1. Malabanan vs Sandiganbayan GR No.

186329 August 2, 2017

Facts:

Petitioners Abusama Alid and Francisco Malabanan were both employees of the Department of
Agriculture. Alid being the Assistant Regional Director of DA- Region XII while Malabanan as Rice
Program Chair of DA office Diliman, Quezon City. Alid made a cash advance for his Air Fare as he was
going to attend a Turnover Ceremony at DA- Central Office. Alid presented his Air Plane ticket and
Certificate of Appearance to justify his Cash Advance. However, During Post Audit, Discrepancies in the
supporting documents were found and investigated. The Office of the Special Prosecutor Charged Alid
and Malabanan before the Sandiganbayan with Falsification of Public Documents. A Separate suit was
filed against Salid for Falsifying a private Document in he which he allegedly altered the dates indicated
on said airplane ticket. The Sandiganbayan acquitted both Salid and Malabanan on the case regarding
Falsification of Public Documents but Convicted Alid on his case regarding Falsifying of Private
Documents. Hence Alid prayed for this present petition in the SC.

Issue:

W/N The Sandiganbayan erred in convicting Petitioner Alid on the basis of violating Art 172 par 2 of the
RPC

Ruling:

Yes. The Supreme Court laid the reasons why Petitioner Alid shouldn’t not be convicted of the Crime of
Falsification of Private Documents under par 2 of the RPC. First was that the information that was filed
against Alid was violation of Art. 171 of the RPC. It is constitutionally protected that the accused can only
be convicted of an offense when it is both charged and proved. It was also ruled that by the Court that
the Sandiganbayan failed to recognise that Petitioner violated Par 1 of Art 172 of the RPC. There is
distinction between Art 171 and 172 of the RPC. It is important to qualify the document that was
allegedly falsified by the accused. In this case the said airplane ticket was a commercial document in
which it qualified under Par 1 of Art 172.