G.R. No. 55436. November 25, 1983
NICASIO BORJE, PETITIONER, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.
GUERRERO, J.:
That the constitutional presumption of innocence in favor of the
accused has not been satisfactorily overcome by the prosecution evidence in the
case at bar where the conviction of petitioner for falsification of public
documents was based principally on the mere assumption that as possessor of the
falsified documents, he is presumed to be the author of the falsification, is
stoutly raised in this appeal by certiorari. Since there is no direct proof showing that
accused-appellant, being then the Provincial Plant Industry Officer with many
subordinate employees and personnel under him engaged in agricultural field
work and assigned in the rural areas like the complainant Rodrigo Ducusin, had personally and actually falsified the public
documents in question (Timebook and Payroll, Exhibit
“A”; Daily Time Record, Exhibit “B”; and Certification, Exhibit
“C”) which under normal office procedures pass through numerous
hands at several government offices for typing, attestations, funding,
accounting, and payment of the check for P225.00, the legal issue thus raised
merits Our careful consideration and resolution, in the face of
accused-appellant’s vigorous denial.
The Information filed against the accused-appellant reads as
follows:
“The undersigned Special Prosecutor accuses NICASIO BORJE of the
crime of FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENT committed as follows:
“That on or about the period from January, February and March,
1977, and sometime thereafter, in the Municipality of San Fernando, Province of
La Union, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, being then the Provincial Plant Industry Officer of Bureau
of Plant Industry, Provincial Office at San Fernando, La Union and in relation
by his performance of the duties of his office, taking advantage of his
position as such, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
falsify the Timebook and Payroll of his office for
the periods January to March, 1977, Daily Time Record for the same period of
Rodrigo Ducusin and Certification for P225.00 by
causing it to appear in the said documents that Rodrigo Ducusin
have participated in the same and affixed his signatures thereon when in
truth and in fact he did not so sign the said documents nor otherwise
participated in their execution to the damage and prejudice of the said Rodrigo
Ducusin and the Republic.
“CONTRARY to Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code, in
relation to P.D. 1606.
“Manila, August 31, 1979.
(SGD.)
FRANCISCO M. TEJANO
Special
Prosecutor.
APPROVED:
(SGD.) VICENTE
ERICTA
TANODBAYAN”
The accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the crime charged and
the trial commenced on August 7, 1980 after the case was reinvestigated by the Tanodbayan on petition of said accused-appellant, herein
petitioner.
On October 23, 1980,
the respondent court rendered a decision promulgated on October 29, 1980, finding the petitioner guilty
as per the dispositive portion thereof, to wit:
“WHEREFORE, accused is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable
doubt as principal for the crime of Falsification of Public Documents as
defined and penalized under Article 171, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal
Code, and there being no modifying circumstance to consider, the Court hereby
sentences him to an indeterminate imprisonment ranging from two (2) years,
four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day
of prision mayor as maximum, to pay a fine of
P2,500.00 and to pay the costs.
SO ORDERED.
Manila, Philippines,
October 23, 1980.”
The decision appealed from recites the evidence for the
government as follows:
“The gist of the evidence of the prosecution, which consist
of the testimonies of Ducusin, Edgardo
Olivares, 43 years old, married, agronomist and Provincial Plant Officer,
Manuel Varquez, 45 years old, married and Regional
Director and Remedios Lorenzo, 47 years old, married
and Cashier, all of the Bureau of Plant Industry in San Fernando, La Union,
shows that Ducusin was employed as Plant Pest Officer
with the Bureau of Plant Industry stationed in San Fernando, La Union from
February 2, 1975 up to his resignation on April 30, 1978. From February
2, 1975 up to December 1976, he was detailed as production
technician in the Program of the Bureau of Plant Industry and the Bureau of
Agricultural Extension receiving incentive pay from the National Food and
Agricultural Council (NFAC) during said period.
In 1977, however, Ducusin was no longer
entitled to the NFAC incentive pay as he was detailed to the Surveillance Team
of the Bureau of Plant Industry from January 1977 up to April 30, 1978.
“Before one can receive his NFAC incentive pay, he must
prepare his Daily Time Record (CS Form 48) for the month and a certification
that he is detailed with the Program. In
February 1978, Ducusin was informed by one Roberto
Castro that he is supposed to receive NFAC incentive pay because his name is
included in the special order enumerating those included in the program. This prompted Ducusin
to go to the Accounting Division of the Bureau of Plant Industry, Region I in San
Fernando, La Union to verify the information relayed
to him by Castro and there he discovered that in the payroll for January,
February and March 1977 (Exhibit A) his name and signature appeared. Attached to said payroll were a
certification that he was detailed to the Program (Exhibit C) and the
corresponding Daily Time Records for said months (Exhibit D) which appeared to
have been all signed by him. Actually, however, he did not sign the said
payroll, certification and time records nor did he authorize anybody to sign
for him. Ducusin
referred the aforesaid falsification to the accused in the last week of
February 1978 and accused, confessing to him that he got the money, repeatedly
offered him Two Hundred Twenty Five (P225.00) Pesos to cover his incentive pay
but he remained silent and refused to receive the amount. He finally brought the matter to Regional
Director Manuel Varquez who assigned Olivares to
investigate the case. But inasmuch as no
further action was taken, he brought the case to the attention of the President
and the Director of the Bureau of Plant Industry. Ducusin likewise
submitted his written resignation to the Regional Director (Exhibit E) on
April 28, 1978 because he felt ‘utterly’ demoralized because of undesirable
actuations which he recently discovered x x x’. On May
18, 1978, he received a reply from Regional Director Varquez dated May
15, 1978 (Exhibit F) stating that his aforesaid letter of
resignation had been endorsed to the accused and attached therewith was the
reply of the latter (Exhibit F-1).”
Similarly, the decision condensed the evidence of the defense in
the following manner:
“On the other hand, accused, in brief, claimed that Ducusin was one of those involved in the Program for the
months of January, February and March 1977 as shown in Special Order No. 172 of
the Bureau of Plant Industry Director Domingo E. Panganiban
(Exhibits 6 and 6-A) and actually paid of his incentive pay and that it is not
true that he received the payroll (Exhibit A) and the corresponding checks
from Remedios Lorenzo for delivery to the persons
whose names appear in said payroll.
Accused denied that he instigated the filing of two cases of
falsification against Ducusin and to bolster said
denial accused presented Jacinto Costales, 54 years
old, married and Second Assistant Provincial Fiscal of La Union.”
In fairness to the accused, We are
constrained to include hereunder the more detailed statement of facts submitted
by him in his Brief, viz:
“The Province of La
Union undertook as one of its projects the
program known as the Gulayan sa Kalusugan and Masagana ’99 Program, the implementation of which became a
joint program of its Bureau of Plant Industry and its Bureau of Agricultural
Extension. Government employees detailed
as production technicians in the Gulayan Program
received incentive allowances from the NFAC during the covered period. Their detail as production technicians of
the said program was effected only by a special order
emanating from the Bureau of Plant Industry Director; and before the employee
received his incentive pay, he was required to prepare his Daily Time Record
for the particular month and submit a Certification attesting to the fact that
he was detailed to the program.
“In the case-at-bar, complainant Rodrigo Ducusin,
an employee of the Bureau of Plant Industry, was detailed to the program from from February 2,
1975 up to December 1977, his assignment of work being contained in
the NFAC Order captioned ‘Detail and Designation of Personnel to NFAC, in
connection with the Gulayan Program’ where his name
appeared opposite item 60 thereof.
(Exhibit 6)
“Making it appear that he was surprised to learn that he was
supposed to receive his NFAC incentive pay for the months of January, February
and March 1977 because he was not entitled thereto as he was not anymore
connected with the Gulayan Program; and falsely
making it appear that some person other than himself received his incentive pay
by allegedly forging his signature on the Daily Time Records, the Payroll and
the Certification required and submitted – complainant Rodrigo Ducusin caused to be filed a complaint against the
petitioner, Nicasio Borje,
supervising agronomist of the Bureau of Plant Industry, Region I, before the Tanodbayan. x x x“
Accused-appellant contends that complainant Ducusin
was paid his incentive pay for the months of January to March, 1977 in the
total sum of P225.00 as Ducusin was included in the
payroll since he has worked with the Program as shown by Special Order No. 72
issued by the BPI Director and concurrent Executive Director of NFAC, Domingo Panganiban, and that said Special Order, Exhibit 6 entitled
“Detail and Designation of BPI Personnel to NFAC in Connection with the Masagana ’99 Program effective January to December
1977″ and dated May 17, 1977, included the name Rodrigo Ducusin, herein complainant, opposite item No. 60 in page 2
of the Exhibit and marked Exhibit 6-A (TSN, Aug. 27, 1980, pp. 43-46). He confirms substantially the official
procedure in the preparation of the payroll and subsequent payment of the
incentive pay to the production technicians as described by witness Remedios Lorenzo, disbursing officer and cashier for the
BPI office in San Fernando, La
Union. However, he vigorously denies
having received the payroll and the corresponding checks from witness Lorenzo
as his participation in the preparation of the said payroll ended with his
signing thereof after which the payroll goes to the disbursing officer for the
preparation and issuance of the checks to the payees.
The defense also presented in evidence certified true copies of
two (2) criminal informations for falsification dated
August 13, 1979 filed by Assistant Provincial Fiscal Jacinto Costales against complainant Ducusin
before the Court of First Instance of La Union, Branch III, Agoo,
docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. A-893 (Exhibit 1) and A-894
(Exhibit 2). The accused contends
that the instant case against him was initiated by Ducusin
to get even with the petitioner as the complainant admitted in
cross-examination that he believes that Borje
instigated said two criminal cases against him (TSN, Aug. 25, 1980, pp. 21-27).
Further contending that complainant Ducusin
was doing dual work from July, 1976 up to December, 1977, the defense presented
Exhibits 5 to 5-C which is Memorandum Order No. 56, Series of 1976, dated June
11, 1976, issued by BPI Director Panganiban for the
implementation of the Plant Pest and Disease Surveillance and Early Warning
Monitoring Project under the Philippine-German Crop Protection Program which
shows that complainant Ducusin was included in the
list of personnel assigned to the Surveillance and Early Warning System (SEWS)
team as Plant Pest Control Officer. The
accused-appellant declared that although Ducusin was
named to this SEWS team, he continued working with the Gulayan
Program as production technician during said work.
The defense disclaims the authenticity of the prosecution’s
Exhibit H which is purportedly the original Borje
reply letter to BPI Regional Director Varquez’
endorsement of Ducusin’s resignation letter. Instead, Exhibit 8 was presented in evidence
as the genuine carbon copy of Borje’s signed letter
reply dated May 5, 1978 in response to Varquez‘
memorandum of May 3, 1978 wherein petitioner recommended disapproval of Ducusin’s resignation in order that Ducusin
could face the charges against him in connection with his work with the Gulayan Program. (TSN, Aug. 27, 1980, pp. 56-58, 90).
The Sandiganbayan in its decision
formulated two issues determinative of the innocence or guilt of the accused,
to wit: (1) Whether or not the Time book
and Payroll (Exhibit A), the certification (Exhibit C) and the Daily Time
Records (Exhibit D) in support of said payroll were falsified; and (2) If they
were, the liability of the accused, if any.
As indicated earlier, the accused-appellant was found guilty by
respondent court.
Hence, the instant appeal by way of certiorari.
Petitioner submits the following assignment of errors:
I. The respondent court erred
in holding that the petitioner is guilty of the offense of falsification of
public documents, the same not having been established by proof beyond
reasonable doubt, considering that:
A.
The originals of the alleged
falsified documents were not presented in court and, hence, the corpus delicti has not been established as held in the case
of U.S.
vs. Gregorio;
B.
There is no iota of evidence that
the petitioner falsified the complainant’s signature on the alleged falsified
documents;
C.
The testimony of complainant’s
witness, Remedios Lorenzo, was sufficiently impeached
by her own conflicting testimony previously given before the Tanodbayan;
D.
The respondent court erred in
finding as a fact that complainant was not entitled to the NFAC incentive pay,
in total disregard to the documentary evidence proving that he was doing dual
work, both with the Gulayan Program as well as the
SEWS, and therefore, still entitled to the NFAC allowance.
II. The respondent court
erred in not holding that complainant falsely ascribed the offense to the
petitioner, there being proof that complainant was possessed of ill motives
against petitioner.
Before resolving the above assigned errors, We
find it imperative and compelling to describe and detail the nature and
contents of the vital documentary exhibits of the prosecution alleged to have
been falsified by the accused-appellant.
These are official forms and they are (1) Exhibit A, Timebook
and Payroll of accused-appellant’s office for the period January to March 1977;
(2) Exhibit D, Daily Time Record for the same period of Rodrigo Ducusin; and (3) Exhibit C, Certification that Ducusin was detailed to the Program.
As appearing on the face of these exhibits, the act or
participation of the petitioner thereon is indicated below:
In Exhibit A (Timebook and Payroll), the
printed certification below which the signature of petitioner is affixed, reads
thus:
“2. I certify
that this roll is correct; every person whose name appears hereon rendered
service for the time and at the rates stated under my general supervision, and
I approve payment of this roll.
CERTIFIED CORRECT:
(SGD.)
NICASIO B. BORJE
NFAC, Prov’l Chairman”
In Exhibit D (Daily Time Record, Service Form No. 18), the
signature of the accused-appellant appears below the following words:
“Certified true copy of the original:
“Verified as to the prescribed office hours.
(SGD.)
NICASIO BORJE
In-Charge”
Exhibit C (Certification) indicates no participation whatsoever of
appellant Borje.
It simply states, thus:
“C E R T
I F I C A T I O N
I hereby certify that the amount of two hundred twenty
five pesos (P225.00) herein claimed is only in reimbursement of
representation and transportation expenses (excepting trips from home to office
and vice-versa) actually incurred by me in the performance of my official
duties as Production technician while on detailed with the National Food
and Agriculture Council, during the period from Jan. 1977 to March
1977 that I did not use any government vehicle or transportation furnished
paid by the government nor did I collect similar transportation and
representation expenses from my mother organization Bureau of Plant Industry
during the period. (Indicate
name of mother unit)
Certified true copy of the original:
(SGD.)
Rodrigo Ducusin
(Signature)
RODRIGO DUCUSIN
(Print Name)”
On the face of the above documentary evidence, Exh. “A” and “D”, the liability
of petitioner as head of the office who had signed the certification and
verification printed thereon must be limited to the contents of said verification
and certification for which he does not necessarily incur criminal
responsibility if the entries, data or statements certified and verified turn
out not to be true in which case the employee or personnel making the entries,
data or statements as to his services and attendance is solely and separately
responsible therefor.
In the instant case, since there is the Special Order No. 172 of
Executive Director Domingo Panganiban, concurrently
BPI Director, marked Exh. 6,
“Detail and Designation of BPI personnel to NFAC in connection with the
Masagana-99 Program effective January to December, 1977” listing
complainant for the assignment and detail, the inclusion of Ducusin’s
name in the payroll was not irregular.
Besides, the payroll is prepared by the Budget Office based on the
Special Order and not by the petitioner’s office.
According to complainant Ducusin, he
was no longer connected with the Masagana Program
during the period of January to March 1977 because his assignment thereto had
been terminated. But he was asked this
question by the Sandiganbayan, thus:
“JUSTICE ESCAREAL:
Q – What
evidence do you have that you were removed in 1977 and you were no longer
performing your duties as technician?
A – It
is only verbal.” (TSN, p. 47, Aug. 25, 1980)
The alleged verbal order is doubtful for under normal and usual
official procedure, a written special order issued by a government office is
cancelled, amended or modified only by another written special order, not only
for purposes of record on file but also to prevent conflict and confusion in
government operations. Moreover, under
the best evidence rule, Section 2, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, the supposed
verbal order cannot prevail over the written, Special Order No. 172 stated
above.
Respondent Sandiganbayan, however,
justified the conviction of the accused on the basis of the testimony of
witness Remedios Lorenzo, Regional Disbursing Officer
and Cashier, to the effect that she delivered the payroll and checks to
petitioner accused-appellant, relying further on the presumption that as
possessor of the document, accused-appellant is presumed to have falsified it.
But reviewing the testimony of witness Lorenzo, the records
disclose that her original testimony at the reinvestigation of the case before
the Tanodbayan was favorable to the accused, saying
that she delivered the payroll and the checks to the complainant Ducusin, even identifying the genuine signature of Ducusin on the payroll.
We quote hereunder excerpts of her testimony:
“Prosecutor Ferrer:
Q: What
is your SOP in the preparation of timebook and payroll, do you have to sign as Regional Disbursing Officer?
A: I
don’t sir. It is only the Budget Officer
who prepares the payroll. After the
budget officer has prepared it will go to the accounting for funding and after
the accounting it will go to my office.
Q: All
in all how many signatures are to be signed in the payroll for its validity
under your standard operation procedure?
A: There
are four, sir. The provincial officer,
the accountant for funding, then the Director and after the director have
signed it, it will go to my office.
x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x
Q: Under
your standard operating procedure who will sign first the payroll. The payee or the provincial
plant officer?
A: Provincial
plant officer.
Q: After
the Provincial Plant Officer, the payroll will go to the regional accountant,
is that correct?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: And
after the Regional accountant it will go to the Director?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: And after the Regional Director, it will go
to the Disbursing Officer?
A; Yes, sir.
Q: And
that will be the time that the payee will receive the amount, is that correct?
A: We
prepare the check for them.
Q: When
do the payee affix their signatures in the payroll, if
you know?
A: When
I will issue them the check that is the time that they affix their signatures
in the payroll.
Q: So
after that the check will go back to the Provincial Plant Officer?
A: It
will not go back to the Provincial Plant Officer.
Q: After
the Provincial Plant Officer has affixed his signature he has no further
participation in this payroll?
A: No
more, sir.
Q: Now,
Mrs. Lorenzo, you also brought with you . . . . . . . . . By
the way, who is supposed to sign first this timebook
and payroll under your Standard Operation Procedure. Is it the Provincial Plant Officer?
A: Yes,
sir. Then after that it will go to the
office of the Regional Accountant, and after the regional accountant
have signed, it will go to the regional director for approval, and from
there it will go to my office.
Q: You
are the same time cashier?
A:
Yes, sir. My item is Cashier I.
Q: So,
do you have any participation in this Exhibit “X” by way of issuing
the check to corresponding payee in this timebook and
payroll?
A: In
the preparation of the check, sir.
Q: Who
delivers the check to the payee?
A:
After we have prepared the check, they will just go to my office to get
the check and that is the time they will affix their signature.
Q: And
they sign their names after delivering to them their respective checks?
A:
Yes, sir.
Q: Are
you familiar with any of these signatures appearing in this timebook
and payroll, particularly that of Mr. Ducusin?
PROSECUTOR FERRER:
Q: By
the way, before you answer that question do you know personally Mr. Rodrigo Ducusin?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: Why
do you know him?
A: He
is also our employee in the office. He
is one of the technicians under M-99.
Q: Since
when have you known Mr. Rodrigo Ducusin
A: I
could not exactly remember, sir.
A:
Because I have come across their
names when they got their checks from me.
Q: But
before January 1977, you have already known him?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: How
long before January 1977 have you been a cashier or Regional Disbursing
Officer?
A: I
was already a cashier since 1976, July 1975.
Q: As
a cashier since that time, are you familiar with the signature of Mr. Ducusin?
A: I
could not remember their signatures because there are plenty of personnel in
the Bureau of Plant Industry.
Q: Were
you the one who issued the check to the complainant?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: In
issuing the checks did you issue them individually to the personnels
in the BPI?
A: Yes,
sir. As soon as we pay the check to
anyone, they have to affix their signature first.
Q: Where
do you deliver the checks to the payees?
A: In
my office.
Q: At
San Fernando, La Union?
A: Yes, sir.”
(TSN, December 21,
1979, pp. 5-14, Tanodbayan, underlining supplied.)
The contradictory and conflicting testimonies of this witness only
proves her unreliability and unworthiness in respect to the sanctity of the
witness’ oath. Although she tried to
explain her complete “turn-about” by saying during the Sandiganbayan hearing:
“They told me that if I will testify against them, I will be
accessory and I don’t want to be involved in the case because I am not the one
really who delivered the checks to the production technician, sir.” (TSN,
p. 18, Aug. 27, 1980), the conclusion of the respondent court that she was
intimidated to testify in favor of the accused during the reinvestigation is
not warranted, considering that the witness herself is a high regional
official, being the Regional Disbursing Officer and Cashier and not subordinate
to but perhaps co-equal in rank to the petitioner and, therefore, may not be so
easily intimidated by the accused who was in no position or power to include
her as accessory in the case. Lorenzo’s
testimony given at the Sandiganbayan hearing is not
worthy of belief and must be rejected.
We also reject respondent court’s reliance on the presumption
that as possessor of the document, the accused is presumed to be the author of
the falsification. In the first place,
the factual basis which is the Lorenzo testimony which We
have reviewed as doubtful and variable, cannot be credited. Petitioner has denied vigorously the
testimony of Lorenzo that he received the payroll and the checks from her. He said that his participation in the
preparation of the payroll ended with his signing thereof after which the payroll
goes to the Disbursing Officer for the preparation and issuance of the checks
to the payees at which time the payee affix their signatures on the payroll,
which is substantially corroborated by the original testimony of the witness
Lorenzo during the reinvestigation of the case before the Tanodbayan.
In the second place, Exhibit “A” appears to be also
signed by ten (10) other production technicians listed in the payroll, besides
complainant Ducusin.
It is initialled by three (3) personnel in the
Accounting Services Unit and further signed by the Regional Accountant and for
the Regional Director. All of these
persons were at one time or another in possession of the document, all of them
had the same opportunity impliedly imputed to the accused. The payroll must have been carried and passed
by messengers and other employees from one office to another, from one desk to
another for purposes of typing, funding, initialling,
verification, certification, accounting, recording, drawing of the check and
finally, issuing of the check. In Our
view, the respondent court’s reliance on the presumption which is only presumptive, is misplaced and unwarranted, there being no
sufficient reason to apply the same.
The defense contends that the prosecution, having presented xerox copies only of the falsified documents, Exhs. “D” and “C”, failed to prove the corpus
delicti of the crime charged, citing the case
of U.S. vs. Gregorio, 17 Phil. 522. In
this case of Gregorio, the Supreme Court held:
“In a criminal case for the falsification of a document, it is
indispensable that the judges and the courts have before them the document
alleged to have been simulated, counterfeited or falsified, in order that they
may find, pursuant to the evidence produced at the trial, whether or not the
crime of falsification was actually committed; in the absence of the original
document, it is improper to conclude, with only a copy of the said original in
view, that there has been a falsification of a document which was neither
found nor exhibited, because, in such a case, even the existence of such
original document may be doubted.”
Reacting to the defense contention, the Sandiganbayan
held that “(a)ccused’s claim that in the absence
of the original documents it is improper to conclude that there is
falsification of document in accordance with the case of U.S. vs. Gregorio, 17
Phil. 522, is sleazy for the case referred to is not in point,” and then
attempted to differentiate said case with the case at bar by holding that
“(h)ad the issue confronting the Court been one of alteration or
superimposition of signatures or word or figure, then the issue of bringing out
the original may have relevance.” The Sandiganbayan
further added: “At any rate, it is
worthwhile to note that with the development of modern copying devices which
virtually eliminate the possibility of error in reproduction of the original,
the relevancy of the doctrine in U.S.
vs. Gregorio is now open to question.”
We do not agree with the respondent court. Firstly, the Gregorio ruling makes no
distinction for the doctrine itself applies in criminal proceedings for the
falsification of a document, whether simulated, counterfeited, or falsified. Secondly, the Gregorio doctrine is
still tenable, notwithstanding modern copying devices for a falsified document,
passed off as an original can also be duplicated by xeroxing
and thereafter, certified as true copy of the original as in Exh. “D”.
And thirdly, considering that in the case at bar, the xeroxing was done or caused to be done by complainant Ducusin (TSN, pp. 189-191, Aug. 25 1980) after taking out
the original documents without the official authority and permission of the
Disbursing Officer and Cashier, Remedios Lorenzo, who
was then out on rural service and thereafter the originals were lost, misplaced
and are now missing, the failure to present the originals is suspicious for
complainant had ulterior and ill motives in accusing the petitioner as will be
shown hereunder.
The ill motives of the complainant in falsely
accusing the accused-appellant is easily discernible herein. There is presented Exhibit “1”,
certified true copy of the information filed against complainant Rodrigo Ducusin in Criminal Case No. A-893, CFI, Agoo, La Union, for falsification committed on or about July 24, 1975 in relation to the
grant of farmer’s loan under the Gulayan Sa Kalusugan Food Production
Program when complainant was assigned to the Agoo
Rural Bank, and a similar information for falsification against Ducusin in Criminal Case No. A-894, Exh. “2”.
Referring to these two (2) cases, Ducusin
declared that petitioner Borje motivated the filing
of the cases; that in the filing of the case in the Fiscal’s
Office in San Fernando, La Union, there is an affidavit of Mr. Nicasio Borje and that because of
that affidavit, it was Mr. Borje who motivated the
filing of the charge against him. (TSN, pp. 26-27, Aug. 25, 1980). There is also the refusal of the petitioner
to recommend acceptance of the resignation of Ducusin
until he shall have cleared matters with the Rural Bank of Agoo,
La Union considering that the total amount of P52,047.73
is involved. (Exhibit
“8”).
The rule is established that the absence of evidence as to an
improper motive actuating the offended party and the principal prosecution
witness tends to sustain the conclusion that no such improper motive existed
and that their testimonies are worthy of full faith and credit. (People vs. Amiscua, 37 SCRA 813; People vs. Mercado, 38 SCRA 168;
People vs. Valdemoro, 102 SCRA 170). Conversely, where there is showing as to
improper motives, as in the case at bar, the testimony of complainant Ducusin is unworthy of faith and credit and, therefore,
deserves scant consideration. And since
the prosecution theory is built or based on such testimony, the cause of the
prosecution collapses or falls with it.
According to respondent court, its conclusion that the accused
falsified or caused to be falsified the document in question is further
supported by the following facts: (1)
that the accused confessed to him that he was the one who got the money and
offered immediately to Ducusin the sum of P225.00 to
cover the incentive pay so that Ducusin will just
keep silent but Ducusin did not accept the money; and
(2) that in his reply to the letter of Ducusin denouncing
the forging of his signature that he received his incentive pay from January to
March, 1977, the accused tried to justify the falsification of the time record
as shown in the portion of said reply, Exhibit “H”.
In the light of the ill-motives of the complainant as shown
above, this particular assertion of Ducusin which is
uncorroborated is sleazy, that is, flimsy, shabby, cheap or unsubstantial. Moreover, petitioner’s reply marked Exh. “H” is not an admission of the accused that
he falsified or caused to be falsified the documents in question. In fact, examining Exh. “H”, it says that “his (Ducusin) daily time record (was) prepared by other
employees in order to justify such payment.
The authenticity of Exh, “H” is
denied by the petitioner who presented Exh.
“8” as the real and correct copy duly received and initialed by the
Regional Office, and therein, he wrote:
“I therefore deny knowledge of the alleged forgery of the signature
of Mr. Ducusin in the same payroll.”
Finally, the defense puts forth the exemplary and distinguished
record of the petitioner as a public servant, having been in the government
service for more than twenty (20) years and multi-awarded and commended for
meritorious services, among them as scholar under the Colombo Plan specializing
in pest management in England; Diploma of Merit as Most Outstanding Employee in
Ilocos Sur; Award as one of
the Most Outstanding Green Revolutionist in the Philippines, 1976; and Award as
one of the Most Outstanding Bureau of Plant Industry Employees, 1978. And citing the case of Manero
vs. Court of Appeals, 102 SCRA 817 wherein the Supreme Court said:
“(T)he petitioner exhibited an exemplary record as a
policeman; he was thrice cited by his superiors for refusing to accept a bribe,
was commended for minimizing armed robberies, was twice the recipient to
Letters of Appreciation and has been recommended for promotion on the basis of
known honesty and integrity xxx,”
in sustaining
the innocence of the accused, petitioner also prays for his acquittal.
The record and services of the accused-appellant is, indeed
praiseworthy and commendable. But an
accused is not entitled to an acquittal simply because of his previous good
moral character and exemplary conduct if the court believes he is guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime charged.
The affirmance or reversal of his conviction
must be resolved on the basic issue of whether the prosecution has discharged
its duty of proving his guilt beyond peradventure of doubt, of convincing the
court as to the moral certainty of his guilt.
Considering that, on the whole, the evidence presented against
the accused in the case at bar is not clear, competent and convincing, and
considering further that there is jurisprudence which, by analogy, supports the
defense in U.S. vs. Balais, 17 Phil. 503 wherein We
held:
“The municipal treasurer who ‘certifies that the official
payroll he signs is correct, that the services have been rendered and the
payments made as stated,’ does not pervert the truth in the narration of the
facts, if the persons certified as municipal secretary and clerk to the
municipal president were duly appointed and qualified as such municipal
secretary and clerk to the municipal president, discharging the duties of
their respective offices, the services certified having been rendered at the
time referred to in the payroll, and both persons having received their
respective salaries from the municipal treasurer certifying the payroll. Nor can it be taken as proving the
falsification of the document if it is subsequently discovered that the
services were really not rendered by the aforementioned persons themselves but
by substitutes; for it is not the mission of the municipal treasurer to take
upon himself to investigate whether the persons accredited to him as secretary
and clerk, by the municipal council and whom he, in turn, acknowledges and pays
their monthly salary, really or apparently perform the duties of such
offices,”
in resume, Our
review of the case at bar concludes that the prosecution failed in discharging
its sworn duty to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It has not overcome the constitutional
presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. Consequently, accused-appellant must be
acquitted.
WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the judgment of
the Sandiganbayan convicting the accused is hereby
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. We find the
accused-appellant NOT GUILTY. No costs.
Judgment reversed.
SO ORDERED.
Fernando, C.J., Makasiar, Concepcion, Jr., De Castro, Plana,
Escolin, Relova, and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ.,
concur.
Abad Santos, J., votes to affirm the judgment of conviction for the
reasons stated by the Sandiganbayan.
Teehankee, Aquino,
and Melencio-Herrera,
JJ., no part.