x CERTIFIED TRUE PHOTOCOPY: a. HOM THE RECORDS Republic of the Philippines ‘ Sandigunbayan Quezon City Second Division Sandiganbayan People of the Philippines, Crim. Case No. 27925 Plaintiff, For: Violation of Article 171, Paragraph (4), of Act No. 3815 ‘As amended -versus- Present: Sandoval, J. Diaz-Baldos, J. Martires, JJ. Venancio M. Sevilla, Councilor, Malabon City Promulgated: Accused. Febuces eo ,26OF x J 4 DECISIO SANDOVAL, Ji: ‘This is a criminal complaint for Falsification of Public Document penalized under Article 171, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code against VENANCIO M. SEVILLA, former councilor of Malabon City for allegedly stating in his Personal Data Sheet (PDS) dated 02 July 2001 that he has no crimiial case pending against him when he knew that at that time, he was an accused in People of the Philippines versus Venanci Sevilla und Artemio Sevilla, with Criminal Case No. 6718-97 for Assault upon an Agent of a Person in Authority, before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Malabon City, Branch $5. committed according to the language of the Information dated 13 October 2003 as follows:! That on or about 02 July 2001, or for sometime prior or subsequent thereto. in the City of Malabon. Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, Venancio M. Sevilla, a public officer, being then a member of the Sangguniang Panlunsod of Malabon City, having been elected a councilor thereof, taking advantage of his official position and committing the offense in relation to duty, did then and there willfully, unlawfully. and feloniously make a false statement in a narration of facts, the truth of which he is legally bound to disclose, by stating in his C.S. Form, dated 02 July 2001 or Personal Data Sheet, an official document, ao Records, pp. 1-2 Wie PdDECISION People vs. Sevilla Crim. Case No, 27925 which he submitted to the Office of the Secretariat, Malabon City Council and, in answer to Question No. 25 therein, he stated that no criminal case is pending against him, when in fact, as the accused fully well knew, he is an accused in Criminal Case No. 6718-97, entitled “People of the Philippines versus Venancio Sevilla and Artemio Sevilla”, for Assauly Upon An Agent Of A Person In Authority, pending before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Malabon City, Branch $5, thereby perverting the truth. CONTRARY TO LAW. Upon arraignment? on 09 March 2004, accused with assistance of counsel pleaded not guilty. Thus, trial on the merits ensued, During trial, the prosecution proved that Messrs. Rogelio Ortega Yanga and Mr. Lucio Isagani Pitco Santos filed the letter-complaint® dated 10 October 2001 against the accused before the Office of the Ombudsman. Per the complaint, on the first day of the aceused’s term as City Councilor of Malabon, or on 02 July 2001, the accused made a false narration in his PDS* of even date. In answer to query No. 25 therein as to whether there is a pending criminal case against him, accused marked the box corresponding the answer despite the pendency of a criminal case for Assault upon an Agent of a Person in Authority against him before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Malabon City. Branch 55.5 ‘The prosecution likewise proved that the Office of the Honorable Ombudsman in its Decision® dated 26 March 2002 in the case of Rogelio O. Yanga and Lucio P. Santos versus Venancio M. Sevilla, in OMB-ADM-0-01-1520, involving the same set of facts, found the accused administratively liable for Dishonesty and Falsification of Official Document and dismissed him from the service, Said Resolution was affirmed by thegZy heat 2 Ibid. p. $8. > Exh. “A” “Exh. "C" S Annex “B.” earnsDECISION People vs, Sevilla, Crim, Case No, 27925 Honorable Supreme Court in its Resolution’ dated 21 January 2004 in Venancio M. Sevilla, ete. vs. Margarito F. Gervacio, etc.. et al, GR No. 157207. Subsequently, the ‘Supreme Court Resolution became final on 23 June 2003.* The accused, on the other hand, never denied that in answer to the query in the PDS on whether he has any pending criminal case, he marked the “no” box. He, however interposed the defense of good faith, that is, his false answer was due to neglect. Not being the one who personally prepared his PDS, he just relied on a member of his staff, Ms. Editha Mendoza, who actually prepared said PDS, that the same was accomplished correctly.” According to the accused, on 02 July 2001, he stayed in his house because at that time, he was not given an office by Malabon City. At approximately 2:00 in the afternoon on the same date, he was informed by Ms. Mendoza that he had to accomplish the PDS and cause it to be submitted to the Personnel Office of the City of Malabon before 5:00 in the same afternoon. Mindful of the 5:00 o’clock deadline, accused just gave instructions that the data in the PDS be copied from his old files located in the Office of Personnel, Office of the Mayor.'® After the PDS was filled up and delivered to him, he just signed the same without giving attention to it. Thus, it escaped his notice that the “no” box was marked." To corroborate his testimony, Mr. Edilberto G. Torres, a former City Councilor, testified that during the material dates, accused was not given an office in the city hall, as in fact, members of his staff were seen working in the lobby of the third floor. If they had Exh. “Fe S Exh. “G." °TSN, 13 February 2007. "Wiel "ie. 10 do some typing, said staff members would usually do their typing in his (Mr. tones oe M4DECISION People vs. Sevilla, Crim, Case No, 27925 “4 office. He further testified that he actually saw Ms. Mendoza type the PDS of accused in his office. His testimony is as follows:'? Evangelista: Q Mr. Witness, you said you wanted to testify on matters about the preparation of the Personal Data Sheet, do you know who prepared the Personal Data Sheet of Mr. Vanancio Sevilla? A: Yes, sir, Q Who prepared the Personal Data Sheet of Mr. Venancio Sevilla? A: Her name is Editha Mendoza, sir. Q Why do you know that Editha Mendoza was the one who prepared the Personal Data Sheet of the Venancio Sevilla? A: Because she was in my office when the Personal Data Sheet was being typewritten, sir. Q In 50 far as you can recall, Mr. Witness, when did this Editha Mendoza prepare the Personal Data Sheet of Mr. Sevilla, when was it prepared? A: Icould not recall the exact date, sir. Q: How about the month, do you recall the month and year? A: Yes, sir. Q: What month was that? A: Itwas in July 2001, sir Q And what equipment did this Bditha Mendoza is typing the Personal Data Sheet? A: Miss Mendoza was using my typewriter in my office, sir Q: Why do you know that it was the Personal Data Sheet of Mr. Venancio Sevilla that Ms. Editha Mendoza is preparing then? A: [asked her what she was typing and she told me that it was she Personal Data Sheet of Councilor Venancio Sevilla, “gy fi "TSN, 05 July 2007,DECISION People vs. Sevilla Crim, Case No. 2792: 5 Afier the termination of the presentation of evidence by both parties, they submitted their respective memoranda. Thus, the case was deemed submitted for resolution. Essential in the determination of whether the accused was guilty of Falsification of Public Document, is the identification of the elements of said felony. Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code, provides as follows: 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 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: XXXX 4, Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts. In Fullero versus People of the Philippines,!? where the accused Emesto M. Fullero a public officer occupying the position of Acting Chief Operator of the Bureau of Telecommunications, Regional Office Legaspi City stated in his PDS that he passed the Civil Engineering Board Examination given on 30-31 May 1955 in Manila with a rating 75.87% when in fact he did not pass the said examination, the Honorable Supreme Court in convicting the accused dissected the requisites for said felony: The elements of falsification in the above provision are as follows: a) the offender makes in a public document untruthful statements ina 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 age "GR No. 170583, 7. / ptember 2007DECISION People vs. Sevilla, Crim, Case No, 2: In addition to the aforecited 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 Guided by the Fullero case and after considering the evidence adduced by both parties, the Court finds that the commission of the accused of the crime of Falsification of Public Documents was proved beyond reasonable doubt. First, there is no question that accused made in a public document an untruthful statement of fact. In the cases of Inting versus Tanodbayan et al.' and Advincula versus Dicen."* the Honorable Supreme Court described the PDS as an official document required of a government employee and official by the Civil Service Commission. Its importance lies on the fact that “it is the repository of all information about any government employee and official regarding his personal background, qualification, and cligibility. Concealment of any information in the PDS, therefore, warrants a penalty from the erring official.”! Thus, when the accused made the false statement that there was no pending criminal case against him in his PDS which is a public document, these requisites were met. Second, contrary to the protestations of the accused, there was a legal obligation on his part to disclose in the PDS that there was 2 pending case against him. Accused’s Position is that based on Resolution Nos. 183143!” series of 1998 and 031000"* series of 2003, both issued by the Civil Service Commission, the accomplishment of the PDS 4 "= GR No. 162403, 16 May 2008. "Toi. ” Exh, Exh, “6.”DECISION People vs. Sevilla, Crim, Case No. 27925 neither a prerequisite to assumption of office nor the release of salaries or remuneration to government employee. Instead, the accomplishment of the PDS is for the purpose of establishing the Integrated Human Resource Management Information System which can be used as a code for decision making affecting the career development as well as other personnel actions of the civil service.'” Accused’s position is not well-taken, One, while it is true that between appointive officials and elective officials, the former's career developments are more largely dependent on information in the PDS than the latter’s, there is nothing in the Resolutions which would suggest that elective officials are not required to accomplish the PDS. Two, public officials, both appointive and elective officials, must be candid in the information they have in regard to their qualifications. Elective officials must in fact display candor in giving information regarding themselves because they are being voted by their constituents. As such, these constituents have the right to rely on the information given by their councilor, for example, that fe has no pending criminal case. For practical reasons, a subsequent conviction may deprive said constituents of representation in the council. Three, since what is being punished in asserting falsehood in a public document is the “violation of public faith and destruction of truth,””” accused, with his false assertion, prejudiced the sanctity of public faith in a public document, Third, accused had taken advantage of his official position when he made the false statement in the PDS because he had the duty to make or prepare or otherwise intervene in the preparation of his PDS. We '° TSN, 03 September 2007, * See Lumancas etal. vs, Intas, GR No. 133472, 0S December 2000, it not for his position as city councilor, ae "JDECISION People vs. Sevilla, Crim, Case No, 27925 8 could not have accomplished the PDS. Obviously, being the signatory of the PDS, he had the responsibility to prepare, accomplish and submit the same”! Fourth, accused’s defense of good faith, while partly believable, does not suffice to exculpate him from liability. While there is no reason to discredit accused's testimony that it was Ms. Lopez who personally prepared his PDS; and that he signed the same without inspecting it because he was in a hurry to cause it to be filed with the city office, he has been a public official before and he knew the faith that must be given to documents that affect the personal qualifications of the officers in public post. ‘The prosecution questions the veracity of accused’s version on two (2) grounds: (1) there is an ambiguity as to the whether the members of the staff of the accused were already employed by the City of Malabon on 02 July 2001; and (2) accused was never able to show the old files from which the data in the 2001 PDS were supposed to be copied from. Anent the first issue, it must be recalled that accused admitted having difficulty in remembering the exact dates in this case. However, in view of Mr. Torres’ testimony that he actually witnessed that Ms. Lopez prepared accused’s PDS, the ambiguity must be resolved in favor of the accused. As to the second, accused’s offered explanation” that per information from Personnel Department, the old records were bumed down when fire occurred at the Malabon City Hall on 01 June 20047} is acceptable and can not just be brushed aside by the Court, Besides, accused never testified that he saw Ms. Lopez copy the details from his old records to his What he testified was he gave said instructions, which is perfectly in accordance with human nature and behavior. SO 7 2% See People vs. Uy, GR No. L-9460, 23 April 1957 / ] 2 TSN, 15 February 2007. > Exh 3"DECISION People vs. Sevilla, Crim, Case No, 27925 3 Moreover, the marking of th box to the question on whether there was a pending criminal case against him was not the only defect in his PDS. As found by the Office of the Honorable Ombudsman in its Resolution.”* in answer to question 29 in the PDS, accused answered that he had not been a candidate in any local election (except barangay election), when he in fact ran and served as councilor of Malabon from 1992 t0 1998. Notwithstanding the negative answer in question 29, in the same PDS. in answer t0 question 21, he revealed that he was a councilor from 1992 to 1998. Not to give premium to a negligent act, this nonethel shows that the preparation of the PDS was haphazardly and recklessly done. Taking together these circumstances, this Court is persuaded that accused did not act with malicious intent to falsify the document in question but merely failed to ascertain for himself the veracity of narrations in his PDS before affixing his signature thereon. The reckless signing of the PDS without verifying the data therein makes him criminally liable for his act. Accused is a government officer, who prior to his election as councilor in 2001, had already served as a councilor of the same city. Thus, he should have been more mindful of the importance of the PDS and should have treated the said public document with due respect. / Reckless Imprudence, as defined and penalized in Article 171, paragraph 4, in relation to ‘onsequently, accused is convicted of Falsification of Public Document through Article 365,° paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code. As held in Samson versus The go que fa ™ Exh. °D, 5 Reckless imprudence consists in voluntarily, but without malice, doing or failing to do an act from which material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing or failing to perform such act, taking into consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition and other circumstances regarding persons, time and place,DECISION People vs. Sevilla Crim, Case No, 27925 =10~ Honorable Court of Appeals.* such negligent act may give rise to an indictable imprudence. Pertinent portions are quoted as follows: An act executed without malice or criminal purpose, but with carelessness, negligence, or lack of precaution, which causes harm to society or to an individual, should be classified as either reckless negligence or simple imprudence; the person responsible therefore is liable for such results could have been anticipated, and for acts which no one would commit except through culpable indifference WHEREFORE, accused VENANCIO M. SEVILLA is found GUILTY of Falsification of Public Documents Through Reckless Imprudence and pursuant to Art 365 of the Revised Penal Code hereby imposes upon him in the absence of any modifying circumstances the penalty of four (4) months of arresto mayor as minimum to two (2) years ten (10) months and twenty one (21) days of prision correccional as maximum, and to pay the costs, There is no pronouncement as to civil liability as the facts from which it could arise do not appear to be indubitable. SO ORD! h Hilt £6 O/ EDILBERTO G. SANDOVAL Chairmai We concur. fet Fr ‘TERESITA V, DIAZ-BALDOS Associate Justice (UEL, or TRES Associate Justice > GR Nos, L-1036¢ and L-1937 September 1989. 31 March 1958: See also Sarep vs. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 68203, 13,DECISION People vs. Sevilla, Crim. Case No. oi ATTESTATION I attest that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division. felon « ILBERTO ( CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Article VII, Section 13 of the Constitution and the Division ‘fied that the conclusions in the above ied to the writer Chairman's Attestation, it is hereby cei decision were reached in consultation before the case was as of the opinion of the Court's Division. {bbe & Sole! EDILBE! G. SANDOVAL, Acting Presiding Justice 7h