SECOND DIVISION

LTC. ROBERTO K. GUILLERGAN (Ret.), Petitioner,

G.R. No. 185493 Present: CARPIO, J., Chairperson, NACHURA, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,* ABAD, and MENDOZA, JJ.

- versus -

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

Promulgated:

February 2, 2011 x --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x DECISION ABAD, J.:

This case is about the conviction of an accused for an offense other than that charged in the Information based on a claim that the essential elements of the offense of which he was convicted are also elements of the offense charged in the Information.

The Facts and the Case

On June 20, 1995 the Office of the Ombudsman indicted petitioner Roberto K. Guillergan (Guillergan) for estafa through falsification of public documents before the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case 22904.[1]

The evidence shows that sometime in 1987, petitioner Guillergan, a Lieutenant Colonel in the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), directed Master Sergeant Edna Seclon (Seclon), Chief Clerk of the Comptrollers Office, to cause the preparation of the payrolls of their civilian intelligence agents (CIAs) with supporting time record and book. The agents names were copied and, based on their appointment papers, certified as correct by Guillergan and then approved by Brigadier General Domingo T. Rio (Rio).[2] Each time the processing unit returned the payrolls for lack of signatures of the payees, Guillergan would direct Technical Sergeant Nemesio H. Butcon (Butcon), the Budget and Fiscal Non-Commissioned Officer, to affix his initial on the Remarks/Sig column of the payrolls to complete the requirements and facilitate the processing of the time record, book, and payrolls.[3] Also on Guillergans instruction, the CIAs payrolls in Region 6 for 1987, totaling P732,000.00, were covered by cash advances payable to Captain Roland V. Maclang, Jr. (Maclang, Jr.), which advances were issued upon his request as disbursing officer for that purpose. When ready, Guillergan received the corresponding cash or checks then turned them over to Rio.[4] At the end of 1987, Rio further received P787,000.00 in administrative funds to be paid out to contractors for repairs in the mens barracks, the firing range, the guesthouse and others. But Rio requested that this administrative funds be realigned to intelligence funds in order to facilitate clearing.[5] On April 14, 1989 the AFP Anti-Graft Board filed a complaint[6] against Rio, Butcon, Maclang, Jr., Seclon, and Guillergan for violating Articles of War 94 in relation to Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).

After preliminary investigation, the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas issued a resolution[7] dated May 24, 1991, recommending the dismissal of the case for lack of merit. On April 21, 1992, however, the ombudsman investigator issued a

memorandum, recommending the filing of charges of illegal use of public funds against Rio and the exoneration of the other respondents. In a memorandum[8] dated February 11, 1993, the review panel in the Office of the Special Prosecutor affirmed the recommendation.

On June 20, 1995, however, the Office of the Special Prosecutor recommended the filing of charges against all the accused before the Sandiganbayan. Consequently, anInformation was filed against them for estafa under Article 315, par. 2(a),[9] in relation to Article 171[10] of the RPC.

While the case was pending, Rio died, prompting the Sandiganbayan to dismiss the case against him.[11]

On January 20, 2006, the parties submitted a stipulation of facts with motion for judgment[12] based on such stipulations. On June 30, 2008, the Sandiganbayan Second Division rendered judgment, [13] finding Guillergan guilty of falsification penalized under Article 172[14] of the RPC and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for 2 years and 4 months as minimum to 4 years, 9 months and 10 days as maximum. The court acquitted the other accused on the ground of lack of proof of their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Issues Presented The issues presented in this case are: 1. Whether or not the Sandiganbayan can convict Guillergan of violation of Article 172 of the RPC under an Information that charged him with estafa in relation to Article 171 of the code; and 2. Whether or not petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of falsification of public documents.

The Courts Rulings The Information alleged that Guillergan committed falsification by making it appear in several public

documents that P1,519,000.00 in AFP funds intended for the CIAs payroll were paid for that purpose when in truth these were just given to Rio, resulting in damage and prejudice to the government. Although the charge was estafa in relation to Article 171 of the RPC, the facts alleged in the information sufficiently made out a case for violation of Article 172 of which Guillergan was convicted. What is important is that the Information described the latter offense intelligibly and with reasonable certainty, enabling Guillergan to understand the charge against him and suitably prepare his defense. [15]

What is punished in falsification of a public document is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of the truth as solemnly proclaimed in it.[16] Generally, the elements of Article 171 are: 1) the offender is a public officer, employee, or notary public; 2) he takes advantage of his official position; and 3) that he falsifies a document by committing any of the ways it is done.[17]

On the other hand, the elements of falsification of documents under paragraph 1, Article 172 are: 1) the offender is a private individual or a public officer or employee who did not take advantage of his official position; 2) the offender committed any of the acts of falsification enumerated in Article 171; [18] and 3) the falsification was committed in a public or official or commercial document.[19] All of the foregoing elements of Article 172 are present in this case.

First. Guillergan was a public officer when he committed the offense charged. He was the comptroller to the PC/INP Command in Region 6. While the Information said that he took advantage of his position in committing the crime, the

Sandiganbayan found that his work as comptroller did not include the preparation of the appointments and payrolls of CIAs. Nor did he have official custody of the pertinent documents.[20] His official function was limited to keeping the records of the resources that the command received from Camp Crame.[21] Still, he took the liberty of intervening in the preparation of the time record, book, and payrolls in question. Second. The Information alleged that Guillergan committed the offense charged by causing it to appear that persons participated in an act or a proceeding when they did not in fact so participate. [22] In People v. Yanson-Dumancas,[23] the Court held that a person may induce another to commit a crime in two ways: 1) by giving a price or offering a reward or promise; and 2) by using words of command. In this case, the Sandiganbayan found that Guillergan ordered Butcon to sign the receive portion of the payrolls as payee to make it appear that persons whose names appeared on the same had signed the document when they in fact did not.[24] Third. There is no dispute that the falsification was committed on the time record, book, and payrolls which were public documents.

What is more, given that some of the essential elements of Article 171 constitute the lesser offense of falsification of public documents under Article 172, then the allegations in the Information were sufficient to hold Guillergan liable under Article 172.

As a rule, the Court regards as conclusive on it the factual findings of the Sandiganbayan unless these fall under certain established exceptions.[25] Since none of those exceptions can be identified in this case, the Court must accord respect and weight to the Sandiganbayan's findings. It had the better opportunity to examine and evaluate the evidence presented before it.[26] As aptly pointed out by the Sandiganbayan, to wit: There are tell-tales signs that the agents listed on the payrolls did not receive their salaries. First, x x x Guillergan declared that he personally turned over the entire amount of [P1,519,000.00] to Gen. Rio. Second, Butcons narration that he was instructed by Guillergan, to [affix his] initial at the receive portion of the payrolls. Lastly, according to the records of the case, the office of Guillergan had no business in processing the payroll of these personnel. x x x Additionally, the appointment papers from which these payrolls were based do not reveal any information about the acceptance of the appointments by the agents. In a letter dated April 14, 1989 of the Anti-Graft Board of the Armed forces of the Philippines x x x [to Ombudsman Vasquez], it was stated that the appointment papers of the agents must be accompanied by the acceptance of the agents. These papers should ordinarily be attached to the payrolls for proper clearing purposes. Since there were no acceptance papers presented, it only suggests that the lists on the payrolls are names of ghost agents. Even more, the board made a comment that x x x Guillergan denies knowledge of the persons appointed even if he certified to the correctness of the payrolls. The only conclusion x x x is the deliberate falsification of the payrolls; causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate. [27]

The Court finds no error in the decision of the Sandiganbayan that found Guillergan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Falsification of Public Documents under Article 172 of the RPC.

WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition and AFFIRMS the Sandiganbayans decision dated June 30, 2008 and Resolution dated January 7, 2004 which found petitioner Roberto K. Guillergan guilty of violation of Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code in Criminal Case 22904.

CASE DIGEST NO. 3 Case title: G.R. No. 174730-37, February 9, 2011 ROSALIO S. GALEOS, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x G.R. No. 174845-52 PAULINO S. ONG, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

Facts: Ong was elected Mayor of the Municipality of Naga, Cebu in 1988 and served as such until 1998. On June 1, 1994, he extended permanent appointments to Rosalio S. Galeos (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. 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 years 1993 to 1996, Galeos and Rivera either answered a "No" or an "n/a" 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?" and on the space for the list of the names of relatives referred to in the said query. There was even a time that the question was left blank. Ong's signature appears in all the foregoing documents as the person who administered the oath when Galeos and Rivera executed the foregoing documents. On October 1, 1998, the members of the Sangguniang Bayan of Naga, Cebu filed a letter-complaint 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 a later year, 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. The informations that were filed against the petitioners charged them with violating the provision of R.A. 7160 particularly Section 79 on nepotism. It is alleged there that with intent to falsify they, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously falsify a public document the accused, Galeos, made it appear therein that they are not related within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity, when in truth and in fact he was related to Ong within the fourth degree of consanguinity, since the mother of accused Galeos is the sister of the mother of accused Ong. While accused Rivera made it appear therein that he has no relatives within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity working in the government, when he is related to accused Ong within the fourth degree of affinity, since the mother of Rivera's wife being the sister of the mother of Ong.

1. 2.

Issue/s: Whether or not the petitioners lack of knowledge of their relationship at the time of the execution of the public document could exempt them from the criminal liability of falsification of public documents. Whether the appointment of Galeos and Rivera by Ong is within the scope of the ban on nepotism.

1.

Ruling: No. Article 171, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, includes making untruthful statements in a narration of facts. The elements of falsification in the said 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. 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. 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. 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, 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 2. Yes. The nepotism rule covers all kinds of appointments whether original, promotional, transfer and reemployment regardless of status including casuals and contractuals except consultants.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 said certification. Since Ong was duty bound to observe the prohibition on nepotistic appointments, his certification stating compliance with Section 79 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. 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.

G.R. NOS. 174730-37, FEBRUARY 09, 2011 ROSALIO S. GALEOS, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT. [G.R. NOS. 174845-52] PAULINO S. ONG, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT. [VILLARAMA, JR.]

Facts: The consolidated petitions seek to reverse the seek to reverse the decision of the Sandiganbayan convicting the petitioners of falsification of public documents under Article 171 paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. 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. 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. 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. In the subsequents SALNs the said query was either marked No or left blank by Galeos and Rivera. Ong's signature appears in all the foregoing documents as the person who administered the oath when Galeos and Rivera executed the foregoing documents. Ong and HR Officer-Designate Editha C. Garcia signed a certification addressed to the CSC Region 7 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. The certification also states that 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. Acting upon a complaint filed by the members of the Sangguniang Bayan of Naga, the OIC-Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas filed criminal charges against petitioners for falsification of public documents consisting of the SALN 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 knew 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. Both petitioners said that they were not aware that they were relatives within the fourth degree of consanguinity. On August 18, 2005, the Sandiganbayan convicted the petitioners guilty of the crime charged. Issue/s:

Whether the petitioners lack of knowledge of their relationship at the time of the execution of the public document could ex empt them from the criminal liability of falsification of public documents. Ruling: Article 171, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, states that falsification of public documents by a public officer includes making untruthful statements in a narration of facts. The elements of falsification are: (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. 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. The prosecution was able to establish all the elements of falsification in the case at bar. 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. 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. Since petitioner Galeos answered "No" to the question in his 1993 SALN and left it blank in other years 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). 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 specifically provides that 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. The second element of legal obligation to disclose the truth is also present as there is a law requiring it. 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. 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. 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 statement of having no knowledge of their relationship as cousins is unthinkable being a resident of Naga, Cebu since birth. 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. By Ongs issuance of the certification that the appointee is not related to him despite the fact that they are, he was also g uilty 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 petitions were DENIED. The Decision of the Sandiganbayan AFFIRMED.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION G.R. No. 150910 February 6, 2006

BIENVENIDO GONZALUDO, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. DECISION GARCIA, J.: Under consideration is this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court to nullify and set aside the following issuances of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 22185, to wit: 1. Decision dated 19 July 2001, dismissing the appeal thereto taken by the herein petitioner from a judgment of conviction promulgated by the Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City, Branch 50, in a criminal case for estafa thru falsification of public document thereat commenced by the People against four (4) accused, including the petitioner; and 2. Resolution dated 22 October 2001, denying petitioners motion for reconsideration. The material facts may be briefly stated, as follows: Before his death in 1992, one Ulysses Villaflor was a member of the Bacolod City Police Office. On January 11, 1978, Ulysses married Anita Manlangit in Bacolod City. Thereafter, the couple stayed with Ulyssess m other Anastacia Tobongbanua at the latters house at Purok 5, Mansungay, Bacolod City. Later, Ulysses was assigned to Pagadian City. However, he would often go home to Bacolod City to supervise his tire-recapping business thereat. Meanwhile, his wife Anita secured a teaching job in Catubig, Samar prompting her to leave Bacolod City and live in Samar. After less than a year in Pagadian City, Ulysses was re-assigned to Bacolod City. And, in December of 1978, he was able to buy for P1,500.00 a small house located near that of his mother at Purok 5, Mansungay, Bacolod City. Then, in 1985, Ulysses took one Rosemarie Gelogo as his mistress and brought her into the house. In time, improvements were made on the house, the most substantial of which were those introduced sometime in March 1991. What used to be a small house, which Ulysses bought for only P1,500.00, was thus transformed into a 2-storey structure partially made of concrete hollow blocks and with galvanized iron roofing which thereby enhanced its value to P200,000.00. After Ulyssess demise in January of 1992, his mistress Rosemarie Gelogo offered to sell the 2 -storey house forP80,000.00 to herein petitioner Bienvenido Gonzaludo, a.k.a. Ben Gonzaludo, who lives just nearby. Initially, petitioner was not interested to buy the house because he already had one, let alone the fact that he did not have enough money for the purpose. Nonetheless, since the house was being sold for a cheap price, petitioner convinced the spouses Gregg Canlas and Melba Canlas, to whom he is related by affinity, to buy the same. Herein, petitioner introduced the Canlases to Rosemarie Gelogo. On January 20, 1993, Rosemarie Gelogo and Gregg Canlas executed a Deed of Sale, witnessed by petitioner. In that deed, Rosemarie Gelogo signed as Rosemarie G. Villaflor and represented herself to be the lawful owner of the 2-storey house. By virtue of the same deed, vendee Gregg Canlas acquired all of Rosemaries rights and interest on the subject house. Later, upon complaint of Ulyssess widow Anita Manlangit, an Inform ation dated May 31, 1994 was filed with the Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City charging Rosemarie Gelogo, alias Rosemarie Villaflor, the spouses Gregg Canlas and Melba Canlas and petitioner with the crime of Estafa thru Falsification of Public Document allegedly committed, as follows:
4 3 2 1

That on or about the 20th day of January, 1993 in the City of Bacolod, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the herein accused, conspiring, confederating and acting in concert, with intent to gain, defrauded the herein offended party, Anita Manlangit Vda. de Villaflor, herein represented by her mother-in-law and Attorney-inFact, Anastacia Tobongbanua, in the following manner, to wit: that accused Rosemarie Gelogo alias Rosemarie G. Villaflor being the occupant of a house made of concrete materials with a floor area of 40 ft. by 24 ft., with galvanized iron roofing, worth P200,000.00, owned by the deceased Ulysses Villaflor, husband of the herein offended party, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit acts of falsification by then and there preparing and/or causing to be prepared a public document denominated as a Deed of Sale dated January 20, 1993 entered as Doc. No. 402, Page No. 81, Book No. XVII, Series of 1993 of the Notarial Register of Atty. Ramon B. Clapiz, to the effect that she is the lawful owner of the said house and affixing or causing to be affixed thereon her name and signature, Rosemarie G. Villaflor, purportedly as wife of the deceased Ulysses Villaflor, thus making untruthful statement in the narration of facts as accused well know that such was not the case for the deceased Ulysses Villaflor has a legal wife in the person of the herein offended party, by reason of which accused was able to effect the sale and eventual occupancy of the said house to the herein accused Sps. Gregg Canlas and Melba Canlas who despite of their knowledge that such house was not owned by Rosemarie Gelogo bought the same from her in the amount of P80,000.00 and, herein accused Bienvenido Gonzaludo alias "Ben", despite of his knowledge that such house was not owned by Rosemarie Gelogo, participated in the commission of the herein offense by causing his name and signature to be affixed in the said Deed of Sale as witness to the fraudulent sale entered into by the parties, to the damage and prejudice of the herein offended party in the amount of TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P200,000.00), Philippine Currency. Act contrary to law. Docketed as Criminal Case No. 94-16532, the Information was raffled to Branch 50 of the court. Because accused Rosemarie Gelogo remained at large, only the spouses Gregg Canlas and Melba Canlas and herein petitioner were arraigned, all of whom entered a plea of "Not Guilty." After due proceedings, the trial court, in a decision dated February 17, 1998, acquitted the Canlas spouses but convicted petitioner of the complex crime of Estafa Thru Falsification of Public Document and sentenced him accordingly. Dispositively, the decision reads: FOR ALL THE FOREGOING, the Court finds the accused Bienvenido Gonzaludo GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as a principal and co-conspirator of the complex Crime of Estafa Thru Falsification of a Public Document and there being no extenuating circumstances and pursuant to the provision of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Temporal. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the accused is sentenced to a prison term of Eight (8) years of Prision Mayor to Twenty (20) years of Reclusion Temporal. By way of Civil Liability, the accused is sentenced to pay the offended party the sum of P200,000.00, representing the value of the house and the sum of P20,000.00 as attorneys fees. The case with respect to the accused-Spouses Gregg and Melba Canlas is ordered dismissed as their guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Therefrom, petitioner went to the CA via ordinary appeal in CA-G.R. CR No. 22185. As stated at the outset hereof, the appellate court, in its decision dated July 19, 2001, dismissed petitioners appeal for lack of merit and affirmed the trial courts judgment of conviction, thus: WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the appeal is hereby ordered DISMISSED, having no merit in fact and in law, and the decision of the trial court AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. With his motion for reconsideration having been denied by the CA in its resolution of October 22, 2001, petitioner is now with us via the present recourse on his submissions that the CA erred when it I xxx sustained the decision of the trial court convicting the petitioner of the crime of Estafa thru Falsification of Public Document as defined and punished under Paragraph 2(a), Article 315, Revised Penal Code EVEN IF not any of the statutory elements of the crime herein charged is present or has been proved and/or not all of the statutory elements of the offense thus charged are present or have been proved beyond reasonable doubt; II xxx sustained the conviction of your petitioner ALTHOUGH the material allegations in the information filed below have not been proved at all beyond reasonable doubt; III xxx sustained the conviction of herein petitioner of a crime not properly charged in the information; IV xxx grossly misappreciated the facts and misapplied the law and jurisprudence concerning the status of the house subject of this case as to whether the same is totally a conjugal property of Ulysses and Anita or the house wholly or substantially belongs to Rosemarie Gelogo a.k.a. Rosemarie G. Villaflor.
5

The petition is partly impressed with merit. Basic in this jurisdiction is the doctrine that in criminal cases, an appeal throws the whole case wide open for review. 6 Issues, whether raised or not by the parties, may be resolved by the appellate court. The Court is duty-bound to look into the validity of the factual and legal basis relied upon by the two (2) courts below in convicting petitioner in this case. It is worthy to note that petitioner was convicted by the trial court of the complex crime charged in the Information for allegedly having conspired with Rosemarie Gelogo, who used the fictitious surname "Villaflor" for the purpose of giving her a semblance of authority to sell the house purportedly owned by her paramour, Ulysses Villaflor, who was legally married to private complainant, Anita Villaflor. First and foremost, therefore, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to establish Rosemarie Gelogos criminal liability for the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public document, and thereafter, establish by proof beyond reasonable doubt that herein petitioner conspired with Rosemarie in the commission of the same complex crime. In other words, if Rosemarie cannot be held liable for the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public document under the Information filed in this case, with all the more reason should it be for petitioner, as alleged coconspirator. For an accused to be convicted of the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public document, all the elements of the two crimes of estafa and falsification of public document must exist. To secure conviction for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code, the Court has time and again ruled that the following requisites must concur: (1) that the accused made false pretenses or fraudulent representations as to his power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; (2) that such false pretenses or fraudulent representations were made prior to or simultaneous with the commission of the fraud; (3) that such false pretenses or fraudulent representations constitute the very cause which induced the offended party to part with his money or property; and (4) that as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage (Emphasis supplied). There is no question that the first, second and fourth elements are present: there was false or fraudulent misrepresentation by Rosemarie Gelogo when she used the fictitious surname "Villaflor"; the misrepresentation or false pretense was made prior to or simultaneous with the commission of the fraud; and private complainant Anita Manlangits right to the subject 2-storey house was lost or at the very least prejudiced when Rosemarie sold it to the Canlases. It is petitioners thesis, however, that there is here an absence of the third element, i.e., "that such false pretenses or fraudulent representations constitute the very cause which induced the offended party to part with his money or property," contending that private complainant Anita Manlangit, who was the offended party in this case, was never induced to part with any money or property by means of fraud, committed simultaneously with the false pretense or fraudulent representation by Rosemarie. We find merit in petitioners submission. As early as in the 1903 case of U.S. vs. Mendezona, we held that therein accused may be convicted for estafa only when the deceit or false pretenses, committed simultaneously with the fraud, were the efficient cause or primary consideration which induced the offended party to part with his money or property. Thirty (30) years thereafter, the rule remains the same. In the 1933 case of People vs. Lilius, the Court, through then Chief Justice Ramon Avancea, acquitted the accused of estafa because the deceit did not precede the defraudation, which means that the deceit was not the cause which could have induced the damage or prejudice to or loss of property suffered by the injured party.1avvphil.net In the cases of People vs. Quesada, People vs. Fortuno, and People vs. Sabio, which span more than another forty-five (45) years after Lilius, the Court continued to apply the same principle in determining criminal liability for estafa, i.e., that the deceit must have been committed prior to or simultaneous with the fraudulent act because this was the only way that said deceit could become the efficient cause or primary consideration which could have induced the offended party to part with his money or property. The doctrine remains the same a hundred (100) years after the 1903 case of Mendezona. Thus, in the 2003 case of 13 Alcantara vs. Court of Appeals, this Court acquitted the therein accused of the crime of estafa explaining, through Justice Romeo J. Callejo, Sr., that the false pretense or fraudulent act must be committed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud, thus:
10 11 12 9 8 7

xxx fraud in its general sense is deemed to comprise anything calculated to deceive, including all acts, omissions, and concealment involving a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust, or confidence justly reposed, resulting in damage to another, or by which an undue and unconscientious advantage is taken of another. It is a generic term embracing all multifarious means which human ingenuity can device, and which are resorted to by one individual to secure an advantage over another by false suggestions or by suppression of truth and includes all surprise, trick, cunning, dissembling and. any unfair way by which another is cheated. And deceit is the false representation of a matter of fact whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed which deceives or is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. The false pretense or fraudulent act must be committed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud. We find no cogent reason to depart from this settled principle that the deceit, which must be prior to or simultaneously committed with the act of defraudation, must be the efficient cause or primary consideration which induced the offended party to part with his money or property and rule differently in the present case. While it may be said that there was fraud or deceit committed by Rosemarie in this case, when she used the surname "Villaflor" to give her semblance of authority to sell the subject 2-storey house, such fraud or deceit was employed upon the Canlas spouses who were the ones who parted with their money when they bought the house. However, the Information charging Rosemarie of estafa in the present case, alleged damage or injury not upon the Canlas spouses, but upon private complainant, Anita Manlangit. Since the deceit or fraud was not the efficient cause and did not induce Anita Manlangit to part with her property in this case, Rosemarie cannot be held liable for estafa. With all the more reason must this be for herein petitioner. The lack of criminal liability for estafa, however, will not necessarily absolve petitioner from criminal liability arising from the charge of falsification of public document under the same Information charging the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public document. It is settled doctrine that When a complex crime has been charged in an information and the evidence fails to support the charge on one of the component offenses, can the defendant still be separately convicted of the other offense? The question has long been answered in the affirmative. In United States vs. Lahoylahoy and Madanlog (38 Phil. 330), the Court has ruled to be legally feasible the conviction of an accused on one of the offenses included in a complex crime charged, when 14 properly established, despite the failure of evidence to hold the accused of the other charge. Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code punishes any private individual who shall commit any of the acts of falsification enumerated in Article 171 in any public or official document or letter of exchange or any other kind of commercial document. In turn, Article 171 of the same Code provides: Art. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastic minister.- The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed P5,000 pesos [sic] 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: 1avvphil.net
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 any 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.

The same penalty shall be imposed upon any ecclesiastical minister who shall commit any of the offenses enumerated in the preceding paragraphs of this article, with respect to any record or document of such character that its falsification may affect the civil status of persons. (Emphasis supplied) As correctly found by the trial court, petitioner conspired with Rosemarie to falsify, that is, by making untruthful statement in the narration of facts in the deed of sale, by declaring Rosemarie to be the owner of the house subject of such sale and signing as "Rosemarie Villaflor" instead of her real name, Rosemarie Gelogo, in order to sell the same to the Canlas spouses. It is established by evidence beyond reasonable doubt that Rosemarie committed the crime of falsification of public document. Likewise, proof beyond reasonable doubt has been duly adduced to establish conspiracy between Rosemarie and petitioner who is the brother-in-law of Melba Canlas, one of the buyers of the house in this case. WHEREFORE, the assailed decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals are hereby MODIFIED. Petitioner is hereby ACQUITTED of the complex crime of Estafa through Falsification of Public Document, but found GUILTY of the crime of Falsification of Public Document and is accordingly imposed an indeterminate sentence of 4 months and

1 day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to 2 years, 4 months and 1 day of prision correccional, as maximum, and to pay a fine of P5,000.00.No costs.
SO ORDERED.