Regidor v People of the Philippines

GR No. 166086-92, 13 Feb. 2009

Nachura,. J:

FACTS:

On various dates of the month of June and July 1988, Mayor Eleno Rogidor and other
officials of Tangub City falsified various resolutions making it appear that the resolutions were
deliberated upon, passed and approved when it truth and in fact, it was never taken up by the
Sangunian.

It was alleged that when Regidor assumed office on 5 May 1988 proposals for
resolutions and ordinances originated from his office. More often, a prepared resolution was
available so that it would be easier for the Sangunian to just accept or adopt the resolutions.

During session of the Sangguniang on 27 July 1988, the Council was presented with
the Minutes for the sessions held on June 23, 30, July 14 and 21, respectively stating therein that
various resolutions and ordinances were deliberated and passed, which were questioned by the
members of the Sangunian. It was alleged that the said resolutions and ordinances were neither
taken up, deliberated nor passed upon. Hence, on 15 Oct. 1988, council members filed a
complaint with the DILG and administrative case against the accused for misconduct in office
and neglect of duty. The councillors claim that they were prevented from attending the session
because the schedule of sessions was randomly changed without them being notified.

In his defense, Regidor testified that before approving resolutions or ordinances, he

consults his legal counsel to check if there are any irregularities and if they are beneficial; that he
did not attend or participate in the session of the city council; that he did not influence the
deliberation of the Sangunian; that he signed the resolutions in good faith believing that
deliberation was passed upon; that the minutes of the sessions were inaccurately taken by
secretary. Hence, no falsification under par. 2 for they did not cause it to appear that other
persons participated in an act or proceedings when they did not in fact so participate. Also, no
falsification under par. 7 for according to the petitioners, such falsification involves non-existent
document and the falsifier produces one purporting to be the original, whereas they passed and
approved authentic, genuine and original documents.

On 24 Sept. 2004, Sandiganbayan held that the petitioners guilty.

ISSUE:

W/N the accused were guilty of falsification.

HELD:

Yes. The petition is bereft of merit.

Elements of falsification of public document:

1. Offender is public officer, employee, or notary;

1
 2. He takes advantage of his official position;
3. They had the duty to make, prepare or intervene in the preparation of document, or have
the official custody.
4. He falsifies a document by committing any of the acts in Art. 171.

It is not necessary that there be present idea of gain or intent to injure a third person for
what is punished is the violation of public faith and destruction of truth.

In the case at bar, petitioners made it appear that the complainants participated in the
session when they did not in fact.

The Court also held the validity and importance of the disputed minutes of the meeting.
Citing De los Reyes v Sandiganbayan, the Court accords full recognition to the minutes as the
official repository of what actually transpires in every proceeding.

Threefold liability rules. A simple act or omission can give rise to criminal, civil or
administrative liability, each independently of the others. Hence, the dismissal of the
administrative cases will not necessarily result in the dismissal of the criminal complaints.

Findings of fact of the Sandiganbayan are binding and conclusive, except:

1. When the conclusion is grounded entirely on speculation, surmises and conjectures;

2. The inference made is manifestly mistaken;
3. There is a grave abuse of discretion;
4. Judgment is bases on misapprehension of facts;
5. Findings are without citation of specific evidence on which they are bases;
6. Findings are premised on the absence of evidence on record.

In falsification of a public document, the falsification need not be made on an official

form. It is sufficient that the document is given the appearance of, or made to appear similar to
the official form.