JACQUELINE MAGDALENA ROMUALDEZ Y MAGALI, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

Romualdez versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This is a criminal case in which Jacqueline Magdalena Romualdez, a Senior Trade Industry Development Specialist of the Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority, was charged with and convicted of falsifying her travel documents and of causing undue injury to the government through her per diem claims. The People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, prosecuted her for six counts of falsification of public documents under the Revised Penal Code and two counts of violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The case matters because it tests the boundaries of two doctrines every bar candidate must know: when a public officer is deemed to have taken advantage of her official position in falsifying a document, and when a false claim of travel expenses amounts to undue injury under the anti-graft law.

Procedural History

Two administrative complaints were filed against Romualdez by Estrella Pineda, the Finance Division Chief of the Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority, accusing her of falsifying her travel itineraries and certificates of travel completed for trips to Cebu City and Davao City. A fact-finding committee found prima facie evidence and issued formal charges, but the formal hearing committee did not proceed for lack of a qualified officer to hear and decide the case, so the matter was forwarded to the Field Investigation Office of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman issued a Resolution recommending the filing of eight Informations against Romualdez. She pleaded not guilty to all charges, and trial on the merits ensued.

In its Decision dated September 26, 2019, the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 97, found Romualdez guilty of six counts of falsification of public documents under Article 171(4) of the Revised Penal Code and two counts of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019. She appealed to the Court of Appeals, which, in its Decision dated July 28, 2021, affirmed the trial court's Decision in full. She moved for reconsideration, but the Court of Appeals denied it in a Resolution dated June 26, 2024. Romualdez then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Facts

Romualdez was a low-ranking public officer, the Senior Trade Industry Development Specialist of the Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority. Under Travel Order No. 2004-01-013, she was authorized to travel to Cebu City from January 27 to 30, 2004. Under Travel Order No. 2005-02-013, she was authorized to travel to Cebu City from February 21 to 25, 2005. Under Travel Order No. 2005-04-073, she was authorized to travel to Davao City from May 2 to 6, 2005. After each trip, she submitted her itinerary of travel and certificate of travel completed, and on these documents she represented that she had been present at the destination for the entire duration authorized by each travel order.

The discrepancies surfaced during the liquidation of her Davao travel. Philippine Airlines issued a certification showing that she actually flew to Davao only from May 5 to 6, 2005, and not for the full period claimed. This prompted a review of her Cebu trips. For the first Cebu trip, Adelfa Cabanlong, General Manager of the Fumigation and Trading Corporation, certified that Romualdez was in Cebu only from January 29 to 30, 2004. For the second Cebu trip, her hotel bill showed that she checked in only from February 23 to 24, 2005, and Zelma Banzon, the Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority personnel in charge in Cebu, certified that she was there only on those dates.

Digna De Leon testified that the false information in Romualdez's documents caused overpayment of travel expenses in her favor: two days' worth of per diem, or 600 pesos, for the first Cebu trip, and three days' worth, or 2,400 pesos, for the second Cebu trip, for a total excess of 3,000 pesos. The defense presented only Gina Tomimbang, the Finance Division Officer-in-Charge, who testified on the existence and due execution of some travel documents and on the absence of any notice of disallowance or audit observation memorandum from the Commission on Audit for the covered period.

Issues

• Whether or not Romualdez was correctly convicted of six counts of violation of Article 171(4) of the Revised Penal Code, specifically whether she took advantage of her official position and made untruthful statements in a narration of facts in a public document.
• Whether or not Romualdez was correctly convicted of two counts of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, specifically whether evident bad faith and undue injury to the government were proven.

Applicable Provisions

Article 171(4) of the Revised Penal Code, as quoted in the decision, provides:

Article 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastic minister. The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed Two thousand 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: x x x 4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts.

This is the provision under which Romualdez was convicted of six counts, and its elements require that the offender be a public officer who took advantage of her official position and made untruthful statements in a narration of facts.

Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, as quoted in the decision, provides:

Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. In addition to existing causes for suspension, the following shall be punishable as herein provided: x x x (e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.

This is the provision under which Romualdez was convicted of two counts, and it requires proof of undue injury caused through evident bad faith, manifest partiality, or gross inexcusable negligence.

Section 19, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, invoked by the petitioner, provides:

Section 19. Classes of documents. For the purpose of their presentation in evidence, documents are either public or private. Public documents are: (a) The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country; (b) Documents acknowledged before a notary public except last wills and testaments; and (c) Documents that are considered public documents under treaties and conventions which are in force between the Philippines and the country of source. Private documents are those that are not public documents under the first clause of this section.

Romualdez argued that her travel documents were not public documents under this provision, an argument the Court rejected.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Romualdez was correctly convicted of six counts of falsification under Article 171(4). The Court laid down the elements: the offender is a public officer; the offender took advantage of her official position; the offender committed an act of falsification under Article 171; the offender made untruthful statements in a narration of facts in a public document; the offender had the legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated; and the facts narrated were absolutely false. Citing Ombudsman versus Santidad, the Court explained that a public officer takes advantage of her official position when she has the duty to make or prepare the document, or has official custody of it, and that a legal obligation means there is a law requiring disclosure of the truth of the facts narrated. The Court stressed that gain or intent to injure a third person is not necessary, because what is punished is the violation of public faith and the destruction of the truth solemnly proclaimed in the document.

The Court rejected Romualdez's claim that the travel documents were not public documents and were not unique to her position. It anchored its reasoning on the constitutional principle that public office is a public trust, and on the reality that official travel is paid out of public funds. The Court noted that Executive Order No. 248, Series of 1995 governs allowances for official travel, and that Commission on Audit Circular No. 96-004 requires the employee to liquidate the amount received by submitting, among others, a certificate of travel completed and the transportation tickets. Because these documents were prepared in connection with her official travel and her duty to liquidate public funds, she took advantage of her official position, and the narration of facts in them was absolutely false.

On the second issue, the Court held that Romualdez was correctly convicted of two counts of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019. Her misrepresentation that she was present for the entire duration of her travels constituted evident bad faith, and it caused undue injury to the government in the amount of the excess per diems she received, totaling 3,000 pesos. The absence of a notice of disallowance or audit observation memorandum from the Commission on Audit did not negate the injury, since the injury was already caused by the overpayment.

Doctrine

First, in falsification of public documents under Article 171(4) of the Revised Penal Code, a public officer takes advantage of her official position when she has the duty to make or prepare the document, or has official custody of it. Second, the legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated means there is a law requiring such disclosure. Third, gain or intent to injure a third person is not an element of falsification of a public document, because what is punished is the violation of public faith and the destruction of the truth proclaimed in the document. Fourth, travel documents executed for the liquidation of public funds are public documents, and false statements in them may be the subject of falsification. Fifth, under Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, a false claim of travel expenses that results in overpayment constitutes evident bad faith and undue injury to the government, regardless of whether the Commission on Audit has issued a notice of disallowance.

Disposition

The Supreme Court partly granted the Petition, affirming Romualdez's conviction for six counts of falsification and two counts of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, while modifying the penalties imposed.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that in falsification of a public document, what is punished is the violation of public faith and the destruction of the truth therein solemnly proclaimed, so gain or intent to injure is immaterial. Examiners like to use this case to test the elements of Article 171(4) and the concept of undue injury under Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, especially where the amounts involved are small but the public trust is violated.