G.R. Nos. 174730-37, February 09, 2011
ROSALIO S. GALEOS, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
promulgated on August 18, 2005 by the Sandiganbayan convicting
petitioners Paulino S. Ong (Ong) of eight counts and Rosalio S. Galeos
(Galeos) of four counts of falsification of public documents under
Article 171, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
The facts are as follows:
Ong
was appointed Officer-in-Charge (OIC)-Mayor of the Municipality of
Naga, Cebu on April 16, 1986. He was elected Mayor of the same
municipality in 1988 and served as such until 1998.[2]
On
June 1, 1994, Ong extended permanent appointments to Galeos and
Federico T. Rivera (Rivera) for the positions of Construction and
Maintenance Man and Plumber I, respectively, in the Office of the
Municipal Engineer.[3] Prior to their permanent appointment, Galeos and Rivera were casual employees of the municipal government.
In
their individual Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN)
for the year 1993, Galeos answered “No” to the question: “To the best of
your knowledge, are you related within the fourth degree of
consanguinity or of affinity to anyone working in the government?” while
Rivera indicated “n/a” on the space for the list of the names of
relatives referred to in the said query.[4] The boxes for “Yes” and “No” to the said query were left in blank by Galeos in his 1994 and 1995 SALN.[5] Rivera in his 1995 SALN answered “No” to the question on relatives in government.[6] In their 1996 SALN, both Galeos and Rivera also did not fill up the boxes indicating their answers to the same query.[7]
Ong’s signature appears in all the foregoing documents as the person
who administered the oath when Galeos and Rivera executed the foregoing
documents.
In a letter-certification dated June 1, 1994 addressed
to Ms. Benita O. Santos, Regional Director, Civil Service Commission
(CSC), Regional Office 7, Cebu City, it was attested that:
This
is to certify that pursuant to the provisions of R.A. 7160, otherwise
known as the Local Government Code of 1991, all
restrictions/requirements relative to creation of positions, hiring and
issuance of appointments, Section 325 on the limitations for personal
services in the total/supplemental appropriation of a local government
unit; salary rates; abolition and creation of positions, etc.; Section
76, organizational structure and staffing pattern; Section 79 on nepotism;
Section 80, posting of vacancy and personnel selection board; Section
81 on compensation, etc. have been duly complied with in the issuance of
this appointment.This is to certify further that the faithful
observance of these restrictions/requirements was made in accordance
with the requirements of the Civil Service Commission before the appointment was submitted for review and action.[8] (Emphasis supplied.)
The above certification was signed by Ong and HR Officer-Designate Editha C. Garcia.
On October 1, 1998, the members of the Sangguniang Bayan of Naga, Cebu filed a letter-complaint[9]
before the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB)-Visayas against Ong (then
incumbent Vice-Mayor of Naga), Galeos and Rivera for dishonesty,
nepotism, violation of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees and Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and for the crime of falsification of public documents.
On
August 11, 2000, Ombudsman Aniano Desierto approved the recommendation
of OIC-Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas that criminal charges be filed
against Ong, Galeos and Rivera for falsification of public documents
under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, in
connection with the Certification dated June 1, 1994 issued by Ong and
the false statements in the 1993, 1995 and 1996 SALN of Rivera and the
1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996 SALN of Galeos.[10]
On August 16, 2000, the following Informations[11] were filed against the petitioners:
Criminal Case No. 26181
That on or about the 14th
day of February, 1994, in the Municipality of Naga, Province of Cebu,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
above-named [Paulino S. Ong and Rosalio S. Galeos] accused, public
officers, being the former Municipal Mayor and Construction and
Maintenance Man of the Office of the Municipal Engineer, Municipality of
Naga, Cebu, in such capacity and committing the offense in relation to
office, conniving and confederating together and mutually helping with
each other, with deliberate intent, with intent to falsify, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously falsify a public document,
consisting of a Sworn Statement of Assets and Liabilities, Disclosure
of Business Interests and Financial Connections and Identification of
Relatives In the Government Service, as of December 31, 1993, filed by accused Rosalio S. Galeos and subscribed and sworn to before accused Paulino S. Ong, wherein accused made
it appear therein that they are not related within the fourth degree of
consanguinity or affinity thereby making untruthful statements in a
narration of facts, when in truth and in fact, accused very well k[n]ew that they are related with each other, since accused Rosalio S. Galeos is related to accused Paulino S. Ong within the fourth degree of consanguinity, the mother of accused Rosalio S. Galeos [being] the sister of the mother of accused Paulino S. Ong.CONTRARY TO LAW. (Emphasis supplied.)
Criminal Case No. 26182
That on or about the 15th
day of February 1994, in the Municipality of Naga, Province of Cebu,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
above-named [Paulino S. Ong and Federico T. Rivera] accused, public
officers, being the former Municipal Mayor and Plumber I of the Office
of the Municipal Engineer, Municipality of Naga, Cebu, in such capacity
and committing the offense in relation to office, conniving and
confederating together and mutually helping with each other, with
deliberate intent, with intent to falsify, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously falsify a public document, consisting of a Sworn
Statement of Assets and Liabilities, Disclosure of Business Interests
and Financial Connections and Identification of Relatives In the
Government Service as of December 31, 1993, filed by accused Federico T. Rivera and subscribed and sworn to before accused Paulino S. Ong, wherein accused Federico T. Rivera made
it appear therein that he has no relatives within the fourth degree of
consanguinity or affinity working in the government, thereby making
untruthful statements in a narration of facts, when in truth and in
fact, as accused very well knew that they are related with each other,
since accused Federico T. Rivera is related to accused Paulino S. Ong
within the fourth degree of affinity, the mother of Federico T. Rivera’s wife being the sister of the mother of Paulino S. Ong.CONTRARY TO LAW. (Emphasis supplied.)
Criminal Case No. 26183
That on or about the 1st
day of February, 1996, in the Municipality of Naga, Province of Cebu,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
above-named [Paulino S. Ong and Rosalio S. Galeos] accused, public
officers, being the former Municipal Mayor and Construction and
Maintenance Man of the Office of the Municipal Engineer, Municipality of
Naga, Cebu, in such capacity and committing the offense in relation to
office, conniving and confederating together and mutually helping with
each other, with deliberate intent, with intent to falsify, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously falsify a public document,
consisting of a Sworn Statement of Assets and Liabilities, Disclosure
of Business Interests and Financial Connections and Identification of
Relatives In the Government Service, as of December 31, 1995, filed by accused Rosalio S. Galeos and subscribed and sworn to before accused Paulino S. Ong, wherein
accused made it appear therein that they are not related within the
fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity thereby making false
statements in a narration of facts, when in truth and in fact, as
accused very well k[n]ew that they are related with each other, since
accused Rosalio S. Galeos is related to accused Paulino S. Ong within
the fourth degree of consanguinity, the mother of accused Rosalio S. Galeos being the sister of the mother of accused Paulino S. Ong.CONTRARY TO LAW. (Emphasis supplied.)
Criminal Case No. 26184
That on or about the 1st
day of February 1996, in the Municipality of Naga, Province of Cebu,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
above-named [Paulino S. Ong and Federico T. Rivera] accused, public
officers, being the former Municipal Mayor and Plumber I of the Office
of the Municipal Engineer, Municipality of Naga, Cebu, in such capacity
and committing the offense in relation to office, conniving and
confederating together and mutually helping with each other, with
deliberate intent, with intent to falsify, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously falsify a public document, consisting of a Sworn
Statement of Assets and Liabilities, Disclosure of Business Interests
and Financial Connections and Identification of Relatives In The
Government Service, [a]s of December 31, 1995, filed by accused Federico T. Rivera and subscribed and sworn to before accused Paulino S. Ong,
wherein accused Federico T. Rivera made it appear therein that he has
no relatives within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity
working in the government, thereby making untruthful statements in a
narration of facts, when in truth and in fact, as accused very well
knew that they are related with each other, since accused Federico T.
Rivera is related to accused Paulino S. Ong within the fourth degree of
affinity, the mother of Federico T. Rivera’s wife being the sister of the mother of Paulino S. Ong.CONTRARY TO LAW. (Emphasis supplied.)
Criminal Case No. 26185
That on or about the 5th
day of February 1997, in the Municipality of Naga, Province of Cebu,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
above-named [Paulino S. Ong and Federico T. Rivera] accused, public
officers, being the former Municipal Mayor and Plumber I of the Office
of the Municipal Engineer, Municipality of Naga, Cebu, in such capacity
and committing the offense in relation to office, conniving and
confederating together and mutually helping with each other, with
deliberate intent, with intent to falsify, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously falsify a public document, consisting of a Sworn
Statement of Assets and Liabilities, Disclosure of Business Interests
and Financial Connections and Identification of Relatives In The
Government Service, [a]s of December 31, 1996, filed by accused Federico T. Rivera and subscribed and sworn to before accused Paulino S. Ong, wherein
accused Federico T. Rivera made it appear therein that he has no
relatives within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity working
in the government, thereby making untruthful statements in a narration
of facts, when in truth and in fact, as accused very well knew that
they are related with each other, since accused Federico T. Rivera is
related to accused Paulino S. Ong within the fourth degree of affinity, the mother of Federico T. Rivera’s wife being the sister of the mother of Paulino S. Ong.CONTRARY TO LAW. (Emphasis supplied.)
Criminal Case No. 26186
That on or about the 3rd
day of March, 1995, in the Municipality of Naga, Province of Cebu,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
above-named [Paulino S. Ong and Rosalio S. Galeos] accused, public
officers, being the former Municipal Mayor and Construction and
Maintenance Man of the Office of the Municipal Engineer, Municipality of
Naga, Cebu, in such capacity and committing the offense in relation to
office, conniving and confederating together and mutually helping with
each other, with deliberate intent, with intent to falsify, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously falsify a public document,
consisting of a Sworn Statement of Assets and Liabilities, Disclosure
of Business Interests and Financial Connections and Identification of
Relatives In the Government Services, as of December 31, 1994, filed by accused Rosalio S. Galeos and subscribed and sworn to before accused Paulino S. Ong, wherein accused made
it appear therein that they are not related within the fourth degree of
consanguinity or affinity thereby making untruthful statements in a
narration of facts, when in truth and in fact, as accused very well
k[n]ew that they are related with each other, since accused Rosalio S.
Galeos is related to accused Paulino S. Ong, within the fourth degree of
consanguinity, the mother of accused Rosalio S. Galeos being the sister of the mother of accused Paulino S. Ong.CONTRARY TO LAW. (Emphasis supplied.)
Criminal Case No. 26187
That on or about the 11th
day of March, 1997, in the Municipality of Naga, Province of Cebu,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
above-named [Paulino S. Ong and Rosalio S. Galeos] accused, public
officers, being the former Municipal Mayor and Construction and
Maintenance Man of the Office of the Municipal Engineer, Municipality of
Naga, Cebu, in such capacity and committing the offense in relation to
office, conniving and confederating, together and mutually helping with
each other, with deliberate intent, with intent to falsify, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously falsify a public document,
consisting of a Sworn Statement of Assets and Liabilities, Disclosure
of Business Interests and Financial Connections and Identification of
Relatives In the Government Service, as of December 31, 1996, filed by accused Rosalio S. Galeos and subscribed and sworn to before accused Paulino S. Ong, wherein accused made
it appear therein that they are not related within the fourth degree of
consanguinity or affinity thereby making untruthful statements in a
narration of facts, when in truth and in fact, as accused very well
k[n]ew that they are related with each other, since accused Rosalio S.
Galeos is related to accused Paulino S. Ong within the fourth degree of
consanguinity, the mother of accused Rosalio S. Galeos being the sister of the mother of accused Paulino S. Ong.CONTRARY TO LAW. (Emphasis supplied.)
Criminal Case No. 26188
That on or about the 1st
day of June, 1994, at the Municipality of Naga, Province of Cebu,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
above-named accused, a public officer, being the former Mayor of the
Municipality of Naga, Cebu, in such capacity and committing the offense
in relation to office, with deliberate intent, with intent to falsify,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously falsify a
public document, consisting of a Certification in the form
of a letter addressed to Mrs. Benita O. Santos, then Regional Director
of the Civil Service Commission (CSC)-Region VII, Cebu City dated
June 1, 1994, a requirement in the approval of an appointment,
certifying therein that there was a faithful compliance of the
requirement/restriction provided under the Civil Service Laws and Rules
in the appointment of Rosalio S. Galeos, as Construction and Maintenance Man of the Office of the Municipal Engineer, Naga, Cebu, thereby making untruthful statements in a narration of facts, when in truth and in fact as accused
very well knew that the appointment of Rosalio S. Galeos was nepotic
being made in violation of the Civil Service Rules and Laws on
Nepotism, as Rosalio S. Galeos is related to accused within the fourth degree of consanguinity, since the mother of Rosalio S. Galeos is the sister of the mother of accused, which Certification caused the approval of the appointment of Rosalio S. Galeos, to the detriment of public interest.CONTRARY TO LAW. (Emphasis supplied.)
Criminal Case No. 26189
That on or about the 1st
day of June, 1994, at the Municipality of Naga, Province of Cebu,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
above-named accused, a public officer, being the former Mayor of the
Municipality of Naga, Cebu, in such capacity and committing the offense
in relation to office, with deliberate intent, with intent to falsify,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously falsify a
public document, consisting of a Certification in the form
of a letter addressed to Mrs. Benita O. Santos, then Regional Director
of the Civil Service Commission (CSC), Region VII, Cebu City, dated
June 1, 1994, a requirement in the approval of an appointment,
certifying therein that there was a faithful compliance of the
requirement/restriction provided under the Civil Service Laws and Rules
in the appointment of Federico T. Rivera, a Plumber I of the Office of the Municipal Engineer, Naga, Cebu, thereby making untruthful statements in a narration of facts, when in truth and in fact as accused very well knew that the appointment of Federico T. Rivera was nepotic being made in violation of the Civil Service Rules and Laws on Nepotism, as Federico T. Rivera is related to accused within the fourth degree of affinity, since
the mother of Federico T. Rivera’s wife is the sister of the mother of
accused, which certification caused the approval of the appointment of
Federico T. Rivera, to the detriment of public interest.CONTRARY TO LAW. (Emphasis supplied.)
Under the Joint Stipulation of Facts submitted to the court a quo,
the accused made the following admissions: (1) Ong was the Municipal
Mayor of Cebu at all times relevant to these cases; (2) Ong is related
to Galeos, within the fourth degree of consanguinity as his mother is
the sister of Galeos’ mother, and to Rivera within the fourth degree of
affinity as his mother is the sister of the mother of Rivera’s wife; and
(3) Galeos and Rivera were employed as Construction and Maintenance Man
and Plumber I, respectively, in the Municipal Government of Naga, Cebu
at all times relevant to these cases. Ong likewise admitted the
genuineness and due execution of the documentary exhibits presented by
the prosecutor (copies of SALNs and Certification dated June 1, 1994)
except for Exhibit “H” (Certification dated June 1, 1994 offered by the
prosecution as “allegedly supporting the appointment of Rosalio S.
Galeos”[12]).[13]
As
lone witness for the prosecution, Esperidion R. Canoneo testified that
he has been a resident of Pangdan, Naga, Cebu since 1930 and claimed to
be friends with Ong, Galeos and Rivera. He knows the mother of Galeos,
Pining Suarez or Peñaranda Suarez. But when the prosecutor mentioned
“Bining Suarez,” Canoneo stated that Bining Suarez is the mother of
Galeos and that Bining Suarez is the same person as “Bernardita
Suarez.” Ong is related to Galeos because Ong’s mother, Conchita
Suarez, and Galeos’ mother, Bernardita Suarez, are sisters. As to
Rivera, his wife Kensiana,[14]
is the daughter of Mercedes Suarez who is also a sister of Conchita
Suarez. He knew the Suarez sisters because they were the neighbors of
his grandmother whom he frequently visited when he was still studying.[15]
Both
Galeos and Rivera testified that they only provided the entries in
their SALN but did not personally fill up the forms as these were
already filled up by “people in the municipal hall” when they signed
them.
Galeos, when shown his 1993 SALN,[16]
confirmed his signature thereon. When he was asked if he understood the
question “To the best of your knowledge, are you related within the
fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity to anyone working in the
government?” he answered in the negative. He claimed that the “X” mark
corresponding to the answer “No” to said question, as well as the other
entries in his SALN, were already filled up when he signed it. When
shown his SALN for the years 1994, 1995 and 1996, Galeos reiterated that
they were already filled up and he was only made to sign them by an
employee of the municipal hall whom he only remembers by face. He also
admitted that he carefully read the documents and all the entries
therein were explained to him before he affixed his signature on the
document. However, when asked whether he understands the term “fourth
degree of consanguinity or affinity” stated in the SALNs, he answered in
the negative.[17]
Rivera
testified that he was not aware that his wife was a close relative of
the Municipal Mayor because when he asked her, the latter told him that
Ong was a distant relative of hers. Rivera added that it was not Ong
who first appointed him as a casual employee but Ong’s predecessor,
Mayor Vicente Mendiola.[18]
On
the part of Ong, he testified that at the time he was serving as
Municipal Mayor of Naga, he did not know that he and Galeos are
relatives, as in fact there are several persons with the surname
“Galeos” in the municipality. He signed Galeos’ 1993 SALN when it was
presented to him by Galeos at his office. There were many of them who
brought such documents and he would administer their oaths on what were
written on their SALN, among them were Galeos and Rivera. He came to
know of the defect in the employment of Galeos when the case was filed
by his “political enemy” in the Ombudsman just after he was elected
Vice-Mayor in 1998. As to Rivera, Ong claimed that he knows him as a
casual employee of the previous administration. As successor of the
former mayor, he had to re-appoint these casual employees and he
delegated this matter to his subordinates. He maintained that his
family was not very close to their other relatives because when he was
not yet Mayor, he was doing business in Cebu and Manila. When queried by
the court if he had known his relatives while he was campaigning
considering that in the provinces even relatives within the 6th and 7th
degree are still regarded as close relatives especially among
politicians, Ong insisted that his style of campaigning was based only
on his performance of duties and that he did not go from house to
house. Ong admitted that he had been a resident of Naga, Cebu since
birth. He could no longer recall those SALN of most of the employees
whose oaths he had administered. He admitted that he was the one who
appointed Galeos and Rivera to their permanent positions and signed
their official appointment (Civil Service Form No. 33) but he was not
aware at that time that he was related to them. It was only after the
filing of the case that he came to know the wife of Rivera. As to the
qualifications of these appointees, he no longer inquired about it and
their appointments were no longer submitted to the Selection Board. When
the appointment forms for Galeos and Rivera were brought to his office,
the accompanying documents were attached thereto. Ong, however,
admitted that before the permanent appointment is approved by the CSC,
he issues a certification to the effect that all requirements of law and
the CSC have been complied with.[19]
On August 18, 2005, the Sandiganbayan promulgated the assailed Decision convicting Ong, Galeos and Rivera, as follows:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered on the following:
In
Criminal Case No. 26181, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused
Paulino S. Ong and Rosalio S. Galeos GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of Falsification of Public Document as defined in and
penalized by Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code and, there being no
modifying circumstances, are hereby sentenced to each suffer an
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from TWO (2) YEARS, FOUR (4)
MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY OF Prision Correccional medium as the minimum penalty to EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of Prision Mayor medium as the maximum penalty and to each pay a FINE of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00).In
Criminal Case No. 26182, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused
Paulino S. Ong and Federico T. Rivera GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of Falsification of Public Document as defined in and
penalized by Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code and, there being no
modifying circumstances, are hereby sentenced to each suffer an
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from TWO (2) YEARS, FOUR (4)
MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY OF Prision Correccional medium as the minimum penalty to EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of Prision Mayor medium as the maximum penalty and to each pay a FINE of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00).In
Criminal Case No. 26183, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused
Paulino S. Ong and Rosalio S. Galeos GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of Falsification of Public Document as defined in and
penalized by Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code and, there being no
modifying circumstances, are hereby sentenced to each suffer an
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from TWO (2) YEARS, FOUR (4)
MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY OF Prision Correccional medium as the minimum penalty to EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of Prision Mayor medium as the maximum penalty and to each pay a FINE of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00).In
Criminal Case No. 26184, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused
Paulino S. Ong and Federico T. Rivera GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of Falsification of Public Document as defined in and
penalized by Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code and, there being no
modifying circumstances, are hereby sentenced to each suffer an
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from TWO (2) YEARS, FOUR (4)
MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY OF Prision Correccional medium as the minimum penalty to EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of Prision Mayor medium as the maximum penalty and to each pay a FINE of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00).In
Criminal Case No. 26185, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused
Paulino S. Ong and Federico T. Rivera GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of Falsification of Public Document as defined in and
penalized by Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code and, there being no
modifying circumstances, are hereby sentenced to each suffer an
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from TWO (2) YEARS, FOUR (4)
MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY OF Prision Correccional medium as the minimum penalty to EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of Prision Mayor medium as the maximum penalty and to each pay a FINE of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00).In
Criminal Case No. 26186, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused
Paulino S. Ong and Rosalio S. Galeos GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of Falsification of Public Document as defined in and
penalized by Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code and, there being no
modifying circumstances, are hereby sentenced to each suffer an
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from TWO (2) YEARS, FOUR (4)
MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY OF Prision Correccional medium as the minimum penalty to EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of Prision Mayor medium as the maximum penalty and to each pay a FINE of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00).In
Criminal Case No. 26187, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused
Paulino S. Ong and Rosalio S. Galeos GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of Falsification of Public Document as defined in and
penalized by Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code and, there being no
modifying circumstances, are hereby sentenced to each suffer an
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from TWO (2) YEARS, FOUR (4)
MONTHS, and ONE (1) DAY OF Prision Correccional medium as the minimum penalty to EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of Prision Mayor medium as the maximum penalty and to each pay a FINE of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00).In
Criminal Case No. 26188, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused
Paulino S. Ong NOT GUILTY for Violation of Article 171 of the Revised
Penal Code for failure of the Prosecution to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt; andIn Criminal Case No. 26189, judgment is
hereby rendered finding accused Paulino S. Ong GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt for Falsification of Public Document as defined in and penalized
by Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code and, there being no modifying
circumstances, is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of
imprisonment from TWO (2) YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of Prision Correccional medium as the minimum penalty to EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of Prision Mayor medium as the maximum penalty and to pay a FINE of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00).SO ORDERED.[20]
In its Resolution[21]
dated August 28, 2006, the Sandiganbayan denied the motions for
reconsideration of Ong and Galeos. However, in view of the death of
Rivera on August 22, 2003 before the promulgation of the decision, the
cases (Criminal Case Nos. 26182, 26184 and 26185) against him were
dismissed.
In G.R. Nos. 174730-37, Galeos contends that the Sandiganbayan erred when:
1) . . . IT HELD THAT THE SUBJECT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE CONTAINED UNTRUTHFUL STATEMENTS IN A NARRATION OF FACTS.
2) . . . IT DID NOT CONSIDER PETITIONER’S VALID DEFENSE OF GOOD FAITH AND LACK OF INTENT TO COMMIT THE CRIMES IMPUTED.
3) . . . IT GAVE FULL CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE SOLE WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION.[22]
In
support of his assigned errors, Galeos argues that he did not make
untruthful or false statements in his SALN since a “statement” requires a
positive averment and thus silence or non-disclosure cannot be
considered one. And even if they are considered statements, Galeos
contends that they were not made in a “narration of facts” and the least
they could be considered are “conclusions of law.” He also argues that
the prosecution failed to adduce any evidence to support the finding
that he was aware of their relationship at the time of the execution of
the SALN. With the presence of good faith, Galeos avers that the fourth
element of the crime – the perversion of truth in the narration of facts
was made with the wrongful intent of injuring a third person – is
missing. He also faults the Sandiganbayan for its heavy reliance on the
uncorroborated testimony of the prosecution’s sole witness despite the
fact that there are aspects in his testimony that do not inspire belief.
On the other hand, in G.R. Nos. 174845-52, Ong argues that the Sandiganbayan erred when:
(a)
. . . IT HELD THAT THE SUBJECT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE CONTAINED UNTRUTHFUL STATEMENTS IN A NARRATION OF FACTS.
(b)
IN
CRIMINAL CASES NOS. 26181-26187, [IT HELD] THAT A PERSON MERELY
ADMINISTERING THE OATH IN A DOCUMENT IS GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF
FALSIFICATION BY MAKING UNTRUTHFUL STATEMENTS IN A NARRATION OF FACTS.(c)
.
. . IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 26189, … IT INFER[R]ED, DESPITE THE
COMPLETE ABSENCE OF ANY RELEVANT AND MATERIAL EVIDENCE, THAT
RESPONDENT’S EXHIBIT “I” (OR PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT “8”) REFERS TO OR
SUPPORTS THE APPOINTMENT OF FEDERICO T. RIVERA.[23]
Ong
similarly argues that the subject SALN do not contain any untruthful
statements containing a narration of facts and that there was no
wrongful intent of injuring a third person at the time of the execution
of the documents. He contends that he cannot be held liable for
falsification for merely administering the oath in a document since it
is not among the legal obligations of an officer administering the oath
to certify the truthfulness and/or veracity of the contents of the
document. Neither can he be made liable for falsification regarding the
letter-certification he issued since there was no evidence adduced that
it was made to support Rivera’s appointment.
In the Joint
Memorandum filed by the Ombudsman through the Office of the Special
Prosecutor of the Sandiganbayan, it was pointed out that Galeos
categorically admitted during his testimony that before affixing his
signature on the subject SALN, he carefully read its contents and the
entries therein have been explained to him. Moreover, the admission
made by Ong during the pre-trial under the joint stipulation of facts
indicated no qualification at all that he became aware of his
relationship with Galeos and Rivera only after the execution of the
subject documents. The defense of lack of knowledge of a particular fact
in issue, being a state of mind and therefore self-serving, it can be
legally assumed that the admission of that particular fact without
qualification reckons from the time the imputed act, to which the
particular fact relates, was committed. As to mistaken reliance on the
testimony of prosecution witness, the analysis and findings in the
assailed decision do not show that such testimony was even taken into
consideration in arriving at the conviction of petitioners.[24]
With
respect to Ong’s liability as conspirator in the execution of the SALN
containing untruthful statements, the Special Prosecutor argues that as a
general rule, it is not the duty of the administering officer to
ascertain the truth of the statements found in a document. The reason
for this is that the administering officer has no way of knowing if the
facts stated therein are indeed truthful. However, when the facts laid
out in the document directly involves the administering officer,
then he has an opportunity to know of their truth or falsity. When an
administering officer nevertheless administers the oath despite the
false contents of the document, which are known to him to be
false, he is liable, not because he violated his duty as an
administering officer, but because he participated in the falsification
of a document.[25]
After a thorough review, we find the petitions unmeritorious.
Petitioners
were charged with falsification of public document under Article 171,
paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, which states:
Art. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastic minister. — The penalty of prision mayor
and a fine not to exceed 5,000 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: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;
x x x x (Emphasis and italics supplied.)
The elements of falsification in the above provision are as follows:
(a) the offender makes in a public document untruthful statements in a narration of facts;
(b) he has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him; and
(c) the facts narrated by him are absolutely false.[26]
In
addition to the afore-cited elements, it must also be proven that the
public officer or employee had taken advantage of his official position
in making the falsification. In falsification of public document, the
offender is considered to have taken advantage of his official position
when (1) he has the duty to make or prepare or otherwise to intervene in
the preparation of a document; or (2) he has the official custody of
the document which he falsifies.[27]
Likewise, in falsification of public or official documents, it is not
necessary that there be present the idea of gain or the intent to injure
a third person because in the falsification of a public document, what
is punished is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of
the truth as therein solemnly proclaimed.[28]
Falsification of Public Document
by making untruthful statements
concerning relatives in the
government service
All the elements of falsification of public documents by making untruthful statements have been established by the prosecution.
Petitioners
argue that the statements “they are not related within the fourth civil
degree of consanguinity or affinity” and “that Section 79 of the Local Government Code has been complied with in the issuance of the appointments” are not a narration of facts
but a conclusion of law, as both require the application of the rules
on relationship under the law of succession. Thus, they cite People v. Tugbang[29]
where it was held that “a statement expressing an erroneous conclusion
of law cannot be considered a falsification.” Likewise, in People v. Yanza,[30]
it was held that when defendant certified that she was eligible for the
position, she practically wrote a conclusion of law, which turned out
to be incorrect or erroneous; hence, she may not be declared guilty of
falsification because the law violated pertains to narration of facts.
We disagree.
A
conclusion of law is a determination by a judge or ruling authority
regarding the law that applies in a particular case. It is opposed to a
finding of fact, which interprets the factual circumstances to which the
law is to be applied.[31] A narration of facts is merely an account or description of the particulars of an event or occurrence.[32]
We have held that a certification by accused officials in the Statement
of Time Elapsed and Work Accomplished qualifies as a narration of facts
as contemplated under Article 171 (4) of the Revised Penal Code, as it
consisted not only of figures and numbers but also words were used
therein giving an account of the status of the flood control project.[33]
In
this case, the required disclosure or identification of relatives
“within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity” in the
SALN involves merely a description of such relationship; it does
not call for an application of law in a particular set of facts. On the
other hand, Articles 963 to 967 of the Civil Code simply explain
the concept of proximity of relationship and what constitute direct and
collateral lines in relation to the rules on succession. The question
of whether or not persons are related to each other by consanguinity or
affinity within the fourth degree is one of fact. Contrary to
petitioners’ assertion, statements concerning relationship may be proved
as to its truth or falsity, and thus do not amount to expression of
opinion. When a government employee is required to disclose his
relatives in the government service, such information elicited therefore
qualifies as a narration of facts contemplated under Article 171 (4) of
the Revised Penal Code, as amended. Further, it bears to stress that the untruthful statements on relationship have no relevance to the employee’s eligibility for the position but pertains rather to prohibition or restriction imposed by law on the appointing power.
Since
petitioner Galeos answered “No” to the question in his 1993 SALN if he
has relatives in the government service within the fourth degree of
consanguinity, he made an untruthful statement therein as in fact he was
related to Ong, who was then the municipal mayor, within the fourth
degree of consanguinity, he and Ong being first cousins (their mothers
are sisters). As to his 1994, 1995 and 1996 SALN, Galeos left in blank
the boxes for the answer to the similar query. In Dela Cruz v. Mudlong,[34] it
was held that one is guilty of falsification in the accomplishment of
his information and personal data sheet if he withholds material facts
which would have affected the approval of his appointment and/or
promotion to a government position. By withholding information on his
relative/s in the government service as required in the SALN, Galeos was
guilty of falsification considering that the disclosure of such
relationship with then Municipal Mayor Ong would have resulted in the
disapproval of his permanent appointment pursuant to Article 168 (j)
(Appointments), Rule XXII of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code of 1991 (R.A. No. 7160), which provides:
No
person shall be appointed in the local government career service if he
is related within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity
to the appointing power or recommending authority.
Section
7 (e), Rule V of the Implementing Rules of Book V, Executive Order No.
292 otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987, provides that
the CSC shall disapprove the appointment of a person who “has been
issued such appointment in violation of existing Civil Service Law,
rules and regulations.” Among the prohibited appointments enumerated in
CSC Memorandum Circular No. 38, series of 1993 are appointments in the
LGUs of persons who are related to the appointing or recommending
authority within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity.[35]
The
Omnibus Rules on Appointments and Other Personnel Actions (CSC
Memorandum Circular No. 40, series of 1998 dated December 14, 1998)
contain a similar prohibition under Rule XIII, Section 9:
SEC.
9. No appointment in the national, provincial, city or municipal
governments or any branch or instrumentality thereof, including
government owned or controlled corporations with original charters shall
be made in favor of a relative of the appointing or recommending
authority, or of the chief of the bureau or office or of the person
exercising immediate supervision over the appointee.Unless
otherwise provided by law, the word “relative” and the members of the
family referred to are those related within the third degree either of
consanguinity or of affinity.In the local government career
service, the prohibition extends to the relatives of the appointing or
recommending authority, within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity
or affinity.x x x x
The nepotism rule covers all
kinds of appointments whether original, promotional, transfer and
reemployment regardless of status including casuals and contractuals
except consultants. (Emphasis supplied.)
The second
element is likewise present. “Legal obligation” means that there is a
law requiring the disclosure of the truth of the facts narrated.[36]
Permanent employees employed by local government units are required to
file the following: (a) sworn statement of assets, liabilities and net
worth (SALN); (b) lists of relatives within the fourth civil degree of
consanguinity or affinity in government service; (c) financial and
business interests; and (d) personal data sheets as required by law.[37] A similar requirement is imposed by Section 8 (B) of Republic Act No. 6713 otherwise known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, thus:
(B) Identification and disclosure of relatives[38].
– It shall be the duty of every public official or employee to identify
and disclose to the best of his knowledge and information, his
relatives in the Government in the form, manner and frequency prescribed
by the Civil Service Commission.
Section 11 of the same
law penalizes the violation of the above provision, either with
imprisonment or fine, and, in the discretion of the court of competent
jurisdiction, disqualification to hold public office. Such violation if
proven in a proper administrative proceeding shall also be sufficient
cause for removal or dismissal of a public official or employee, even if
no criminal prosecution is instituted against him.
The evidence
on record clearly showed that Galeos’ negative answer reflected in his
SALN is absolutely false. During the trial, both Ong and Galeos
admitted the fact that they are first cousins but denied having
knowledge of such relationship at the time the subject documents were
executed. The Sandiganbayan correctly rejected their defense of being
unaware that they are related within the fourth degree of
consanguinity. Given the Filipino cultural trait of valuing strong
kinship and extended family ties, it was unlikely for Galeos who had
been working for several years in the municipal government, not to have
known of his close blood relation to Ong who was a prominent public
figure having ran and won in the local elections four times (three terms
as Mayor and as Vice-Mayor in the 1998 elections), after serving as OIC
Mayor of the same municipality in 1986 until 1988.
The same
thing can be said of Ong, whose unbelievable claim that he had no
knowledge that a first cousin (Galeos) was working in the municipal
government and appointed by him to a permanent position during his
incumbency, was correctly disregarded by the Sandiganbayan. It was
simply unthinkable that as a resident of Naga, Cebu since birth and a
politician at that, he was all the time unaware that he himself
appointed to permanent positions the son of his mother’s sister (Galeos)
and the husband of his first cousin (Rivera). Indeed, the reality of
local politics and Filipino culture renders his defense of good faith
(lack of knowledge of their relationship) unavailing. Despite his
knowledge of the falsity of the statement in the subject SALN, Ong still
administered the oath to Galeos and Rivera who made the false statement
under oath. The Sandiganbayan thus did not err in finding that Ong
connived with Galeos and Rivera in making it appear in their SALN that
they have no relative within the fourth degree of consanguinity/affinity
in the government service.
Conspiracy need not be shown by direct proof of an agreement of the parties to commit the crime,[39]
as it can be inferred from the acts of the accused which clearly
manifest a concurrence of wills, a common intent or design to commit a
crime.[40] In this case, Ong
administered the oaths to Galeos and Rivera in the subject SALN not just
once, but three times, a clear manifestation that he concurred with the
making of the untruthful statement therein concerning relatives in the
government service.
Falsification by making
untruthful statements
in the Certification re:
compliance with the
prohibition on nepotism
As
chief executive and the proper appointing authority, Ong is deemed to
have issued the certification recommending to the CSC approval of
Galeos’ appointment although he admitted only the authenticity and due
execution of Exhibit “I”. Since Ong was duty bound to observe the
prohibition on nepotistic appointments, his certification stating
compliance with Section 79[41] of R.A. No. 7160 constitutes a solemn affirmation of the fact that the appointee is not related to him within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity.
Having executed the certification despite his knowledge that he and
Rivera were related to each other within the fourth degree of affinity,
as in fact Rivera was his cousin-in-law because the mother of Rivera’s
wife is the sister of Ong’s mother, Ong was guilty of falsification of
public document by making untruthful statement in a narration of facts.
He also took advantage of his official position as the appointing
authority who, under the Civil Service rules, is required to issue such
certification.
The importance of the certification submitted to
the CSC by the proper appointing authority in the local government unit,
regarding compliance with the prohibition against nepotism under R.A.
No. 7160 cannot be overemphasized. Under Section 67, Book V, Chapter 10
of the Administrative Code of 1987, a head of office or
appointing official who issues an appointment or employs any person in
violation of Civil Service Law and Rules or who commits fraud, deceit or
intentional misrepresentation of material facts concerning other civil
service matters, or anyone who violates, refuses or neglects to comply
with any of such provisions or rules, may be held criminally liable. In
Civil Service Commission v. Dacoycoy,[42]
we held that mere issuance of appointment in favor of a relative within
the third degree of consanguinity or affinity is sufficient to
constitute a violation of the law. Although herein petitioners were
prosecuted for the criminal offense of falsification of public document,
it becomes obvious that the requirement of disclosure of relationship
to the appointing power in the local government units simply aims to
ensure strict enforcement of the prohibition against nepotism.
Relevant then is our pronouncement in Dacoycoy:
Nepotism
is one pernicious evil impeding the civil service and the efficiency of
its personnel. In Debulgado, we stressed that “[T]the basic purpose or
objective of the prohibition against nepotism also strongly indicates
that the prohibition was intended to be a comprehensive one.” “The Court was unwilling to restrict and limit the scope of the prohibition which is textually very broad and comprehensive.”
If not within the exceptions, it is a form of corruption that must be
nipped in the bud or abated whenever or wherever it raises its ugly
head. As we said in an earlier case “what we need now is not only to
punish the wrongdoers or reward the `outstanding’ civil servants, but
also to plug the hidden gaps and potholes of corruption as well as to
insist on strict compliance with existing legal procedures in order to
abate any occasion for graft or circumvention of the law.”[43] (Emphasis supplied.)
The
prosecution having established with moral certainty the guilt of
petitioners for falsification of public documents under Article 171 (4)
of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, we find no legal ground to reverse petitioners’ conviction.
WHEREFORE, the petitions are DENIED. The Decision dated August 18, 2005 of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case Nos. 26181-26187 and 26189 is AFFIRMED.
With costs against the petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio Morales, (Chairperson), Brion, Bersamin, and Mendoza,* JJ., concur.
* Designated additional member per Special Order No. 944-A dated February 9, 2011.
[1] Rollo (G.R. Nos. 174730-35), pp.
51-73. Penned by Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta (now a Member of
this Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Teresita J.
Leonardo-De Castro (also now a Member of this Court) and Efren N. Dela
Cruz.
[2] TSN, May 9, 2002, pp. 41-42, 62.
[3] Exhibits “J” and “K”, folder of exhibits.
[4] Exhibits “A” and “B”, id.
[5] Exhibits “C” and “F”, id.
[6] Exhibit “D”, id.
[7] Exhibits “E” and “G”, id.
[8] Exhibit “I”, id.
[9] Records, Vol. I, pp. 13-16.
[10] Id. at 5-12.
[11] Separate folders.
[12] Records, Vol. 1, p. 181.
[13] Id. at 202-204.
[14] “Quinciana” in some parts of the TSN.
[15] TSN, May 3, 2001, pp. 11-18.
[16] Exhibit “A,” folder of exhibits.
[17] TSN, May 9, 2002, pp. 22-32.
[18] Id. at 12-19.
[19] Id. at 33, 42-47, 50-59, 64-72.
[20] Rollo (G.R. Nos. 174730-37), pp. 69-72.
[21] Id. at 94-98.
[22] Id. at 25.
[23] Rollo (G.R. Nos. 174845-52), p. 18.
[24] Rollo (G.R. Nos. 174730-37), pp. 192-193, 203-207.
[25] Id. at 199-201.
[26] Fullero v. People, G.R. No. 170583, September 12, 2007, 533 SCRA 97, 114, citing Santos v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 71523-25, December 8, 2000, 347 SCRA 386, 424.
[27] Id., citing Luis B. Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Criminal Law (14th Edition, Revised 1998), BOOK TWO, ARTS. 114-367, p. 216, People v. Uy, 101 Phil. 159, 163 (1957) and United States v. Inosanto, 20 Phil. 376, 378 (1911); Adaza v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 154886, July 28, 2005, 464 SCRA 460, 478-479.
[28] Regidor, Jr. v. People, G.R. Nos. 166086-92, February 13, 2009, 579 SCRA 244, 263, citing Lastrilla v. Granda, G.R. No. 160257, January 31, 2006, 481 SCRA 324, 345, Lumancas v. Intas, G.R. No. 133472, December 5, 2000, 347 SCRA 22, 33-34, further citing People v. Po Giok To, 96 Phil. 913, 918 (1955).
[29] G.R. No. 76212, April 26, 1991, 196 SCRA 341, 350.
[30] 107 Phil. 888, 890-891 (1960).
[31] http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/conclusion-of-law/.
[32] Bartolo v. Sandiganbayan, Second Division, G.R. No. 172123, April 16, 2009, 585 SCRA 387, 394.
[33] Id.
[34] Adm. Matter No. P-985, July 31, 1978, 84 SCRA 280.
[35] VII (Prohibitions on Appointments), 2(b).
[36] Luis B. Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Book Two, (17th Edition, Rev. 2008), p. 223.
[37] Art. 175, Rule XXII, Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code of 1991.
[38] Sec. 3. x x x
x x x x
(k)
“Relatives” refers to any and all persons related to a public official
or employee within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity,
including bilas, inso and balae.
[39] People v. Herida, G.R. No. 127158, March 5, 2001, 353 SCRA 650, 659.
[40] People v. Lenantud, G.R. No. 128629, February 22, 2001, 352 SCRA 549, 563.
[41] Sec. 79. Limitation on Appointments.
– No person shall be appointed in the career service of the local
government if he is related within the fourth civil degree of
consanguinity or affinity to the appointing or recommending authority.
[42] G.R. No. 135805, April 29, 1999, 306 SCRA 425, 435.
[43] Id. at 438-439.