RODOLFO ALCANTARA, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. THE SANDIGANBAYAN AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

This is an appeal by petition for review on certiorari from
the Decision of the Sandiganbayan promulgated on August 1, 1991 and its
Resolution on the Motion for Reconsideration, promulgated on October 2, 1991,
in Criminal Case No. 14885, entitled “People of the Philippines v. Rodolfo
Alcantara”, for violation of Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code.

The Information upon which the petitioner was tried and convicted
by the respondent Sandiganbayan reads:

“That on or about the 1st day of July 1987, in Quezon City,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, a public officer, being then a contractual employee of the
Quezon City government, taking advantage of his official position and
committing the offense in relation to his duties did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously make an untruthful statement in a narration of
facts, by then and there declaring in the Personal Data Sheet (Civil Service
Form No. 212), a public document where the accused is legally bound to disclose
the truth, that he is a Civil Service Eligible (Professional) having taken the
examination in December 1978 at the Ramon Magsaysay Elementary School, with a
rating of 80.35%, when in truth and in fact, as the said accused well knew, he
is not so, the truth being that he is a Career Service (Sub-Professional)
eligible having taken the examination in Quezon City on December 7, 1980 with a
rating of 70.36%, and by virtue of which misrepresentation, he was appointed
Community Relation Officer which requires the qualification of a Career Service
(Professional).

“CONTRARY TO LAW.”

The prosecution witnesses presented were Orlando Abad and Editha
Isles. The former testified that he has
worked as Community Relation Assistant in the Office of the Community
Relations, Quezon City from 1980. During the change of administration after the EDSA revolution, accused
Alcantara with a designation as Management and Information Analyst, took over
their office. Accused according to Abad
was already a Quezon City Hall employee being then a Technical Assistant of the
Mayor (Brigido Simon, Jr.). (Rollo, pp.
27 & 28)

Abad also averred that when he discovered that the accused was
applying for the position of Community Relation Officer, he (Abad) went to the
Office of the Personnel Officer and found out that the accused was being
proposed for appointment to the vacant position, hence, he filed a formal
protest with the Civil Service Commission being the next-in-rank employee and
with the lateral entry of accused Alcantara, (Ibid., p. 28) a contractual
employee, Abad’s chance for promotion would be diminished.

The same witness even admitted that he came across the
appointment (Exhibit B) of the accused when the same was returned together with
accused’s personal data sheet (Exhibit A) and the position description form
(Exhibit C). These documents were
returned to the City Personnel Department by the Civil Service Commission,
requiring the accused, as the proposed appointee, to submit the original of his
Civil Service Eligibility (Professional). The City Personnel Department transmitted these documents to their
office and he (Abad) got Exhibits A, B and C among the bunch of communications
sent back to their office from the CSC. At the time he got them from the table, there was no one at the office,
except him and the janitor and he did not notify their Chief about it. (Ibid., p. 29).

Abad further testified that upon knowing about the accused’s
appointment, he lodged a complaint with the Tanodbayan, after he personally
went to the Civil Service Commission and verified the accused’s eligibility,
successfully obtaining through misrepresentation, a Certification (Exhibit F)
from the Civil Service Commission dated January 28, 1988, to the effect that
the accused is only a “sub-professional eligible.” Abad also admitted
that when he went to the Civil Service Commission and asked to accomplish a
form, and to accomplish his purpose “x x x he signed the latter’s
(accused) signature, since he would not be able to secure said certification
without being authorized by the accused.” (Exhibit E; Rollo, p. 30).

Likewise, Abad testified that the accused was a contractual
employee under a separate payroll, but when he was proposed for the position of
Community Relation Officer, there was already a common payroll of Quezon City
for the month of October 16 to 30, 1987, wherein they were all paid as CRO
officers. (Rollo, p. 30)

Editha Isles, the second prosecution witness, has been a Record
Officer 3, Chief of Division, Examination Records Service Division, since
February 16, 1988. She declared that
upon verification from the Master List for 1979 with respect to the Career
Civil Service Examination given in December, the name of Alcantara did not
appear therein, hence, the accused is not eligible as a career service
professional, but the CSC records show that the accused took an examination on
December 7, 1980, passing it with a rating of 70.36% as career service
sub-professional. Further, she stated
that the one qualified to inform the trial court as to the proper
qualifications for appointment as Community Relation Officer is the
Qualification Standard Division.

Thus, Felicidad Tesoro, Chief Personnel Specialist of the Civil
Service Commission was called to testify. She declared that she became the Personnel Specialist whose duties are
to evaluate job description and qualification standards and conduct training in
the local government units. As regards
the qualification standard for the position of Community Relations Officer of
the Office of the City Mayor, Quezon City, she declared that “they do not
have the approved qualification standard for Quezon City. However, they have that for the National
Power Corporation which was approved on August 1, 1989 x x x.” Although
they have not conducted an audit with respect to the job description of
Community Relations Officer in Quezon City, it is believed that the
qualification standards adopted by NPC should also be adopted for the Community
Relation Officer in Quezon City. In the
absence of any qualification standard, they just adopt those that are
comparable to the same position. The
Commission compares other positions which have similar job description, such as
in the local government wherein they have a Community Development Officer. She also declared that a “Technical
Assistant to the Mayor is quite different from a Community Relation
Officer. The latter is a technical
position in the sense that it deals with the community. As of the present, based on the qualification
index, she has not found any Community Relations Officer in the government.”
(Ibid., p. 32)

Accused  Rodolfo Alcantara
testified that on December 12, 1986, he entered into a Contract of Services
between himself and the Quezon City government through the Office of the Mayor,
represented by the Hon. Brigido R. Simon, Jr., some pertinent provisions of
which follow:

“That the City and the Second Party in consideration of mutual
covenants made therein, enter into this contract of services whereby the CITY
GOVERNMENT commissions the services of the SECOND PARTY as Management and Information
System Officer under the Community Relations Office, OCM under the following
terms and conditions:

‘1. That the CITY GOVERNMENT shall commission
the services of the SECOND PARTY on a full time basis for a period of 01
January 1987 to December 31, 1987; (Exhibit 2-A)

‘2. That the SECOND PARTY shall well and
faithfully serve the CITY GOVERNMENT and shall perform all such services
connected therewith as directed by the Executive Assistant;

‘3. That for services to be rendered by the
SECOND PARTY, the CITY GOVERNMENT shall grant an allowance to the SECOND PARTY
in the amount of TWO THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED EIGHT & 30/100 (P2,808.30);
payable 15th and 30th of every month; and

‘4. That this Contract shall be renewable upon
agreement of both parties and may be terminated sooner upon prior advice of
either party.’ “

The above contractual relation was renewable every three (3)
months as testified to by the accused. He also testified that he first saw the Personal Data Sheet (Exhibit A),
when he learned that Abad filed a case against him. However, accused questioned the entries on Item No. 18, saying
that he was not the one who filled up the questioned entries therein.

With respect to his alleged appointment as Community Relations
Officer (Exhibit B), accused averred that he had not come across the said
document; insisted, that he was never appointed as such and although he had
knowledge that he was being recommended to the said position, his immediate
supervisor, Mr. Tamayo did not inform him that he (accused) was being
considered for the position in question; and he claimed that he was not
interested because the salary to the position was lower by P1,000.00 plus a
month, besides, even if there was security of tenure to the proposed
appointment, he was not attracted to it because it was a demotion.

He also denied having received the salary as Community Relations
Officer, contrary to the assertion of the complainant Abad that he received his
salary as CRO for the period of October 15 to 30, 1987, as evidenced by
Exhibits D and D-1. Accused also denied
having filled up the entries after his signature on Exhibit C, which is the job
description of the position as Community Relation Officer and when asked
whether or not he signed the said document on July 15, 1987, he declared that
the date is a later addition. (Rollo,
p. 35)

As regards Exhibit E, which is request for certification of
rating before the Civil Service Commission, accused denied that he had affixed
the signature appearing therein as well as the other entries on the same form,
nor did he ever authorize Abad to do so, including the preparation of Exhibit
G, the request submitted by Abad to the Civil Service Commission signing the
name of the accused in order to secure the certification of rating, Exhibit E
above. (Ibid., p. 36)

Accused further testified that due to the falsification and
misrepresentation of the complainant-witness in procuring his civil service
rating, he lodged a complaint for forgery against Orlando Abad before the
Regional Trial Court, evidenced by a subpoena which he marked as Exhibit 6 for
the defense. (Ibid., p. 36) Abad,
according to the accused is his subordinate and that he belonged to the
Anti-Administration Association of Government Organizations. (Ibid., p. 37)

A rebuttal witness, Felimon de la Rosa, Personnel Officer III of
the Personnel Office, Quezon City Mayor’s Office, testified that he has been
the personnel officer in said office since April 1981. He declared that the words
“Professional” and “July 1, 1987” in line No. 18 in
Exhibits A and A-1 had both been typed in the original. (Ibid., p. 38)

From the antecedent facts culled from the questioned decision of
the Sandiganbayan, penned by Second Division Chairman, Justice Romeo M.
Escareal, and concurred in by Associate Justices Jose S. Balajadia and
Nathanael M. Grospe, it is obvious that the instant case arose due to jealousy
and intrigue, resulting in vengeance by means of misrepresentation,
falsification of signatures and documents and entries thereon. It is not understandable how the respondent
court fell prey to a vindictive Orlando Abad, using precious time and resources
of the judicial system of the land.

That the case is doubtlessly the product of a sick mind is
buttressed by the following testimonies and documentary evidence which the
court a quo did not bother to evaluate before arriving at the
conviction, based mainly on speculation, assumptions and baseless conclusions.

Anent the testimony of Abad, the private complainant being the
most aggrieved party for having been by-passed by the Quezon City government in
the promotion to Community Relation Officer, he declared that:

“Subsequently, he came across the appointment (Exhibit B) of
the accused when the same was returned together with the accused’s personal
data sheet (Exhibit A) and the position description form (Exhibit C). These documents were returned by the Civil
Service Commission (CSC) to the City Personnel Department, requiring the
accused, as the proposed appointee, to submit the original of the Civil Service
Eligibility (Professional). The City
Personnel Department transmitted these documents to their office and he got
Exhibits A, B and C among the bunch of communications sent back to their office
from the CSC. At the time he got them
from the table, there was no one at the office, except him and the janitor and
did not notify their Chief about it.” (Decision, p. 6, Rollo, p. 23)

Thus, being in possession of the documents by stealing them from
the Office where Alcantara and Abad are both assigned, the latter being
motivated by hatred and envy for accused for the proposed appointment as
Community Relation Officer, Abad was struck with the idea sabotaging the
appointment of Alcantara, his boss, and mortal enemy for the coveted position,
went to the extent of getting hold of the true data regarding the civil service
eligibility of the accused from the Civil Service Commission, and finding the
opportunity to supply some words to the Personal Data Sheet of the accused,
Abad filled up the blank with the wrong words or information, making it appear
that the accused was the one who supplied said words such as
“Professional” in Exhibit A and the date “July 1, 1987” on
page 2 of the same document, and possibly even the Position Description listing
the duties of the position of Community Relations Officer, Exhibit C. The above scenario is clearly illustrated by
the following admission of the disgruntled complainant, Orlando Abad, as
detailed in the questioned decision:

“When he (Abad) first came across the document marked as
Exhibit A, the word ‘professional’ in Item No. 18 was already there. The eligibility shown there was Civil
Service Examination (Professional), taken in 1979 at the Ramon Magsaysay
Elementary School with a rating of 80.70% plus. Said document bears the signature of the accused with which he is
familiar, being office-mates. Upon
knowing about the accused’s appointment, he lodged a complaint with the
Tanodbayan. Furthermore, he went to the
Civil Service Commission to verify the accused’s eligibility. The Civil Service Commission issued a
Certification, dated January 28, 1988, to the effect that the accused is only a
‘sub-professional eligible’. In asking
for the civil service eligibility of the accused, he (Abad) was made to accomplish
a form. (Exhibit E), wherein he signed
the latter’s (Alcantara) signature, since he (Abad) would not be able to secure
said certification without being authorized by the accused.

“From the documents given to him by the CSC, he found out that
the accused was not included in the list of those with Professional
Eligibility. He inspected the document
marked as Exhibit A, the personal data sheet and noticed that the word
‘professional’ in Item No. 18 thereof, was a later addition in said
document. Moreover, the rating of civil
service eligibility of the accused in said document does not jibe with his
sub-professional eligibility which is something like 77% x x x.” (Ibid.,
p. 30)

Undoubtedly, Abad was reeking with hate against Alcantara, so
much so that he even presented and identified Exhibit D, alleged common payroll
of Quezon City for October 16 to 30, (sic) 1987, which allegedly showed the
salaries paid to the CRO officers. (Ibid., p. 30) If as claimed by
Abad that accused Alcantara accepted the position, how come that the latter’s
salary payroll was not introduced in evidence commencing from the time he
assumed the position? Besides, where is
the oath of office of the accused when he left his contractual assignment and
assumed the permanent appointment?

Besides, Abad admitted that when the documents (Exhibits A, B and
C) were returned by the Civil Service Commission to the City Personnel
Department of Quezon City, it was for the purpose of “requiring the accused, as
the proposed appointee, to submit the original of his Civil Service Eligibility
(Professional).” (Ibid., p. 29) Thus, under this situation, the
appointment had not yet been approved, because the accused as proposed
appointee had still something to comply with as required by the Civil Service
Commission and pending this compliance which was aborted since Abad stole the
documents, the proposed appointment did not materialize.

Furthermore, why would Abad know what the Civil Service
Commission requirement was, if he did not also get hold of the transmittal
letter, which he did not introduce in evidence. Given this fact, the Sandiganbayan should have required the
complainant-witness to produce the transmittal in order to substantiate his
self-serving allegation, instead of ruling that the accused’s defense was
purely denial of the accusation against him. In this regard, the presumption that the withheld document when
presented will be adverse to the case of the complainant, and therefore, both
the prosecution and the respondent did not bother to have Abad produce the
same.

It is also intriguing how the Sandiganbayan took the testimony of
the private complainant hook, line and sinker, when it is tainted from the
beginning to end, with scheme and deceit driving Abad to steal the documents
which he subsequently used in charging the accused of a crime that never
was. Even the rebuttal witness Felimon
de la Rosa, Personnel Officer III of the Personnel Office, Quezon City Mayor’s
Office, admitted that the words “Professional” in line No. 18 in
Exhibits A and A-1 have both been typed in the original. (Ibid., p. 38) Not only this, the naked eye could clearly see that the
typewriter used in inserting the word “Professional” and the date
“July 1, 1987” on page 2 of the Personal Data Sheet, is different from
the typewriter used in filling up the other information contained in the same
document (Exhibit A), showing that they were insertions made on a different
date. (Rollo, p. 55)

Again, the respondent failed to honor the constitutional
guarantee securing unto the accused the right to be convicted on the strength
of the prosecution’s evidence and not the weakness of the evidence of the
defense. Sad to note, too, that the
respondent court also failed to consider that the prosecution was not able to
prove the elements of the charge of Falsification of Public Document as defined
and penalized under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code. In the case of People v. Guinto, this Court
held, that:

“The principle has been dinned
into the ears of the bench and
the bar that in this jurisdiction, accusation
is not synonymous with guilt. The accused is protected
by the constitutional presumption of innocence
which the prosecution must overcome with
contrary proof beyond reasonable doubt. This Court has repeatedly
declared that even if the defense is
weak the case against the accused must
fail if the prosecution is even weaker,
for the conviction of the accused must
rest not on the weakness of the
defense but on the strength of the
prosecution. Indeed, if
the prosecution has not sufficiently established
the guilt of the accused, he has
a right to be acquitted and released
even if he presents naught a shred
of evidence. x x x The
accused-appellants have been condemned x x x based on uncertain evidence
clearly insufficient to sustain their conviction. It is their guilt and not their innocence that has been
presumed. It is their innocence and not
their guilt that should have been pronounced. In these circumstances, only one thing that has to be done if the Constitution
is to be observed and justice is to be served.” (184 SCRA 287)

In retrospect, respondent court did not also heed the ruling (En
Banc) of this Court in Fajelga v. Hon. Romeo M. Escareal, Hon. Conrado M.
Molina and Hon. Ramon V. Jabson, Second Division, Sandiganbayan, (167 SCRA 350)
wherein the essential elements of Falsification of Public Documents defined and
penalized under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code were enumerated and
discussed as follows:

Malicious intent or wrongful intent to injure a third person is
an essential element for conviction, unless the document falsified is a public
document in which case wrongful intent is not essential (People v. Po Giok To,
96 Phil. 917). Citing the case of People
v. Quasha, in the Fajelga case above, this Court held:

“Commenting on the above provisions, Justice Albert, in his
well-known work on the Revised Penal Code (new edition, pp. 407-408), observes,
on the authority of U.S. v. Reyes, (1 Phil. 341), that the perversion of
truth in the narration of facts must
be made with the wrongful intent of
injuring a third person; and on the
authority of U.S. v. Lopez (15 Phil.
515) the same author further maintains
that even if such wrongful intent is
proven, still the untruthful statement will
not constitute the crime of falsification
if there is no legal obligation on
the part of the narrator to disclose
the truth. Wrongful
intent to injure a third person and
obligation on the part of the narrator
to disclose the truth are thus essential
to a conviction for the crime of
falsification under the above articles (sic)
of the Revised Penal Code.’ x x x Besides, malicious intent
to injure a third person is absent. In fact, neither the
government nor any third person incurred
any loss by reason of the ‘untruthful’
narration.“

With respect to the second element of “abuse of
office”, it was further held by this Court in the same case, that “it
is not enough that the falsification be committed by a public officer, it is
also necessary that it was committed with abuse of his office, that is, in
deeds, instruments, indentures, certificates, etc., in the execution of which,
he participates by reason of his office.” (Ibid., p. 351)

Unfortunately, all the elements pointed out in the above case by
this Court, have not been considered by the respondent Court, because Abad was
not injured with an aborted appointment of the accused and the accused did not
abuse his office, the documents claimed to have been the basis for the alleged
crime of Falsification of Public Document, were not prepared for the purpose of
securing the proposed appointment as accused was already a contractual worker
in the Office of the City Mayor of Quezon City, with a valid contract up to
December 31, 1987, which term may have been extended periodically as the
parties see fit.

On the other hand, the trumped up charge filed by a jealous
co-worker, Orlando Abad, caused considerable damage to the government for
wasting the government’s time and manpower resources by entertaining farcical
indictment as in this case.

Thus, when the respondent Sandiganbayan failed to apply the
aforestated doctrines in the instant case, it stands to reason that the accused
should be acquitted, however, as regards the issue raised by the accused
concerning the lack of jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan to try the alleged
violation of Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code, this position is not
tenable.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appealed decision
promulgated on August 1, 1991 and the resolution of October 2, 1991, are REVERSED
and the accused-appellant, Rodolfo Alcantara, is ACQUITTED.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, Padilla, Bidin, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado,
Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon, and
Bellosillo, JJ., concur.

Narvasa, C.J., Gutierrez, Jr., and
Feliciano, JJ., in the result.