ELENO T. REGIDOR, JR. AND CAMILO B. ZAPATOS, PETITIONERS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION), RESPONDENTS.

Regidor versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This is a criminal case for falsification of public documents under the Revised Penal Code, brought against the former City Mayor of Tangub City, Eleno Regidor, Junior, and Camilo Zapatos, a former member of the Sangguniang Panglungsod who also served as Acting Presiding Officer. The People of the Philippines prosecuted them before the Sandiganbayan, which convicted them. They came to the Supreme Court on a petition for review, asking that the conviction be reversed. The case matters because it fixes the elements of falsification of a legislative measure — a resolution that falsely appears to have been deliberated upon, passed, and approved — and because it tells us how the Supreme Court treats the factual findings of the Sandiganbayan, the weight of an affidavit of desistance, and the effect of a dismissal of a related administrative charge.

Procedural History

Seven separate Informations for falsification of public documents were filed before the Sandiganbayan against Mayor Regidor, Vice Mayor Aniceto Siete, Camilo Zapatos, and Marlene Mangao, the Acting Secretary of the Sangguniang Panglungsod. Upon arraignment, the petitioners entered a plea of not guilty to all the charges. Mangao was never arraigned because the Sandiganbayan did not acquire jurisdiction over her person, and a warrant for her arrest remained unserved. Siete died before he could be arraigned, and the cases against him were dismissed by reason of his death.

After trial on the merits, the Sandiganbayan, in its Decision dated September 24, 2004, found the petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of falsification of public documents under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code. The petitioners moved for reconsideration, which the Sandiganbayan denied in its Resolution dated November 26, 2004. The petitioners then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Facts

Mayor Regidor assumed office on May 5, 1988. It had been the practice in Tangub City that proposals for resolutions and ordinances originated from the Mayor or his office, and that when a proposal was placed on the agenda, a prepared resolution was already available so that the Council could simply accept or adopt it. During the session of the Sangguniang Panglungsod on July 27, 1988, the Council was presented with the minutes of the sessions held on June 23, June 30, July 14, and July 21. Those minutes reflected several resolutions — among them Resolution 50-A, Resolutions 56 and 56-A, Resolutions 61 and 63, and Resolutions 64 and 68 — which appeared to have been taken up, deliberated upon, and passed. The actual copies of the resolutions bore the signatures of the accused.

Some council members, however, questioned the validity of these measures. They alleged that the resolutions were neither taken up, deliberated upon, nor passed on the dates stated. Roberto Taclob, a former council member, testified that the questioned resolutions were not taken up and could not have been deliberated upon or passed. His testimony was corroborated by three other former members of the Sangguniang Panglungsod. Although the resolutions were subsequently ratified through Resolution 94 by a vote of five to four, with the four complaining witnesses abstaining, the council members still filed an administrative complaint with the Department of the Interior and Local Government for misconduct in office and neglect of duty. The accused were preventively suspended from July to September of 1989, but the Department later did not find them guilty. The complainants executed an affidavit of desistance, yet the criminal cases before the Sandiganbayan were pursued and trial ensued.

For his defense, Mayor Regidor testified that before approving resolutions he consulted his legal counsel, that he did not attend or participate in the sessions of the City Council, and that he relied on the certification of the Presiding Officer that the resolutions were valid and lawful before affixing his signature. He claimed that he signed in good faith and in the belief that the resolutions had been deliberated upon and passed, and that the minutes were inaccurate because the proceedings were not completely and accurately recorded. His testimony was corroborated by Rogelio Taburada, then a councilor. Camilo Zapatos chose not to take the witness stand and instead adopted the evidence of his co-accused.

Issues

• Whether or not the petitioners committed the crime of falsification of public documents under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code.
• Whether or not the prosecution proved the guilt of the petitioners beyond reasonable doubt.
• Whether or not the affidavit of desistance of the complainants and the exoneration of the petitioners in the administrative case before the Department of the Interior and Local Government should be given weight.
• Whether or not Mayor Regidor, whose participation consisted only of approving the resolutions, may be held liable for falsification.
• Whether or not conspiracy among the petitioners was established.

Applicable Provisions

Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code, which defines and penalizes falsification of public documents, provides:

The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period and a fine not exceeding 5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer, employee, or notary public who, taking advantage of his official position, shall falsify a document by committing any of the following acts: 1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric; 2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate; 3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements other than those in fact made by them; 4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts; 5. Altering true dates; 6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning; 7. Issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an original document when no such original exists, or including in such a copy a statement contrary to, or different from, that of the genuine original; or 8. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry, or official book.

This is the very provision under which the petitioners were charged and convicted, and the Court measured their acts against its enumerated modes of falsification.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the crime of falsification was indeed committed. The petitioners argued that there was no falsification under paragraph 2 because the private complainants physically and actually participated in passing the assailed resolutions, and no falsification under paragraph 7 because they passed and approved authentic and genuine documents. The Court rejected these arguments. The falsification lay in making it appear that the resolutions were deliberated upon, passed, and approved by the Sangguniang Panglungsod when in truth they were never taken up by that body. The Court held that the petitioners, taking advantage of their official positions, made it appear that the resolutions were valid on their face when they were not.

On the second issue, the Court held that the evidence of the prosecution established the guilt of the petitioners beyond reasonable doubt. The Sandiganbayan found that the assailed resolutions established the moral certainty or degree of proof which would produce conviction in an unprejudiced mind. The Court stressed that the findings of fact of the Sandiganbayan are binding on the Supreme Court and that the petition raised questions of fact, which are not the proper subject of a petition for review under Rule 45.

On the third issue, the Court held that the affidavit of desistance and the dismissal of the administrative complaint did not warrant reversal. The criminal cases were pursued despite the desistance, and the exoneration of the petitioners in the administrative case before the Department of the Interior and Local Government did not affect the criminal liability, which rests on a different quantum of proof and a different body of law.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that Mayor Regidor could not escape liability by claiming that his only participation was to approve the resolutions. As the approving officer, he affixed his signature and thereby lent the appearance of validity to measures that had never been deliberated upon or passed. His defense of good faith did not cast doubt on the allegations of the prosecution.

On the fifth issue, the Court held that conspiracy was established. The petitioners, by virtue of their respective offices and functions, held positions directly connected with the proposal, deliberation, passage, and approval of the assailed resolutions, and they acted in concert to make it appear that the resolutions were validly passed.

Doctrine

Falsification of a public document under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code is committed when a public officer, taking advantage of his official position, falsifies a document by any of the acts enumerated in that article. Among these is causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate. A resolution that falsely appears to have been deliberated upon, passed, and approved by a legislative body when it was never taken up falls within this mode of falsification. The crime is complete when the falsity is made to appear in the document, and the law punishes the act as a violation of public faith; intent to gain and bad faith are not essential elements. The approving officer who affixes his signature to such a measure cannot escape liability on the ground that he merely approved it, for his signature lends the document the appearance of validity. The findings of fact of the Sandiganbayan are binding on the Supreme Court, and an affidavit of desistance and the dismissal of a related administrative charge do not extinguish criminal liability.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction of the petitioners by the Sandiganbayan for falsification of public documents.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is this: a public officer who signs a resolution that falsely appears to have been deliberated upon and passed commits falsification of a public document, and good faith is no defense. Examiners like to use this case to test the elements of falsification under Article 171, the liability of an approving officer, and the weight of an affidavit of desistance and a dismissal of an administrative charge in a criminal prosecution.