Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila

NINTH (9th) DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CA-G.R. CR No. 46205

Plaintiff-Appellee,
- versus -
ESTER GRAFIL SESE,
Accused-Appellant.
Members:
CRUZ, R.A., Chairperson,
ACOSTA, L.P., and
CARINGAL, J.F.A., JJ.

Promulgated:
27 FEB 2023
____________________
x------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

Cruz, R.A., J.:

THE CASE

This is an ordinary appeal, filed under Rule 122 of the Rules of

Court, which seeks to reverse the March 24, 2021 Decision 1 of the
Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 32,
Manila (RTC), in Criminal Case Nos. R-MNL-17-00056-CR to R-MNL-
17-00066-CR, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, this [c]ourt finds the prosecution to have

triumphantly established the guilt of accused Ester Grafil Sese by
proof beyond reasonable [doubt] for eleven (11) counts of
Falsification of Public Document By a Public Officer under
paragraph 4 of Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code. Thus, this
court hereby sentences her to suffer the indeterminate prison term
of six (6) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as
minimum to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as
maximum and a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (PhP10,000.00) for
each count of the said offense for which she was found guilty.

SO ORDERED.2 (Emphasis in the original)

Also included in this appeal is the June 29, 2021 Order 3 of the
RTC which denied the accused-appellant’s Motion for
CA-G.R. CR No. 46205 Page 2 of 18
DECISION

Reconsideration with Reservation to File Supplemental Pleading and

Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration.

THE ANTECEDENTS

Ester Grafil Sese (Sese), Administrative Aide IV (Salary Grade

4) at the Bureau of Customs (BOC), was charged with eleven counts
of falsification by a public officer defined and penalized under Article
171 of the Revised Penal Code. For the first count of the indictment,
docketed as Criminal Case No. R-MNL-17-00056-CR, Sese was
charged with committing the crime as follows:

That in March 2001, in Manila, Philippines and within the

jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused ESTER GRAFIL
SESE, a low ranking public official, being then Utility Worker I of the
Bureau of Customs, Tondo[,] Manila, by taking advantage of her
official position, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously falsify her 2000 Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net
Worth (SALN), by making untruthful statement[s] in the narration of
facts, when the law requires the filing of a true, detailed and sworn
SALN, by falsely declaring as liability her family’s Mitsubishi Lancer
with Plate No. UUF-736 in the amount of P150,000.00, when in
truth and in fact it was an asset of the family having been bought in
1997 with an acquisition cost of P264,839.00 and fully paid with the
release of the mortgage in 2000.4

Ten more counts of falsification by a public officer were filed

against Sese accusing her of falsifying her SALN for different years
by making untruthful statements therein which include, among others,
falsely declaring certain items as liabilities when they should have
been declared as assets, falsely stating the acquisition costs for
certain properties and falsely omitting certain properties from her
SALN. The ten other counts of the indictment were docketed as
Criminal Case Nos. R-MNL-17-00057-CR to R-MNL-17-00066-CR.

Upon motion5 of the prosecution, the eleven criminal cases, for

being “closely related to and inextricably interwoven with one
another,”6 were consolidated.7 The RTC, “[a]fter a careful perusal of
the records of these cases,” found “probable cause that the accused
committed the offenses as charged in the Informations.” 8 A Warrant of
Arrest9 was issued against Sese and bail was set at ₱24,000.00 for
each count of the indictment10 or ₱264,000.00 in total. Sese filed a
Motion for Reduction of Bail11 and asked the RTC to allow her to post
bail in the total reduced amount of ₱132,000.00.12 The RTC granted
CA-G.R. CR No. 46205 Page 3 of 18
DECISION

the Motion for Reduction of Bail. 13 Sese subsequently posted bail for
her provisional liberty.

On August 22, 2017, Sese was arraigned with the assistance of

counsel. She “pleaded ‘not guilty’ to all the Informations, the contents
of which were explained to her in a language which she fully
understood.”14

At the Pre-Trial, the parties stipulated on the following: (1) the

identity of the accused as the same person charged in the
Informations, (2) the territorial jurisdiction of the RTC, and (3) the
accused was Utility Worker I at the BOC from October 13, 1998 to
May 13, 2004; Clerk II at the BOC from May 14, 2004 to June 23,
2010; and Administrative Aide IV at the BOC from June 24, 2010 to
the year 2015.15

Thereafter, trial ensued.

Version of the prosecution

Jesus S. Bueno (Bueno)16 and Reynalito L. Lazaro (Lazaro), 17

Graft Prevention and Control Officers (GPCOs) at the Department of
Finance-Revenue Integrity Protection Service (DOF-RIPS), testified
that their office “was created xxx, with the express mandate to
investigate allegations of graft and corrupt practices, conduct lifestyle
checks and when warranted, file the necessary criminal and/or
administrative complaints against erring officials and employees” of
the DOF including its attached agencies such as the BOC. 18 The
DOF-RIPS usually receives complaints involving BOC officials and
employees, which are assigned to the GPCOs for investigation. One
such complaint involved Sese, which prompted the DOF-RIPS to
conduct an investigation into her.19

Bueno and Lazaro “conducted a lifestyle check on Sese by

examining her assets, liabilities, net worth, business interest and
financial connections during the period of her employment with [the]
BOC.”20 As part of the investigation, Bueno and Lazaro requested
relevant documents from different agencies. They secured copies of
Sese’s SALN for the years 2000 to 2013 and her Service Record
from the Human Resources Management Division (HRMD) of the
BOC.21 Certified copies of the SALN and Service Record were issued
by Lesille F. Jaspe, Administrative Officer V of the HRMD at the BOC,
who subsequently identified the documents in open court. 22
CA-G.R. CR No. 46205 Page 4 of 18
DECISION

Bueno and Lazaro likewise reached out to the Land

Transportation Office (LTO) for the registration papers of motor
vehicles that belong to Sese or her spouse, Rufo M. Sese (Rufo). The
LTO provided the prosecution with registration documents in the
name of Rufo pertaining to a Mitsubishi Lancer car with plate number
UUF 736, Isuzu Elf aluminum van with plate number XNR 318,
Toyota Hilux pick-up with plate number NOE 394 and Honda Wave
motorcycle with plate number NI 4061. The documents which include,
among others, the Official Receipts and Certificates of Registration
(OR-CR), all issued in the name of Rufo, were either identified 23 or
stipulated upon24 during the trial.

In the course of their investigation, Bueno and Lazaro also

coordinated with the Registry of Deeds for Parañaque City, from
where they obtained Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 171820
indicating that a property located in Barangay Sun Valley is registered
in the name of “RUFO M. SESE married to ESTER G. SESE.” 25

From the Firearms and Explosives Office of the Philippine

National Police (PNP), the DOF-RIPS obtained a Certification 26
stating that Rufo is the licensed/registered holder of two pistols, i.e., a
Girsan caliber .45 with serial number T6368-12AB00007 and a
Coarm caliber .45 with serial number RMS13167. And, from the
Supervisory Office for Security and Investigation Agencies of the
PNP, the DOF-RIPS received a letter 27 reporting that Noah’s
Investigation and Security Services is “under the
management/licensee of [Rufo].” The letter explained that while
Noah’s Investigation and Security Services is duly registered with the
PNP, its license to operate has already expired on October 10, 2009
and, on April 4, 2013, it has been issued an order to cease
operations.28

Bueno and Lazaro pointed out that a perusal of the copies of

Sese’s SALN alongside the information they obtained from the LTO
discloses that she failed to declare the motor vehicles which are
registered in the name of her husband, to wit: (1) she did not declare
the Mitsubishi Lancer car with plate number UUF 736 as an asset in
her SALN for 2000, 2001 and 2002; 29 (2) she did not declare the
Honda Wave motorcycle with plate number NI 4061 and Isuzu Elf
aluminum van with plate number XNR 318 in her SALN from 2004 to
2013;30 and (3) she did not declare the Toyota Hilux pick-up with plate
number NOE 394 in her SALN for 2010.31
CA-G.R. CR No. 46205 Page 5 of 18
DECISION

There are also material discrepancies in Sese’s SALN from

2003 to 20017 and from 2009 to 2010 in that the acquisition cost of
the property covered by TCT No. 171820 was not declared during the
aforementioned years. She only declared the assessed value thereof.
Moreover, in her SALN for 2008, 2011 and 2012, she declared the
acquisition cost as ₱1,800,000.00 when the Deed of Absolute Sale
for the property indicated the purchase price as ₱1,677,894.25.32

Sese likewise omitted from her SALN the firearms registered in

her husband’s name. She also made no mention of her husband’s
business interest in Noah’s Investigation and Security Services. While
the license to operate of said business expired in 2009, documents
from the Bureau of Internal Revenue show that it continued to
operate from 2009 to 2012. She never declared the business in her
SALN from 2008 to 2012.33

In sum, Sese should be held liable for (a) “[f]ailure to declare

all her motor vehicles[,]” (b) “[f]ailure to declare her husband’s
firearms[,]” (c) “[f]ailure to declare her husband’s business interest[,]
and” (d) “[m]aking misleading, inconsistent and untruthful declarations
in her SALNs.”34

Version of the defense

Rufo, husband of the accused, testified that he and Sese filled

out the subject SALN “based on [their] honest belief and in good
faith.”35

One by one, Rufo addressed the alleged false declarations in

his wife’s SALN. First, he explained that the Toyota Hilux pick-up with
plate number NOE 394 “was acquired in the year 2010 by
installments.”36 When he and Sese jointly prepared the latter’s SALN
for 2010, they inadvertently declared the vehicle as a liability referring
to it as a car loan in the amount of ₱620,000.00. Otherwise stated,
Sese did include the Toyota Hilux pick-up in her 2010 SALN.
However, “due to her limited understanding in preparing her SALN,
[she] mistakenly declared said vehicle as a liability.” 37 Rufo added that
part of the reason they declared the vehicle as a liability was the fact
that “the amortizations were not yet paid at that time as stated in the
pertinent bank records establishing said fact.” 38

As for the Honda Wave motorcycle with plate number NI 4061,

Rufo claimed that while the vehicle was registered in his name, it was
CA-G.R. CR No. 46205 Page 6 of 18
DECISION

not his property as he was merely holding it in trust for his brother,
Leocadio M. Sese (Leocadio).39 Rufo related that Leocadio is based
in the United States of America (USA). Leocadio wanted to establish
a security agency in the Philippines. Before putting up the said
security agency, Leocadio started buying vehicles to be used by the
security agency. One of the vehicles he bought was the Honda Wave
motorcycle. Because Leocadio was in the USA, the brothers agreed
that it would be more practical to register the vehicle in Rufo’s
name.40

Rufo offered the same explanation in relation to his business

interest in Noah’s Investigation and Security Services. It was the
security agency that Leocadio proceeded to establish. Again,
because Leocadio was abroad, the brothers agreed to register the
business in Rufo’s name.41 After the security agency was set up, it
went on to buy properties including the two pistols registered in
Rufo’s name. The firearms were acquired by the security agency in
2007. When the security agency was sold, its supplies including the
two pistols were part of the sale. However, the buyer of the security
agency had a difficult time transferring the registration of the firearms
to his name. The buyer, afraid that he would be criminally liable for
possessing unregistered firearms, decided to return the pistols to
Rufo in his capacity as the representative of Leocadio. When the
PNP implemented an amnesty program for the registration of
firearms, Rufo suggested that the pistols be registered first and then
sold after the registration. Again, the brothers agreed that it would be
more practical if the firearms were registered in Rufo’s name. Rufo
had been holding the pistols in trust for Leocadio. 42

Rufo insisted that Sese “ha[d] no participation whatsoever in

the purchase of the Honda Wave [m]otorcycle and the two (2)
handguns.”43 Sese has no personal knowledge of the existence of the
motorcycle and the handguns, and of the establishment of the
security agency.44

The judgment of the RTC

In the March 24, 2021 Decision45 subject of this appeal, the

RTC, after “judiciously scrutiniz[ing] the testimonies of the
prosecution and defense witnesses and the pieces of evidence they
presented,”46 held that “the prosecution had established the guilt of
[the] accused beyond reasonable [doubt] for the eleven (11) counts of
Falsification of Public Document by a Public Officer as charged in the
CA-G.R. CR No. 46205 Page 7 of 18
DECISION

Informations.”47

The RTC provided its ruling and ratio decidendi for each of the
eleven criminal cases. In the first charge, Criminal Case No. R-MNL-
17-00056-CR, the RTC noted that:

Here, the prosecution asserted that [Sese], in her 2000

SALN, falsely declared as a liability her family’s Mitsubishi Lancer
with Plate No. UUF-736 in the amount of PhP150,000.00 when in
truth [and] in fact it was an asset of the family having been bought
in 1997 with an acquisition cost of PhP264,839.00 and fully paid
with the release of mortgage in 2000.48

Then, passing upon the evidence of the prosecution which

included, among others, the Release of Chattel Mortgage, OR-CR
and Sales Invoice pertaining to the Mitsubushi Lancer car, the RTC
held that:

An examination of Exhibit “O”, the Release of Chattel

Mortgage would reveal that the mortgage on this vehicle was
released in August of 2000 which means that the vehicle has
already been fully paid. Verily, it can no longer be considered a
liability when [Sese] declared it as such in he 2000 SALN which she
obviously submitted in xxx 2001. Further, its Sales Invoice, Exhibit
“L-2”, the existence of which was not denied by the defense and in
fact, it was marked as its Exhibit “16”, indicates that it was
purchased in the amount of PhP264,839.00. These pieces of
evidence clearly show that [Sese] made an untruthful statement in
her 2000 SALN when she declared it as [a] liability in the amount of
PhP150,000.00 which should have [been] declared as an asset in
the amount of PhP264,839.00, it having been fully paid when she
prepared and submitted the same (2000 SALN) in 2001. The
prosecution has, therefore, established the guilt of [Sese] beyond
reasonable doubt for the crime of Falsification of Public Document
by a Public Official in this case.49

The RTC then proceeded to analyze the rest of the criminal

cases, outlining the charge for each and the corresponding evidence
of the prosecution. The RTC always concluded with the ruling, which,
in all cases, was a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Aggrieved by the judgment of the RTC, Sese filed a Motion for

Reconsideration with Reservation to File Supplemental Pleading. 50
She subsequently filed a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration, 51
too. Both motions were denied by the RTC in its Order 52 dated June
CA-G.R. CR No. 46205 Page 8 of 18
DECISION

29, 2021.

Thereafter, Sese filed a Notice of Appeal53 which was given due

course by the RTC in an Order54 dated July 8, 2021.

THE ASSIGNED ERRORS

Sese submits that the RTC committed the following errors:

A. THE [RTC] COMMITTED A SERIOUS REVERSIBLE ERROR

WHEN IT HEARD AND DECIDED THE CASES AS IT DID NOT
ACQUIRE JURISDICTION OVER THE SAME.

B. THE [RTC] COMMITTED A SERIOUS REVERSIBLE ERROR

IN CONVICTING [THE] ACCUSED-APPELLANT,
CONSIDERING THAT SUCH CONVICTION IS CONTRARY TO
LAW, JURISPRUDENCE AND EVIDENCE.

C. THE [RTC] COMMITTED A SERIOUS REVERSIBLE ERROR

WHEN IT HELD THAT THE PROSECUTION PROVED THE
GUILT OF [THE] ACCUSED-APPELLANT BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT.55

The accused-appellant believes that the RTC “has no

jurisdiction to hear and decide the criminal cases.” 56 Sese points out
that the prosecution failed “to establish beyond reasonable doubt that
the act constituting the crime of falsification of a public document xxx
was committed by [the] accused-appellant within the jurisdiction of
Manila.”57 The subject SALNs may have been submitted to the BOC
in Tondo, Manila, but the act of submission “is simply a fact after the
consummation of the crimes charged.” 58 Hence, the fact that the
documents were submitted in Manila did not vest the RTC with
jurisdiction over the cases.59

Aside from asserting that the cases against her should have
been dismissed by the RTC on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, Sese
also submits that she should be acquitted because the prosecution
failed to discharge its burden of proving that all of the elements of the
crimes charged are present.60

To illustrate, Sese emphasizes that “the prosecution failed to

prove that [she] took advantage of her official position xxx.” 61 There is
nothing to indicate that she “used and abused her official position in
the preparation of the subject SALNs.”62 For Sese, “this lacking
CA-G.R. CR No. 46205 Page 9 of 18
DECISION

element should have prompted the [RTC] to acquit [her].” 63

Additionally, the accused-appellant interposes the defense that

she “signed the subject SALNs in good faith and her limited
understanding of the law.”64 She contends that she did not act with
any malicious intent in accomplishing the SALNs. 65

It is also the position of Sese that the prosecution failed to

prove that the facts in the SALNs are absolutely false. She claims
that “(1) the alleged misdeclaration of facts is justified as the entries
are not altogether false and that there is some colorable truth in them;
and, (2) the alleged omission is justified under the circumstances.” 66
Hence, “the element of absolute false narration of facts is missing in
the instant case.”67

Lastly, Sese likewise faults the RTC for its supposed failure to
prove that she had the criminal intent to pervert the truth. 68 Sese
explains that she “merely depended in good faith [on] the facts
disclosed by her husband.” 69 Some facts may have been omitted, but
only because these were not disclosed to her or she did not have
personal knowledge of the same.70 Her “failure to seek the complete
relevant facts may amount to honest mistake or even gross
negligence,” but it does not amount to “criminal intent to pervert the
truth.”71

OUR RULING

We DISMISS the appeal. We affirm with modification the

decision of the RTC.

First, Sese questions the jurisdiction of the RTC to hear and

decide the cases against her. She had previously raised the issue of
jurisdiction in her motions for reconsideration filed at the RTC after
the latter handed down its judgment of conviction. Sese asserts that
the evidence on record paint the place of commission of the crimes
outside of the City of Manila. Specifically, she claims that she and her
husband accomplished and signed the subject SALNs initially in
Quezon City and, eventually, in Parañaque City. Hence, the alleged
crimes were committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of the RTC. 72

The RTC met Sese’s arguments head-on. We quote with

approval its pronouncements on the matter of jurisdiction, namely:
CA-G.R. CR No. 46205 Page 10 of 18
DECISION

Anent the issue of territorial jurisdiction, suffice it to state that

the territorial jurisdiction of a court is determined by the facts
alleged in the complaint or information as regards the place where
the offense charged was committed. It should also be emphasized
that where some acts material and essential to the crime and
requisite to its consummation occur in one province or city and
some in another, the court of either province or city has jurisdiction
to try the case, it being understood that the court first taking
cognizance of the case will exclude others. Here, it is palpable that
the Information specifically and positively alleges that the
falsification was committed in Manila. Further, the evidence for the
prosecution have sufficiently established that the accused was a
government employee of the [BOC], Tondo, Manila, when she
accomplished and submitted thereafter the subject SALNs to the
Human Resource Office of the same bureau. 73 (Citation omitted)

Now, We can proceed to the center of Sese’s appeal. She

prays for her acquittal on the ground that the prosecution failed to
prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Sese was charged with and convicted of eleven (11) counts of

“Falsification defined and penalized under Article 171 of the Revised
Penal Code.”74 Specifically, the Informations against Sese make out
cases of falsification by a public officer or employee under Article 171
(4) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC)75 which reads:

Article 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or

notary or ecclesiastic minister. — The penalty of prision mayor and
a fine not to exceed One million pesos (₱1,000,000.00) shall be
imposed upon any public officer, employee, or notary who, taking
advantage of his[/her] official position, shall falsify a document by
committing any of the following acts:

xxx xxx xxx

4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts[.]

The elements of falsification by a public officer or employee

under Article 171 (4) are: (a) the offender makes in a public document
untruthful statements in a narration of facts; (b) s/he has a legal
obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him/her; and
(c) the facts narrated by him/her are absolutely false. 76

The prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt the

presence of all these elements in the criminal cases filed against
CA-G.R. CR No. 46205 Page 11 of 18
DECISION

Sese. There is no dispute that the SALN is a public document and

that Sese, as a government employee stationed at the BOC, is
required by law to accomplish and submit a SALN annually. For
several years, Sese had been entering untruthful statements in her
SALNs.

To illustrate, in Criminal Case Nos. R-MNL-17-00056-CR and

R-MNL-17-00057-CR, the RTC observed that Sese’s SALNs for the
years 2000 and 2001, respectively, show that she declared her
family’s Mitsubishi Lancer with plate number UUF 376 as a liability
instead of an asset even after the mortgage on the car has already
been discharged as of 2000. Aside from the SALNs themselves, the
RTC also took into consideration the Release of Chattel Mortgage,
OR-CR and Vehicle Invoice for the car. 77 Based on these pieces of
evidence, which the accused-appellant also adopted as part of her
documentary evidence, the RTC correctly concluded that:

xxx. These pieces of evidence clearly show that [Sese] made

an untruthful statement in her 2000 SALN when she declared [the
car] as [a] liability xxx which should have [been] declared as an
asset xxx, it having been fully paid when she prepared and
submitted the same (2000 SALN) in 2001. The prosecution has,
therefore, established the guilt of [Sese] beyond reasonable doubt
for the crime xxx.

xxx xxx xxx

xxx accused made untruthful statement[s] in a narration of

facts when she declared this vehicle as a liability in her 2001 SALN
when it should have been declared as an asset as it has been fully
paid in xxx 2000. Thus, the prosecution was able to prove beyond
reasonable doubt her guilt for this case.78

Similar findings could be gleaned from the trial court’s analysis

of the rest of the criminal cases. For Criminal Case Nos. R-MNL-17-
00058-CR to R-MNL-17-00066-CR, the RTC noted the following
untruthful statements in Sese’s SALNs:

Criminal Case Number Untruthful Statements

R-MNL-17-00058-CR
In her 2002 SALN, Sese omitted
her family’s residential house and
lot located in Parañaque City and
covered by TCT No. 171820
which was bought on February
CA-G.R. CR No. 46205 Page 12 of 18
DECISION

11, 2002. She again declared the

previously mentioned Mitsubishi
Lancer as a liability instead of an
asset. She also declared a much
lower acquisition cost for the
Mitsubishi Lancer at ₱150,000.00
when the real cost is
79
₱264,839.00.

R-MNL-17-00059-CR In her 2003 SALN, Sese repeated

the false declaration of the real
acquisition cost for the Mitsubishi
Lancer.80

R-MNL-17-00060-CR In her 2004 SALN, Sese omitted

her family’s other motor vehicles,
namely, an Isuzu Elf aluminum
van bought on August 16, 2004
and a Honda Wave motorcycle
bought on April 6, 2004. She
repeated the false declaration of
the real acquisition cost for the
Mitsubishi Lancer.81

R-MNL-17-00061-CR In her 2005, 2006 and 2007

R-MNL-17-00062-CR SALN, respectively, Sese again
R-MNL-17-00063-CR omitted the previously mentioned
Honda Wave motorcycle and
falsely declared the real
acquisition cost for the Mitsubishi
Lancer.82

R-MNL-17-00064-CR In her 2010, Sese omitted her

family’s Toyota Hilux pick-up
bought on January 14, 2010.83

R-MNL-17-00065-CR In her 2012 and 2013 SALN,

R-MNL-17-00066-CR respectively, Sese omitted the
family’s two pistols, i.e., a Girsan
caliber .45 and a Coarm
caliber .45.84
CA-G.R. CR No. 46205 Page 13 of 18
DECISION

With the foregoing considered, the prosecution successfully

established the three previously mentioned elements of falsification
by a public officer or employee under Article 171 (4). First, Sese
made in a public document, her SALNs, untruthful statements in a
narration of facts. Second, as an employee of the BOC, she had a
legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by her. And,
third, the facts narrated by her are absolutely false.

It bears emphasis, however, that for an accused to be convicted

of falsification by a public officer or employee under Article 171 (4),
the prosecution, aside from proving all of the elements above, must
also prove that the public officer or employee had taken advantage of
his/her official position in making the falsification. 85 In falsifying a
public document, the offender is considered to have taken advantage
of his official position when (1) s/he has the duty to make or prepare
or otherwise to intervene in the preparation of a document; or (2) s/he
has the official custody of the document which s/he falsifies. 86

Here, the People, represented by the Office of the Solicitor

General, agree with Sese that she cannot be convicted of falsification
by a public officer or employee under Article 171 because it has not
been proven that she had taken advantage of her official position in
making the falsification.87 The People’s position is well taken.

In DOF-RIPS v. Office of the Ombudsman and Germar,88 it has

been held that when “the element of taking advantage of one's
position is patently lacking,” then a charge for violation of Article 171
(4) will not stand.89 Germar explains that:

The preparation and filing of a SALN is not a special duty of

any particular office. It is not based on rank or salary grade. The
preparation and filing of a SALN is required of all public officers and
employees “except those who serve in an honorary capacity,
laborers and casual or temporary workers.” Hence, when it comes
to the preparation of SALNs, no office has an advantage over the
other.90 (Citation omitted)

In this case, Sese prepared the subject SALNs when she was
still an employee of the BOC. She started out as Utility Worker I and
was Administrative Aide IV at the time the charges were brought
against her. The SALN is a document she was required to prepare
not because of the specific duties of a utility worker or administrative
aide, but by virtue of being a government employee. Hence, her
failure, among others, to disclose in her SALNs several other real
CA-G.R. CR No. 46205 Page 14 of 18
DECISION

properties is not tantamount to taking advantage of her position as a

utility worker or administrative aide at the BOC. 91

Stated differently, Sese’s position is irrelevant with respect to

the requirement of filing a SALN because she must file it so long as
she is a public officer or employee. Her position as a utility worker or
administrative aide does not give her any specific power or function
when it comes to her SALN. She is similarly situated with every other
public officer or employee. Hence, it cannot be said that Sese took
advantage of her position when she made untruthful statements in
her SALNs subject of these cases.92 Because of the absence of the
element of taking advantage of one's position, Sese cannot be held
liable for violation of Article 171 (4).93

We, however, hasten to add that this does not automatically

mean that Sese is not guilty of a crime. Sese remains convicted. The
People correctly argue that:

xxx, the appellant should not be acquitted, but instead her

conviction should stand, although this time, for the crime of
Falsification of Public Document as defined and penalized under
Article 172 (1) of the Revised Penal Code. 94

The elements of falsification by a private individual under Article

172 (1) of the RPC are: (1) the offender is a private individual, or a
public officer or employee who did not take advantage of his/her
official position; (2) the offender committed any of the acts mentioned
in Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code; (3) the falsification was
committed in a public or official or commercial document. 95 All of the
elements of this crime are present in Sese’s cases. The second and
third elements have been exhaustively discussed earlier. Sese made
untruthful statements in a public document. And, for the first element,
Sese is a public officer or employee who did not take advantage of
his/her official position in committing the falsehood.

While Sese may have been charged with falsification under

Article 171 (4), she may properly be convicted of falsification under
Article 172 (1). When a public officer or employee is indicted under
Article 171 of the RPC, but the aggravating circumstance of taking
advantage of his/her public office could not be appreciated against
him/her because such public office did not facilitate the commission
of the crime, s/he could still be held liable under Article 172 of the
same RPC.96
CA-G.R. CR No. 46205 Page 15 of 18
DECISION

Our action to convict Sese under Article 172 (1) of the RPC
even as she was charged under Article 171 (4) thereof finds support
in Malabanan v. Sandiganbayan97 which states that “Article 171
encompasses all the elements required in a conviction for falsification
under paragraph 1 of Article 172.” 98 In other words, the falsification of
documents committed by public officers who take advantage of their
official position under Article 171 necessarily includes the falsification
of public documents by private persons punished by paragraph 1 of
Article 172.99

Hence, in sustaining the conviction of Sese, albeit for a different

crime, We are guided by a basic rule in criminal jurisprudence, i.e.,
the defendant in a criminal case may be found guilty of any offense
necessarily included in the allegation stated in the information and
fully established by the evidence.100

In this case, the modification as to the crime committed and

subsequently proven beyond reasonable doubt carries with it a
modification with respect to the penalty imposed. An accused
convicted under Article 172 of the RPC, as amended, shall suffer
“[t]he penalty of prisión correccional in its medium and maximum
periods and a fine of not more than One million pesos
(₱1,000,000.00).”

Following Article 172, Sese should be imposed the penalty of

prisión correccional in its medium and maximum periods with a
duration of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day to six (6)
years. There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the
penalty should be imposed in its medium period, which is three (3)
years, six (6) months and twenty-one (21) days to four (4) years, nine
(9) months and ten (10) days. Taking into consideration the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty becomes an indeterminate
one, the minimum of which must be within the range of arresto mayor
in its maximum period to prisión correccional in its minimum period,
or four (4) months and one (1) day to two (2) years and four (4)
months. Hence, Sese is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of six
(6) months of arresto mayor as minimum to six (6) years of prisión
correccional as maximum. The fine of ten thousand pesos
(₱10,000.00) for each count of conviction is retained, as this is within
what is prescribed by Article 172.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is

DISMISSED, and the Decision dated March 24, 2021 as well as the
CA-G.R. CR No. 46205 Page 16 of 18
DECISION

Order dated June 29, 2021 of the Regional Trial Court, National
Capital Judicial Region, Branch 32, Manila, in Criminal Case Nos. R-
MNL-17-00056-CR to R-MNL-17-00066-CR, are AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION in that Ester Grafil Sese is convicted of the crime of
falsification defined and penalized by Article 172 (1), in relation to
Article 171 (4) of the Revised Penal Code. She is sentenced to an
indeterminate penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor as minimum
to six (6) years of prisión correccional as maximum and to pay a fine
of ten thousand pesos (₱10,000.00) for each count of the conviction.

SO ORDERED.

ORIGINAL SIGNED
RAMON A. CRUZ
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ORIGINAL SIGNED ORIGINAL SIGNED

LOUIS P. ACOSTA JAIME FORTUNATO A. CARINGAL
Associate Justice Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is

hereby certified 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.

ORIGINAL SIGNED
RAMON A. CRUZ
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Ninth Division

1
Penned by Presiding Judge Thelma Bunyi-Medina, Rollo, pp. 80-101.
2
Ibid. at p. 101.
3
Also penned by Presiding Judge Thelma Bunyi-Medina, Rollo, pp. 103-106.
4
Information in Criminal Case No. R-MNL-17-00056-CR, Records, pp. 1-2.
5
Motion for Consolidation, Records, pp. 23-25.
CA-G.R. CR No. 46205 Page 17 of 18
DECISION

6
Ibid. at p. 23.
7
RTC Order dated June 28, 2017, Records, p. 26.
8
RTC Order dated July 14, 2017, Records, p. 117.
9
Records, p. 120.
10
Id.
11
Records, pp. 121-124.
12
Id.
13
RTC Order dated July 27, 2017, Records, p. 139.
14
RTC Order dated August 22, 2017, Records, p. 157; see also Certificate of Arraignment,
Records, p. 159.
15
Pre-Trial Order dated September 29, 2017, Records, pp. 176-177.
16
See Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN) dated December 12, 2017 and January 25,
2018.
17
See TSN dated January 30, 2018.
18
Joint Complaint-Affidavit, Exhibit “A” for the prosecution, Records, p. 44.
19
TSN dated December 12, 2017, pp. 10-11.
20
Joint Complaint-Affidavit, Exhibit “A” for the prosecution, Records, p. 45.
21
Id., p. 46
22
Lesille F. Jaspe’s Judicial Affidavit, Records, pp. 219-222.
23
See Judicial Affidavit of Claire H. Ang, Records Officer II, LTO Caloocan District Office,
Records, pp. 228-231; see also TSN dated February 15, 2018.
24
See RTC Order dated March 15, 2018 for the stipulations on the intended testimony of
Darielaine Aquino-Barceliano, Acting Records Officer, LTO, Manila, South District and Richard
Bicua, Acting Records Officer, LTO Marikina, Records, pp. 245-246; RTC Order dated March 22,
2018 for the stipulations on the intended testimony of Irene Soledad, representative of the LTO
Muntinlupa Extension Branch, Records, p. 251; RTC Order dated August 15, 2018 for the
stipulations on the intended testimony of Irene P. Soledad, Administrative Aide VI and Acting
Records Officer, LTO Muntinlupa Extension Office, Records, pp. 292-293; RTC Order dated
October 12, 2018 on the intended testimony of Richard Bicua, Acting Records Officer of LTO
Marikina, Records, p. 317.
25
Exhibit “F” for the prosecution and Exhibit “21” for the defense, Records, pp. 87-90; RTC
Order dated April 10, 2018 on the intended testimony of the representative from the Registry of
Deeds for Parañaque City, Records, p. 257.
26
Exhibit “M” for the prosecution and Exhibit “17” for the defense, Records, p. 112.
27
Exhibit “N” for the prosecution, Records, p. 113.
28
Id.
29
Joint Complaint-Affidavit, Exhibit “A” for the prosecution, Records, p. 54.
30
Id.
31
Id.
32
Id., p. 56.
33
Id., pp. 54-55.
34
Id., p. 60.
35
Judicial Affidavit of Defense Witness Rufo M. Sese, Records, p. 386.
36
Id.
37
Id.
38
Id.
39
Id., p. 387.
40
Id., p. 387.
41
Id., p. 387.
42
Id., pp. 387-388.
43
Id., p. 388.
44
Id., p. 388.
45
Supra note 1.
46
Supra note 1 at p. 89.
47
Supra note 1 at p. 100.
48
Supra note 1 at p. 91.
49
Supra note 1 at p. 92.
50
Records, pp. 624-641.
51
Records, pp. 648-677.
52
Supra note 3.
53
Records, pp. 693-694.
CA-G.R. CR No. 46205 Page 18 of 18
DECISION

54
Records, p. 698.
55
Appellant’s Brief, Rollo, p. 43.
56
Id.
57
Id., p. 46.
58
Id., p. 46.
59
Id., p. 46.
60
Id., p. 51.
61
Id., p. 51.
62
Id., p. 53.
63
Id., p. 53.
64
Id., p. 53.
65
Id., p. 53.
66
Id., p. 54.
67
Id., p. 54.
68
Id., p. 71.
69
Id., p. 70.
70
Id., p. 70.
71
Id., p. 70.
72
Cf. Motion for Reconsideration with Reservation to File Supplemental Pleading, Records, p.
627.
73
RTC Order dated June 29, 2021, Rollo, pp. 105-106.
74
Information in Criminal Case No. R-MNL-17-00056-CR, Records, p. 1. The same phrase
appears in the other ten Informations filed against Sese.
75
As amended by Republic Act No. 10951 or “An Act Adjusting the Amount or the Value of
Property and Damage on Which a Penalty is Based and the Fines Imposed Under the Revised
Penal Code, Amending for the Purpose Act No. 3815, Otherwise Known as ‘The Revised Penal
Code,’ as Amended.”
76
Liwanag v. People, G.R. No. 205260, July 29, 2019.
77
RTC Decision dated June 29, 2021, Rollo, pp. 91-93.
78
Id.
79
Id., pp. 93-94.
80
Id., pp. 94-95.
81
Id., pp. 95-96.
82
Id., pp. 96-97.
83
Id., pp. 97-98.
84
Id., pp. 99-100.
85
Galeos v. People, G.R. Nos. 174730-37 and Ong v. People, G.R. Nos. 174845-52,
February 9, 2011, 657 Phil. 500.
86
Mayor Corpuz v. People and Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 212656-57, November 23, 2016,
800 Phil. 781.
87
Brief for the Appellee, Rollo, p. 167.
88
G.R. No. 238660, February 3, 2021.
89
Id.
90
Id.
91
Cf. DOF-RIPS v. Office of the Ombudsman and Germar, G.R. No. 238660, February 3,
2021.
92
DOF-RIPS v. Office of the Ombudsman and Casayuran, G.R. No. 240137, September 9,
2020.
93
Id.
94
Brief for the Appellee, Rollo, p. 170.
95
Garong v. People, G.R. No. 172539, November 16, 2016, 800 Phil. 18.
96
Id.
97
G.R. No. 186329, August 2, 2017, 815 Phil. 183.
98
Id.
99
Id., citing Guillergan v. People, 656 Phil. 527 (2011).
100
Malabanan v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 186329, August 2, 2017, 815 Phil. 183.