METUROGAN L. SAREP, PETITIONER, VS. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, RESPONDENT.

Petitioner, Meturogan L. Sarep, appeals from the decision^[1]
of the Sandiganbayan, dated 3 April 1984, in Criminal
Case No. 4273, entitled “People of the Philippines vs. Meturogan
Sarep y Lucman,”
convicting him of the crime of Falsification of Public Document through
Reckless Imprudence, as defined and penalized in Article 171, paragraph 4, in
relation to Article 365, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code.  The information,
originally filed before the Court of First Instance of Cotabato,
charged petitioner with the crime of Falsification of Official Document, committed
as follows:

“That on or about December 30, 1977, or sometime prior
thereto, in the City of Cotabato, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused being then
employed as Soil Technologist II under the Bureau of Soils, Region XII, Cotabato City,
with a Temporary Appointment, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously take with­out permission from the records of said
Office the appointment paper proposed in his name dated January 19, 1976, which
appointment paper was replaced due to an incorrect entry, by another one
bearing the same date; and the accused once in possession of said
appointment paper, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
change, alter and falsify the date, figures and words written thereon, thus
changing its meaning and attributing to the person who caused the preparation
of the same, statements other than those in fact made by him; that the
falsification and alteration were committed for the purpose of converting
the Temporary Status of his appointment to a Permanent Status, and which accused succeeded
by having said falsified appointment paper attested by the Civil Service
Commission in Manila without the knowledge of the Civil Service Commission,
Region XII, who has the jurisdiction and authority to attest appointments under
Region XII.”^[2]

From the aforesaid
judgment of conviction, petitioner appealed to this Court, after his motion for
reconsideration was denied by respondent court on 9 May 1984.

The antecedent facts are as follows:

On 19 January 1976,
Director Kundo Pahm of the
Bureau of Soils, Region XII, extended an appointment in favor of Meturogen L. Sarep (herein petitioner) to the position of Soil
Technologist II (Exh. “C”).  After signing the appointment paper, Pahm noticed an error in the item on civil service
eligibility.  The entry therein read
“First Grade Unassembled” instead of “Unassembled
Examination” which was the appropriate eligibility for the position of
Soil Technologist; whereupon,
Director Pahm called the attention of the acting
personnel officer, Usman Salic,
to the error and directed him to prepare another appointment paper (Exh. “B”) which Pahm signed after noting the correction made by the
personnel officer.  The appointment was approved by the Assistant
Regional Director of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) as “temporary.”

Sarep’s appointment was renewed on 23 May 1977 (Exh.
“A”) to expire on 1 April
1978 and, just like his 1976 appointment, the same was approved as
“temporary” by the CSC Regional Office.

In March 1978, Director Pahm decided not to renew peti­tioner’s appointment since
the latter was not performing the duties of his position.  Petitioner was accordingly informed of the director’s decision.  Three (3) days later, Pahm
was surprised to receive a xerox copy of Sarep’s appointment paper dated 30 December 1976 (Exh.
“C”) with erasures and superimpositions thereon, which was approved
by the CSC Central Office in Manila
as “permanent.” When asked by Pahm to produce the original copy of the
appointment paper, petitioner refused
to do so.  Consequently, Pahm went to the regional office of the Civil Service
Commission to verify and he was advised to file a petition to recall or cancel Sarep’s
appointment (Exh. “C”) which he did, by
forwarding to the CSC Central Office in Manila a “Petition for Recall
and/or Withdrawal and Cancel Supposed Permanent Appointment of Mr. Meturogan L. Sarep, Soil
Technologist II, Lando del Sur
Soil District Office.”

On 21 December 1978,
an Information for Falsification of Official Document was filed against Sarep before the Court of First Instance of Cotabato, which was docketed therein as Criminal Case No.
596.  The case was later transferred to
respondent Sandiganbayan pursuant to the lower
court’s Order dated 25 September 1981.

After trial, the respondent Sandiganbayan
promulgated the now assailed decision, the dispositive part of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Meturogan Sarep y Lucman GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as principal in the
offense of Falsification of Public Documents through Reckless Imprudence, as
defined and penalized in Article 171,
paragraph 4, in relation to Article 365, paragraph 1, of the Revised
Penal Code, and there being present the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender, hereby sentences him to suffer the straight penalty of imprisonment for THREE (3) MONTHS, to pay a fine of P500.00, with subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency,
and to pay the costs of this action.“^[3]

As earlier mentioned, petitioner appealed the said decision on
the sole assignment of error.

“THAT THE LOWER COURT ERRED OF [sic]
CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR FALSIFICATION THROUGH RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE.”^[4]

It is petitioner’s submission that, based on the evidence
presented by the prosecution and the defense, there is no evidence which proves
that he caused the erasures, alterations and intercalations on Exh. “C” for which he was found guilty of
falsification of public document through reckless imprudence.  He points to the personnel officer, Usman Salic, or the latter’s
subordinates, as responsible for the erasures and alterations in said
appointment paper.  He likewise asserts
that Director Kundo Pahm
should also be held responsible.  In
support of this assertion, he quotes a portion of the cross-examination of
witness Pahm, to wit:

“ATTY ORENCIA:

q     Now
it appears in Exhibit 1 that there is an erasure above the typewritten words
December 30, 1976 which erasure can be
read as February, which the month could be read as February; Do you still
insist that this Exhibit C was
dated January 19, 1976?

a     Yes
sir, of course when I first signed it.

ATTY ORENCIA:

May   we respectfully request that the erasure above the words December 30
which reads February be encircled and be marked as Exhibit 1-a.

JUSTICE ESCAREAL:

Mark it.

JUSTICE MOLINA:

q     The word that was
originally printed was February and another superimposed to it?

a     Yes sir, below December
30 which is also the date appearing in Exhibit C, Your Honor.

x x
x

JUSTICE ESCAREAL:

q     Why did you not cancel
the document when you found out that there was something wrong with it?

a     I trusted the personnel
officer and that he will be the one,
Your Honor.

q     Sine [sic] the document
bears your signa­ture, you should have
crossed your signa­ture out?

a     May be that was my
fault, Your Honor.”^[5]

Petitioner thus claims
that the appointment paper (Exhibit “C”) already bore the erasures,
alterations and intercalations even before Pahm
signed it.

Petitioner also contends
that the following elements of the crime charged under paragraph 4, Article
171, of the Revised Penal Code, are absent in the case:

1. The offender makes in a document false statement in a narration
of facts;

2. He has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him;

3. The person making the narration of facts must be aware of the
falsity of the facts narrated by him.

Petitioner submits that
he is not a public officer who is in charge of preparing appointments of the
employees in the agency; that he had no participation or
intervention in the preparation of his appointment paper nor held it in custody in an official capacity. 
Moreover, petitioner argues that granting, for the sake of argument, but
not admitting, that he did falsify the questioned document, no third person had
been damaged thereby.  He also points out
that the alleged falsified document bears the correct item number and
appropriate civil service eligibility. 
Hence, there is no falsification. 
He cites the case of U.S. vs. Lino
Reyes, in which:

“It was ruled that there can be no con­viction for
falsification of a public document in the absence of proof that the defendant
maliciously perverted the truth with wrongful intent of injuring third person.”^[6]

Finally, petitioner invokes good faith in his defense.  He claims that after the personnel officer
handed him the questioned document,
which bore the erasures and alterations as well as the Director’s signature, he
brought it to the Civil Service Commission in Manila upon suggestion and with
the permission of the personnel officer.

The petition is without
merit.

The core of petitioner’s
arguments is based on the testimony of witness Kundo Pahm, earlier quoted. 
Petitioner makes capital of the testimony of Director Pahm that the latter signed Exhibit “C”
even if he already noticed the mistake in the stated eligibility.  However, an analysis and examination of the
same testimony and that of witness Usman Salic, the personnel
officer, would show that Exhibit “C” was precisely discarded or cancelled
after Director Pahm had inadvertently signed it
before noticing the mistake in the entry on civil service
eligibility only.  On the other hand, petitioner’s citation of
the testimonies of both Kundo Pahm
and Usman Salic
disproves his contention that both officers are to be blamed for the
falsification.  Both officers
categorically stated that Exhibit “C” was replaced by another
appointment paper (Exh. “B”) which was duly
approved by the CSC Regional
Office in Cotabato City.  It is clear that Exhibit “C” was
the cancelled appointment paper that was missing but later found in the
possession of petitioner already bearing erasures, alterations and
superimpositions.  Consider the following
testimonies:

1.  Kundo Pahm:

“FISCAL FERRER:

q     What did you do then
with this Exhibit C after the preparation of Exhibit B which was approved by
the Civil Service Commission?

a     When I noticed after
going over for the second time, I called my personnel officer to prepare
another one because of that term which I requested him to make another one
because it is not appropriate term.

FISCAL FERRER:

q     Did you ever ask the
cancellation of this Exhibit C by your personnel officer?

ATTY ORENCIA:

Objection, leading.

JUSTICE ESCAREAL:

Reform.

FISCAL FERRER:

q     What was your
instruction if any for your personnel officer for him to do with respect to
this Exhibit C because Exhibit B was prepared with the proper correction?

a   I just gave that back to him and being a
personnel officer I presume he knows his functions.”^[7]

x   x   x

2.  Usman Salic:

q     Meantime with the
approval of this Exhibit B what did you do with Exhibit C which you were asked
by the director to cancel?

a     This is the appointment
which I was looking for because it was lost.

q     Where did you keep this
Exhibit C after you were advised by the director to prepare another appointment
for Mr. Sarep?

a     I kept it in my drawer.

q     After you kept this
Exhibit C inside.  I withdraw that
question.

q     What is your purpose any
way in keeping this Exhibit C inside your drawer when there was already another
appointment for Mr. Sarep?

a     My purpose there is to
cancel that.  The only mistake I
committed there was, I was not able to
cancel it right away.

q     Thereafter or in the
following days months did you try to cancel this Exhibit C?

a     I was not able to cancel
it because it was already lost.

q     When for the first time
did you notice that this was already missing, Exhibit C?

a     I noticed after I
prepared the second appointment.”^[8]

The Court does not accept
petitioner’s defense of good faith.  He
admitted that he knew that Director
Pahm was not only uninclined
to extend him a permanent
appointment due to his lack of civil service eligibility but he also did not
authorize him (Sarep) to follow up his appointment with the Civil Service Commission in
Manila.  More importantly, he knew that
if the falsified document had been presented before the CSC Regional Office, it
would have surely been attested as
temporary only.  Hence, he purposely avoided filing the appointment
paper with the CSC Regional Office, which is the practice and standard
procedure in the regional office of the Bureau of Soils and, instead,
personally brought it to Manila where somehow he was able to have it stamped
approved as permanent.

The Court also rejects Sarep’s argument that there is no falsification, as the
alleged falsified document bears the correct item number and appropriate
eligibility.  We agree with the
respondent court that “(I)t is falsification, and not a correction, which
the law punishes (People vs. Mateo, 25 Phil. 324; Arriola
vs. Republic, 103 Phil. 730).” Likewise, “(I)n the falsification of
public or official documents, whether by public officials or by private persons, it is not necessary that there be
present the idea of gain or the intent to injure a third person, for the reason
that, in contradiction to private documents, the principal thing punished is the violation of the public faith
and the destruction of the truth as therein solemnly proclaimed (Decision of
the Supreme Court of Spain of December 23, 1885, cited in People vs. Pacana, 47 Phil.
56).”^[9]

Since petitioner is the
only person who stood to benefit by the falsification of the document that was
found in his possession, it is presumed that he is the material author of the falsification. 
Petitioner has failed to convince the Court that a person other than
himself made the erasures, alterations and superimpositions on the questioned appointment paper (Exh. “C”).

The Sandiganbayan in qualifying the offense
and arriving at the penalty imposed on the petitioner held:

“We are inclined, however, to credit the accused herein with
the benefit of the circumstance that he did not maliciously pervert the truth
with the wrongful intent of injuring some person (People vs. Reyes, 1 Phil.
341).  Since he sincerely believed that
his CSC eligibility based on his having
passed the Regional Cultural Community Officer (Unassembled) Examination and educational attainment were
sufficient to qualify him for a permanent
position, then he should only be held
liable for falsification through reckless imprudence (People vs. Leopando, 36 O.G. 2937, People vs. Maleza,
14 Phil. 468; People vs. Pacheco, 18 Phil. 399).

“Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, which punishes
criminal negligence or quasi-offenses, furnishes the middle way between a wrongful act committed with wrongful
intent, which gives rise to a felony, and a wrongful act committed without any
intent which may entirely exempt the
doer from criminal liability.  It is the
duty of everyone to execute his own acts with due care and diligence in order
that no prejudicial or injurious results may be suffered by others from acts
that are otherwise offensive (Aquino, R.P.C. Vol.
III, 1976, Ed., p. 1884).  What is
penalized is the mental attitude or condition behind the acts of dangerous
recklessness and lack of care or foresight although such mental attitude might
have produced several effects or consequences (People vs. Cano, L-19660, May
24, 1966).

“Consequently, the penalty to be imposed upon the accused
herein should be that as provided for in the first paragraph of Article 365 of
the Revised Penal Code, which is the penalty prescribed for any person who by
reck­less imprudence, shall commit any act which, had it been intentional,
would constitute a grave felony, to
wit:  arresto
mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional
in its medium period.  Accused is entitled to the mitigating circumstance
of voluntary surrender (Page 38, Record). 
No other modifying circumstance appears proven on the record.”^[10]

The Court finds no reversible error in the Sandigan­bayan’s
decision finding petitioner, Meturogan L. Sarep, guilty of the crime of falsification of public
document through reckless imprudence. 
However, the penalty imposed should be imprisonment of THREE MONTHS AND
ONE DAY TO ONE YEAR, SEVEN MONTHS AND TEN DAYS, instead of imprisonment of
THREE MONTHS under the appealed decision, since the period of the penalty
imposed, i.e., arresto mayor in its maximum period to
prision correccional in its
medium period is four months and one day to four years and two months reduced
by appreciating the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender and applying the Indeterminate
Sentence Law.

WHEREFORE, except as modified with respect to the penalty,
the decision of the respondent Sandiganbayan is
AFFIRMED.  Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., Narvasa,
Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Bidin, Sarmiento, Cortes, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, and Regalado, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Penned by Associate Justice Romeo M. Escareal, with
the concurrence of Justices Ramon V. Jabson and Romulo S. Quimpo.

^[2]
Rollo, pp. 15-16

^[3]
Id., p. 37

^[4]
Id., p. 3

^[5]
T.S.N., August 12, 1982, pp. 41 and 44; Petition, pp. 3-4

^[6]
Petition, p. 10

^[7]
T.S.N., August 12, 1982,
pp. 18-19, direct-examination of Kundo Pahm.

^[8]
Id., pp. 55-56, direct-examination of Usman Salic.

^[9]
Luis B. Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, 12th Ed., Bk. II, p. 233; People vs.
Ro Giok To, L-7236, April 30, 1955, 96 Phil. 913.

^[10]
Rollo, pp. 35-37