted that she did
not see her take an exam.

She was then charged dishonesty, grave misconduct, falsification of official documents and conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

The CA however ruled in favor of Vergel de Dios stating that the room examiners were not presented to
prove that the examination procedures were strictly implemented.

ISSUE:

whether the CA erred in reversing the ruling of the CSC on the ground that the discrepancies in
respondent’s pictures and signatures in the picture seat plan and personal data sheets were due to a
possible mix up.

RULING:

Yes, they erred.

Personal data sheet and picture seat plan are public documents which are admissible in evidence
without proof of authenticity and due execution thereof.

Comparison of signatures showed that they were different between the personal sheet data and seat
plan.

Pictures of respondent on the picture seat plan and personal data sheets are different

Her claim that she signed on top of a different name and photo is not accepted.

Presentation of the room examiners is not required to prove the observance of the procedure

Ilusorio vs. Bildner December 23, 2008

G.R. Nos. 173935-38

Ma. Erlinda Bildner and Lily Raqueño falsely subscribe and swear to a Petition for Issuance of a New
Owner’s Duplicate Copy of Condominium Certificate, before a notary public, claiming that the title was
lost. Claiming that because they were renovating, the documents were moved and could no longer be
located.
Venue, in criminal cases, being jurisdictional, the action for perjury must be instituted and tried in the
municipality or territory where the deliberate making of an untruthful statement upon any matter was
made, in this case, in Makati and Tagaytay

Perjury is the issue

Villanueva vs. Secretary of Justice November 18, 2005