Case Digest: LUDWIG H. ADAZA v. SANDIGANBAYAN, et al.

Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) of 1st District of Zamboanga del
Norte awarded to Parents and Teachers Association (PTA)of Manawan National High
School (MNHS) a contract for the construction of a school building at an agreed
consideration of P111,319.50. Upon the completion of the project, PTA failed to receive
the last installment payment amounting to P20,847.17.

PTA president Felix Mejorda (Mejorda) was informed by Hazel Pearanda, DPWH
Cashier, that the check for P20,847.17 had been released to Ludwig H. Adaza (Adaza).

Subsequently, Mejorda found out that acknowledging receipt of the check bears his
name and signature which was not his. He likewise noticed that Adazas signature was
affixed on the voucher. During that time, Adaza was municipal mayor of Jose Dalman.
Upon examination of DBP Check issued to payee, Mejorada noticed that there were two
signatures at the dorsal portion of it, his forged signature and another which he found to
be that of Aristela Adaza (Aristela), wife of Adaza.

The Office of the Ombudsman filed two Informations against Adaza. The Sadiganbayan
found Adaza guilty of the offense charged. It thereafter issued a Bench Warrant of Arrest.
Hence, the filing of this petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the falsification case against Adaza
which was not in relation to his position as municipal mayor

HELD:

In the instant case, there is no showing that the alleged falsification was committed by the
accused, if at all, as a consequence of, and while they were discharging, official functions.
The information does not allege that there was an intimate connection between the
discharge of official duties and the commission of the offense.

Clearly therefore, as the alleged falsification was not an offense committed in relation to
the office of the accused, it did not come under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. It
follows that all its acts in the instant case are null and void ab initio.

ANICETO RECEBIDO vs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

KAPUNAN, J.:

Facts:
 That on or about the 13th day of August, 1979, in the Municipality of Sorsogon, Province of
Sorsogon, Philippines, the accused, being a private individual, falsify and/or imitate the signature of one
Caridad Dorol and/or cause it to appear that said Caridad Dorol has signed her name on a Deed of
Absolute Sale of Real Property in favor of the herein accused.

Issue:

1. Whether or not the crime charged had already prescribed at the time the information was filed?

2. Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed gave abuse of discretion in sustaining the conviction
of the petitioner?

3. Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed grievous error in affirming the decision of the trial
court for the petitioner to vacate the land in question owned by the offended party?

Held:

No.

1. While the defense of prescription of the crime was raised only during the motion for reconsideration
of the decision of the Court of Appeals, there was no waiver of the defense.

2. The petitioner is presumed to be the author of the forged deed of sale, despite the absence of any
direct evidence of his authorship of the forgery. Since the petitioner is the only person who stood to
benefit by the falsification of the document found in his possession, it is presumed that he is the
material author of the falsification.

3. Assuming that petitioner had a right to possess the subject land, his possession became unlawful
when the private complainant offered to redeem the property and petitioner unjustly refused.
Petitioner cannot profit from the effects of his crime.

Petition denied.

BERNARDINO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Case Digest

NESTOR A. BERNARDINO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. NOS. 170453 & 170518 October 30, 2006

FACTS: The Sandiganbayan found Nestor Bernardino, a former Mayor of Guimba, Nueva Ecija, and
other Prequalification Bid and Awards Committee (PBAC), guilty of falsification of public document.
On December 8, 1997, the PBAC members convened as alleged. PBAC, assisted by COA
representative Rolando Ronquillo, assessed the qualifications of four bidders who participated and
thereafter awarded the construction project to MASCOM. Prior to construction, Jose Dizon was elected
Mayor of Guimba and conducted a public bidding for the same construction project and awarded it to
KYRO. Consequently, MASCOM filed before the Ombudsman a criminal compliant against Mayor
Dizon for violation of Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act. Mayor Dizons contention was manifested in an affidavit stating that no public bidding
was held in connection with the construction project nor was the PBAC convened on December 8,
1997. On the basis of the admission of the affiants, the Ombudsman dismissed the case against Mayor
Dizon and instead filed the case for falsification of public documents under Article 171(2) of the RPC
against all PBAC members. The Information charged Bernardino and the PBAC members of
falsification by making it appear in the "Minutes of the opening of bids," "Prequalification Bid and Award
Committee," "Abstract of Proposal," and "Abstract of Bidding," that they and COA representative
conducted a public bidding on December 8, 1997, when no such bidding was in fact conducted.

At the trial, Ronquillo declared that he did not attend any public bidding regarding the construction
project on December 8, 1997. He admitted, however, that he has no personal knowledge whether a
bidding was conducted or not. The same was made by Mayor Dizon who admitted that he does not
know whether the PBAC conducted a public bidding. The prosecution also offered in evidence the
affidavits of some PBAC members in support of its theory that no public bidding was held.

Motion for reconsideration as well as a motion for new trial on the basis of the alleged newly discovered
evidence in form of affidavits stating that the falsification was caused by fear and intimidation of Mayor
Dizon to bolster his defense in the charges against him, was denied. Thus the petition for review.

ISSUE: Whether the guilt of Bernardino was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

HELD: No. In the instant case, Bernardino was charged with falsification under Article 171(2) of the
RPC, by causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did
not in fact participate. Its elements are: (1) that the offender is a public officer, employee or notary
public; (2) that he takes advantage of his official position; (3) that he falsifies a document by causing
it to appear that a person or persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in
fact so participate.

The evidence presented by the prosecution to establish that no bidding was conducted on December
8, 1997 were the affidavits of PBAC members and the testimonies of Ronquillo and Mayor Dizon could
not be considered for purposes of determining whether a public bidding was indeed held on that day
because of their admission that they do not have personal knowledge whether or not said bidding was
indeed conducted. The affidavit and testimonies were merely an expression of an opinion and not a
fact since the affiants were not in the place where the alleged bidding was held and are not in the
position to declare with moral certainty that no such bidding in fact occurred.