2. Siquian v.

People

Facts:

Jesusa Carreon went to the office of Manuel Siquian, the municipal mayor of Isabela, to apply
for a job in the office of the mayor. Siquian then appointed her as a clerk in the office of the municipal
secretary and even said that her salary would be included in the budget. Accompanying her
appointment is the certification, among others, of the availability of funds through a form issued by
Siquian and addressed to the CSC, pursuant to the requirements of the latter.

It should be noted that the Municipal council of Isabela, failed to enact the annual budget for
the municipality for the Fiscal Year 1975-76. As such, the annual budget for the previous Fiscal Year
1974-75, was deemed re-enacted. No such position existed then.

Carreon worked for five months and was supposed to receive her salary of P120. She approached the
municipal treasurer to ask for the money but the latter said that there was no money yet. She then sued
Siquian for falsification of a public document.

The RTC and CA ruled in favour of Carreon. Siquian interposed the defense of a lack of criminal intent.

Issue:

Was Siquian guilty of falsification of public documents?

Ruling:

He was found guilty under par 4 of art 171, “making untruthful statements in a narration of facts”; the
elements of which are: (a) That the offender makes in a document untruthful statements in a narration
of facts; (b) that he has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him; and (c) That
the facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false.

In this case, all the elements for falsification were met especially when Siquian stated that funds were
available for the position to which Jesusa Carreon was appointed when he knew that, in reality, the
position itself did not even exist and no funds had been appropriated. It is further bolstered by the fact
that when the budget was deemed re-enacted, there is no such position as Clerk to the Municipal
Secretary, the position to which Carreon was appointed. And there is also no appropriation made in the
Annual Budget for the Fiscal Year 1974-75 for such position, thus rendering Siquian's statement in his
certification utterly false.

Siquian also had the legal obligation to disclose the truth of such facts. Under the civil service rules and
regulations, a certification of the availability of funds for the position to be filled up is required to be
signed by the head of office or any officer who has been delegated the authority to sign. As an officer
authorized by law to issue the certification, Siquian has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the
facts narrated by him in said certification which includes information as to the availability of the funds
for the position being filled up.

He also took advantage of his official position in falsifying the document. Abuse of public office is
considered present when the offender falsifies a document in connection with the duties of his office
which consist of either making or preparing or otherwise intervening in the preparation of a document.
In this case, Siquian was charged with the duty of issuing the certification necessary for the appointment
of Carreon.

Lastly, the existence of a wrongful intent to injure a third person is not necessary when the falsified
document is a public document. The SC relied on the Go Tiok case in stating that wrongful intent on the
part of an accused to injure a third person is not an essential element of the crime of falsification of
public document. This is because the principal thing punished in falsifying public documents is the
violation of the public faith and the destruction of truth as therein solemnly proclaimed.