Republic of the Philippines

Sandiganbayan
Quezon City
***

FIFTH DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

CRIM. CASE NO. 27783

-versus-
Present:
CORTEZ-ESTRADA, Chairperson
JURADO, and
DIAZ-BALDOS, JJ.
FLORENCIO L. ADVINCULA, _____January 18, 2007___________
Accused. Promulgated
X-------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

DECISION

Jurado, J.:

Florencio L. Advincula, Provincial Agriculturist of Samar, stands

charged with the crime of Falsification, defined and penalized under
Article171, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code in the information
which reads as follows:

“That on the 31st day of August 2000 at the Municipality of

Catbalogan, Province of Samar, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused
FLORENCIO L. ADVINCULA, a high ranking public officer, being
the Provincial Agriculturist of the Provincial Government of Samar,
acting in such capacity and committing the offense in relation to
office and while taking advantage of his official position, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously made some
untruthful statements in the narration of facts, by making it
appear and stating in his Personal Data Sheet (CS Form 212) that
he has no pending criminal and administrative cases and that he
had not been made administratively liable by any office or tribunal,
when in truth and in fact, as the accused very well knew that he
had a pending criminal case before the Sandiganbayan, docketed
People vs. Advincula
Criminal Case No. 27783
DECISION
Page 2 of 25
x-------------------------------------------x

as Criminal Case No. 25446 entitled People of the Philippines vs.

Florencio L. Advincula, and that he had also a pending
administrative case before the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas,
docketed as OMB-VIS-ADM-2000-0465, entitled Dominador
Garalza vs. Florencio L. Advincula, and furthermore, accused had
been meted a one (1) month suspension for Simple Misconduct also
by the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas.

CONTRARY TO LAW.”

On April 29, 2003, the court issued the Order of Arrest and the
Hold Departure Order against accused. 1 Upon being served with the
Order of Arrest on May 28, 2003 at his given address, accused posted
cash bond for his provisional liberty.2

On July 25, 2003, accused, with the assistance of counsel, was

arraigned and he pleaded not guilty to the charge. 3

Upon the Order of the court dated July 25, 2003, the parties
submitted their respective Pre-Trial Briefs.4 At the pre-trial conference
held on October 6, 2003, the parties entered into the following
stipulations as embodied in the Pre-Trial Order, to wit:

Stipulation of Facts

1. That at anytime material to this case, accused Florencio

L. Advincula was a public officer, being the Provincial
Agriculturist of the Provincial Government of Samar;

2. That accused Florencio L. Advincula signed his Personal

Data Sheet (Form 212) on August 31, 2000, in
accordance with the Order of the Provincial Governor of
1
Record, pp. 29 and 26
2
Id., pp. 38-42
3
Id., p. 58
4
Id., pp. 66-71; 77-82
People vs. Advincula
Criminal Case No. 27783
DECISION
Page 3 of 25
x-------------------------------------------x

Samar requiring all Chiefs of Offices of the province to

submit and update their Personal Data Sheet. The
defense admits the signature of the accused on said PDS
but the data sheet was in the handwriting of the
personnel officer;

3. That accused indicated in Item No. 25 of his August 31,

2000 Personal Data Sheet that he has no pending
administrative and criminal cases. The defense admitted
the signature of the accused with the qualification that
he had no hand in the preparation of the entries;

4. That at the time of the preparation and accomplishment

of the subject Personal Data Sheet, accused had a
pending criminal case before the Sandiganbayan
docketed as Criminal Case No. 25446, entitled: “People of
the Philippines vs. Florencio L. Advincula”, and that he
had also a pending administrative case before the Office
of the Ombudsman for Visayas, docketed as OMB-VIS-
ADM 2000-046, entitled: “Dominador Garalza vs.
Florencio L. Advincula”, admitted by the defense subject
to the question of jurisdiction;

5. That in Item No. 27 of the August 31, 2000 Personal

Data Sheet prepared and accomplished by the accused,
he also indicated that he has not been convicted of any
administrative offense. Defense admitted the signature
in the Personal Data Sheet but the entries were made in
the handwriting of the personnel officer;

6. That on August 16, 1999 or almost one (1) year since

(sic) accused prepared and accomplished the subject
Personal Data Sheet, he was suspended from office for a
period of one (1) month without pay as an alternative
penalty for having been found guilty of Simple
Misconduct in the case docketed as OMB-VIS-ADM-98-
0302. Defense admitted the signature of the accused
only;

7. That accused submitted his Personal Data Sheet (PDS)

on August 31, 2000 as part of his Civil Service
Commission Records and in compliance with the Order of
the Provincial Governor of Samar, through the Acting
Provincial Administrator in a Memorandum dated July
27, 2000;

8. That the deadline for submission of the PDS was August

31, 2000.
People vs. Advincula
Criminal Case No. 27783
DECISION
Page 4 of 25
x-------------------------------------------x

xxx xxx xxx

Common Issues

1. Whether or not accused made an [sic] untruthful

statements in his Personal Data Sheet accomplished on
August 31, 2000 by indicating therein that he has no
pending criminal and administrative cases and that he
had not been administratively held liable by the Office of
the Ombudsman for Visayas;

2. Whether or not accused had taken advantage of his

official position and had willfully made untruthful
statements in his PDS by affixing his signature on the
document;

3. Whether or not this Court has jurisdiction over the

instant case for Falsification of Public Document.

xxx xxx xxx.5

Evidence for the Prosecution

The prosecution presented three witnesses, namely: Nelia

Cruz Redito, Victoria Sabillon Chiu and Reynaldo S. Borja. The
testimony of Borja was however dispensed with as the defense
agreed to stipulate on the Memorandum dated September 1, 1999
(Exhibit “F”) designating the said witness as officer-in-charge of the
Office of the Provincial Agriculturist in view of the one-month suspension
of Florencio Advincula.6

Nelia Cruz Redito testified that as head of the Personnel Section

of the Provincial Government of Samar, she takes charge of all matters

5
Ibid., pp. 84-86
6
Ibid., p. 122
People vs. Advincula
Criminal Case No. 27783
DECISION
Page 5 of 25
x-------------------------------------------x

pertaining to personnel and acts as custodian of personnel files which

include the 201 files and the Personal Data Sheets (PDS).

She explained that the PDS is submitted by an employee as one of

the requisites for appointment and whenever the same is required by
higher authorities.

She opined that it is mandatory for an employee to accomplish the

PDS personally since the same reflects his personal circumstances of
which he is the one knowledgeable. When the same is prepared or
accomplished by a third person and the employee concerned affixes his
signature therein, it is presumed that the latter did the preparation or
accomplishment thereof. This is because there is a declaration in the
last part of the PDS that the answers given are true and correct. 7

Identifying the PDS of accused dated August 31, 2000 (Exhibit

“A”), she revealed that what provoked the accomplishment of the said
PDS was the Memorandum dated July 27, 2000, signed by Acting
Provincial Administrator Leo N. Dacaynos and addressed to all Provincial
Chiefs of Offices.8 She would not know of any motive or purpose on the
part of accused in submitting an updated PDS other than in compliance
with the said directive.9

She clarified on cross-examination that the only ones who have

access to the personal files or the 201 files of the provincial employees
are the ones in charge of the records and the person concerned himself.
The same may however be requested by higher-ups or by the governor, to

7
TSN, October 7, 2003, pp. 5-7
8
Id., pp. 11-12
9
Id., pp. 26-27
People vs. Advincula
Criminal Case No. 27783
DECISION
Page 6 of 25
x-------------------------------------------x

be specific.10 There had been no request for accused’s PDS of August 31,
2000 so she would not know how complainant Romeo Dicen obtained a
copy of this document.11
She learned of this case only when she received the subpoena from
this court and pursuant thereto, she brought to court the 201 files of
accused since the subpoena did not state a specific document. 12 Also, it
was only while testifying in court that she came to know that this case
involved the subject PDS of accused.13

Victoria Sabillon Chiu, Records Officer III of the Office of the

Deputy Ombudsman for Visayas, testified that her functions are to
docket complaints, certify copies of records, see to the flow of documents,
answer queries to matters pertaining to cases filed with their office and
accommodate requests for records of such cases.14

She further testified that there were several cases filed against
accused but she became familiar only with three (3) of them, namely:
OMB-V-3-00-524; OMB-V-ADM-00-465; and, OMB-V-ADM-98-0302. In
OMB-V-ADM-98-0302, accused was found guilty of Simple Misconduct
and was meted the penalty of one-month suspension per the Resolution
dated May 18, 1999 of the Office of the Ombudsman- Visayas (Exhibit
“G”).15 Accused sought reconsideration of the said resolution but the
same was denied per the Order16 [dated August 30, 1999] of the said
office.17

10
Id., pp. 17-18
11
Id., pp. 20-21
12
Id., pp. 18-19
13
Id., pp. 19-20
14
TSN, February 1, 2005, pp. 5-6
15
Id., pp. 6-9
16
Exhibit “H”
17
TSN, February 1, 2005, pp. 10-11
People vs. Advincula
Criminal Case No. 27783
DECISION
Page 7 of 25
x-------------------------------------------x

The Order to implement the suspension18 was accordingly issued

and transmitted to the Provincial Governor of Samar who implemented
the same and who informed the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas of
such implementation in his letter dated August 30, 1999, Exhibit “I”. 19

She admitted on cross-examination that her testimony is centered

on documents in her custody as Records Officer. She has no personal
knowledge of what really transpired relative to the cases filed against
accused.20

The prosecution filed its “Formal Offer of Exhibits” - Exhibits “A” to

“H” with sub-markings21 all of which were admitted by the court per its
Resolution dated September 7, 2005. 22 It also submitted a
Memorandum.23

Evidence for the Defense

The defense presented as witnesses Micaela M. Rosales and

accused Florencio L. Advincula himself.

Micaela M. Rosales, presently an Agricultural Technician in the

Office of the Provincial Agriculturist of the Province of Samar, testified
that she has been the personnel officer-designate of the said office since
1996 per Office Order No. 22, Series of 1996 (Exhibit “2”). As such, she
keeps the 201 files of the personnel of the same office which include the

18
Exhibit “E”
19
TSN, February 1, 2005, pp. 11-15
20
Id., pp. 17-18
21
Record, pp. 156-161
22
Id., p. 162
23
Id., pp. 196-218
People vs. Advincula
Criminal Case No. 27783
DECISION
Page 8 of 25
x-------------------------------------------x

appointments, Personal Data Sheets, Statements of Assets and

Liabilities and other records pertaining to personnel. 24

Sometime in July 2000, she received a Memorandum from the

Provincial Administrator of Samar (Exhibit “1”) directing the updating of
the PDS of all personnel including those in the Office of the Provincial
Agriculturist. She gave the said memorandum to Guarina A. Uy,
Administrative Officer III, for dissemination to the employees. 25

By August 31, 2000 which was the deadline for the submission of
the PDS, all the employees had been able to submit their updated PDS
except the accused Provincial Agriculturist. She learned of this fact only
at around 9:00 o’clock of the same date when the office liaison officer,
Dolores Quizon, arrived in the office and so informed her. Forthwith,
she relayed the information to Administrative Officer Guarina A. Uy who
then asked her to fill up the PDS of accused using the data in accused’s
PDS found in his 201 file.26 She was reluctant at first but later agreed
to do as told in her desire to help accused. 27She explained that at that
time, accused was out on field work as he often was.28

From the 201 file of accused, she found only the PDS dated
November 12, 1987 and signed by accused, with the entries therein
being in the handwriting of accused (Exhibit “3”). 29 She copied from the
said PDS the data that she entered in the August 31, 2000 PDS with the
corresponding changes as to the ages of the children as well as the
references considering the length of time that has elapsed since its

24
TSN, November 14, 2005, pp. 7-11
25
Id., pp. 11-12
26
Id., pp. 13-17
27
Id., pp. 29-30
28
Id., pp. 15-16
29
Id., pp. 19-20
People vs. Advincula
Criminal Case No. 27783
DECISION
Page 9 of 25
x-------------------------------------------x

accomplishment in 1987. As to the references, she asked the

administrative officer who to indicate as such as some of the original
references already died.30

She admitted having written the check mark opposite or before

the printed word “No” in answer to Questions Nos. 25 and 27. 31

She got through with the PDS at around 11:00 in the morning
and then handed it over to the accused’s secretary, Ms. Neria Miniano,
for accused’s signature.32She did not get to know what happened to the
PDS thereafter as she did not get a copy thereof. She has no personal
knowledge as to whether the same was submitted to the Personnel
Office in the Provincial Capitol by the liaison officer. 33

She affirmed her statements in her affidavit dated March 28, 2001
(Exhibit “4”) that she submitted to the Office of the Ombudsman for the
Visayas in relation to this case. 34

Clarifying on cross-examination that she accomplished the

subject PDS all by her lonesome in just one sitting, she denied that
there are two different penmanship therein as observed by the
prosecution submitting that if ever there is such a difference, the same
could be attributed to the fact that the PDS was hurriedly
accomplished.35

30
Id., pp. 17-22
31
Id., pp. 23-24
32
Id., pp. 24-25
33
Id., pp. 26-27
34
Id. pp. 28-29
35
TSN, November 15, 2005, p. 21
People vs. Advincula
Criminal Case No. 27783
DECISION
Page 10 of 25
x-------------------------------------------x

Florencio L. Advincula who has been the Provincial Agriculturist

of Samar since 1998 testified that his main functions as such are to
formulate plans/programs and to implement the same for the
agricultural development of the Province of Samar, with its twenty-five
(25) towns seven (7) of which are coastal towns and one (1) city, by
conducting irrigation services to the farmers, on-going immunization
program to avoid occurrence of perennial diseases, seminars for the
farmers and providing some livelihood alternatives. He is in the field
fifteen (15) days in a month for these undertakings. 36

Sometime in July 2000, he received a Memorandum from the

Office of the Provincial Administrator directing all personnel to submit
their respective Personal Data Sheets for an update of the records on
trainings and seminars attended. However, he just put this matter
aside there having been many tasks that needed to be done and
considering that the deadline for the submission was still days ahead. 37

He narrated that on August 10, 2000, he was in Calbayog City; on

the 11th, he was in the office; on the 12 th up to the 19th, he was in
Manila; on the 22nd, he was in Tacloban City; on August 30 and 31, he
was in Baybay [Leyte]. However, at around 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon
of August 31, 2000, he went back to the office as he would usually do
whenever there was still time to do so. Finding at this particular time
many people needing to see him, he attended to them first and,
thereafter, to the documents in his table – queries, various
communications, appointments, schedules, seminars, loan applications
and so forth. There was also his PDS which, according to his secretary,

36
TSN, November 16, 2005, pp. 6-8
37
Id., pp. 8-10
People vs. Advincula
Criminal Case No. 27783
DECISION
Page 11 of 25
x-------------------------------------------x

had already been filled up and prepared by Ms. Micaela M. Rosales and
which was subject to his approval.38

Presented with the PDS in question, he affirmed that the entries

therein except his signature were made by Ms. Rosales copied from his
PDS dated November 12, 1987 on file and in the latter’s custody. Ms.
Rosales took it upon herself to prepare the PDS considering that there
was a deadline for its submission. The entries in the updated PDS and
the one on file are similar except for the references and ages of his
children. 39

He signed the PDS that was accomplished by Ms. Rosales simply

to comply with the directive of the Provincial Administrator to make an
update on the training and seminars attended stressing that he was not
applying for any promotion as he was already occupying the highest
position in the office.40Neither was he motivated by any intent to gain.41

He gave the PDS back to his secretary, Ms. Miriam Miniano, and
he did not know what happened to it thereafter, not even whether it was
filed by the liaison officer, Ms. Dolores Quizon. 42 He learned later when
he received notice from the Office of the Ombudsman for the Visayas
that a case for perjury, docketed as OMB VIS Crim. 2000-1162, had
been filed against him sometime in May 2002 43 and it was only when he
received a copy of the complaint that he realized there were errors in the

38
Id., pp. 11-15
39
Id., pp. 17-20
40
Id., pp. 23-24
41
Id. p. 32
42
Id., pp. 23-25
43
Id., pp. 25-27
People vs. Advincula
Criminal Case No. 27783
DECISION
Page 12 of 25
x-------------------------------------------x

entries on Items Nos. 25 and 27 in his PDS. 44 He submitted a counter-

affidavit relative to this case (Exhibit “4”).45

Identifying the complainant in this case as one Romeo Dicen, he

was surprised how said Romeo Dicen was able to get a copy of the
subject PDS when, to his understanding, the same is kept by the
Human Resource Management Officer (HRMO) and by the court in case
of a case where it is involved.46

He is aware that that the PDS contains information personal to

the one accomplishing or signing it and he does not delegate the task of
doing so except only in the case of the subject PDS because of the
urgency for its submission and he had no reason to doubt the
competence of the administrative officer [who prepared it].47

He admitted on cross-examination that when he signed the

subject PDS, he was aware of Item No. 31 which refers to the declaration
that the answers given in the PDS are true and correct but explained
that he did not give it much importance as he was focused more on
satisfying the directive from the Provincial Administrator on the
updating of the records regarding training and seminars attended. 48

He also admitted that prior to August 31, 2000, he knew of the

other cases filed against him as, in fact, he was personally attending to
them. One such case was for Simple Misconduct.49

44
Id., pp. 31-32
45
Id., pp. 28-30
46
Id., pp. 30-31
47
Id., p. 39
48
Id., pp. 46-47
49
Id., pp. 39-41
People vs. Advincula
Criminal Case No. 27783
DECISION
Page 13 of 25
x-------------------------------------------x

In answer to queries from the court, he clarified that there had

been changes as to the references – two (2) new names had been written
thereat in lieu of the two (2) deceased references which names were
supplied by the administrative officer. However, he became aware of
this only when this case cropped up.50

The defense orally made a formal offer of its documentary

evidence consisting of Exhibits “1” to “4”, inclusive, all of which were
admitted by the court per its Order dated November 16, 2005. 51It also
filed a Memorandum.52

Findings of Fact

Accused Florencio L. Advincula has been the Provincial

Agriculturist of the Province of Samar since 1998.

Sometime in July 2000, the Provincial Administrator of Samar, in

a Memorandum to all Provincial Chiefs of Offices, required all personnel
of the province to submit an updated Personal Data Sheet to reflect their
present qualifications brought about by augmented attainment in
education, training and seminars on or before August 31, 2000.

Finding the deadline for the submission of the required PDS still
some time ahead and considering that he had more pressing matters to
attend to, accused put on hold the preparation thereof.

By August 31, 2000, all the personnel of the Office of the Provincial
Agriculturist had submitted their respective PDS except the herein

50
Id., pp. 48-50
51
Record, pp. 176-177
52
Id., pp. 219-235
People vs. Advincula
Criminal Case No. 27783
DECISION
Page 14 of 25
x-------------------------------------------x

accused Provincial Agriculturist himself. As accused who normally

spends fifteen (15) days in a month doing his work outside his office was
on field work at that time, Personnel Officer-Designate Micaela M.
Rosales took it upon herself to prepare the required PDS and the entries
therein she copied from those contained in the PDS of accused dated
November 12, 1987 on file only with changes respecting the ages of the
children and the references two (2) of whom having already died. She
had also written the check mark opposite or before the printed word “No”
in answer to Questions Nos. 25 and 27 indicating that accused has no
pending administrative case/criminal case and that he has not been
convicted of any administrative offense, respectively. Thereafter, she left
the prepared PDS with the secretary of accused, Ms. Miriam Miniano, for
the approval and signature of accused.

At around 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon of August 31, 2000,

accused arrived in his office from Baybay, Leyte, as he would always do
whenever there was still time left. He attended to his callers first and
then to the various documents on top of his table. There was also his
PDS which, according to his secretary, had already been prepared by Ms.
Micaela Rosales. He signed the said PDS claiming that he did so solely
for the purpose of compliance with the directive for the update of the
records regarding training and seminars attended and then handed over
the PDS to his secretary who caused the same to be submitted to the
Personnel Section of the Provincial Government of Samar.

Subsequently, the complainant, one Romeo Dicen, had somehow

gotten hold of the said PDS or a copy thereof and filed a complaint
founded on the said PDS with the Office of the Ombudsman for the
Visayas which was docketed as OMB-VIS-CRIM-2000-1162. This
complaint metamorphosed into the present criminal indictment.
People vs. Advincula
Criminal Case No. 27783
DECISION
Page 15 of 25
x-------------------------------------------x

The instant controversy stemmed from the answers to Questions

Nos. 25 and 27 of the PDS of accused dated August 31, 2000. By the
check marks written opposite or before the word “No” in answer to the
said questions, it is in effect shown that accused has no pending
administrative case/criminal case and that he had not been convicted of
any administrative case. The truth, however, is that as of August 31,
2000, two (2) cases against accused, one criminal and the other,
administrative, – OMB-VIS-ADM-CRIM 2000-0524 and OMB-VIS-ADM-
2000-0465- have been pending with the Office of the Ombudsman for the
Visayas and Criminal Case No. 25446, with the Sandiganbayan. Also,
he had been adjudged liable in OMB-VIS-ADM-98-0303 for Simple
Misconduct for which he was meted a penalty of suspension for one (1)
month. Accused had knowledge of all these cases.

Discussion

The crime of Falsification with which the herein accused is charged

is defined and penalized under Article 171, paragraph 4 of the Revised
Penal Code, which provides:

Art. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or

ecclesiastical minister: - The penalty of prison mayor and a fine
not to exceed 5,000 pesos 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:
Xxx xxx xxx
4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts.
Xxx xxx xxx
People vs. Advincula
Criminal Case No. 27783
DECISION
Page 16 of 25
x-------------------------------------------x

For the crime herein charged to be established, the following

elements must concur:
1. That the offender is a public officer, employee, or notary
public;
2. That he takes advantage of his official position;
3. That he falsifies a document by making untruthful
statements in a narration of facts.53

Falsification by making untruthful statements in a narration of

facts is in turn established by the concurrence of the following elements:
1. That the offender makes in a document statements in a
narration of facts;
2. That he has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the
facts narrated by him;
3. That the facts narrated by the offender are absolutely
false; and,
4. That the perversion of truth in the narration of facts was
made with the wrongful intent of injuring a third
person.54

The issue in this case is whether or not accused Florencio L.

Advincula is liable for the crime as herein charged.

Accused is basically charged with having made entries in his PDS

dated August 31, 2000 in compliance with the Memorandum of the
Provincial Administrator of Samar, while being the Provincial
Agriculturist of Samar, to the effect that he has no pending
administrative and criminal cases and that he had not been convicted of
any administrative offense when, in truth and in fact as accused well
knew, there were pending with the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas an
53
Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts is one of the eight (8) modes by which
falsification under Art. 171 of the Revised Penal Code may be committed.
54
G.R. No. L-67472, July 3, 1987, Dario C. Cabigas vs. People of the Philippines; Enemecio vs. Office
of the Ombudsman-Visayas, 419 SCRA 82; this element may be dispensed with as regards falsification
of official or public document, the reason for this being that in falsification of public document, the
principal thing punished is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of the truth as therein
solemnly proclaimed, People vs. Po Giok To, 96 Phil. 913, 918 [1955]
People vs. Advincula
Criminal Case No. 27783
DECISION
Page 17 of 25
x-------------------------------------------x

administrative case and a criminal case against him, docketed

respectively as OMB-VIS-ADM-2000-0465 and OMB-VIS-CRIM-2000-
0524; a criminal case before the First Division of the Sandiganbayan,
docketed as Criminal Case No. 25446; and, that he had been found liable
for Simple Misconduct and for which he was meted the penalty of one-
month suspension by the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas in OMB-
VIS-ADM-98-0302.

The evidence has established that accused, being the Provincial

Agriculturist of Samar, is a public officer within the purview of the Article
171 of the Revised Penal Code; that he took advantage of his official
position when he signed the PDS as he had the duty to
accomplish/prepare the PDS the same having been required of him by
higher authority;55 and, that it has been reflected in the PDS by the
check marks “NO” in answer to Questions Nos. 25 and 27 that he had at
the time no pending administrative/criminal cases and that he had not
been found liable for any administrative offense when the answer should
have, in fact, been “YES” which cases accused was well aware of.

The evidence has also shown that while it appears that the PDS
was accomplished/prepared entirely by the Personnel Officer in the
absence of accused in order to beat the deadline for its submission, the
same can be considered to have been accomplished/prepared by accused
himself by the fact that he signed the same. Hence, the entries therein
made by the Personnel Officer, for all intents and purposes, are truly his.

55
In the cases of People vs, Santiago Uy , 53 O.G. 7236 and U.S. vs. Inosanto, 20 Phil. 376, cited in II
Revised Penal Code by Reyes, it was held that the offender takes advantage of his official position
when (1) he has the duty to make or to prepare or otherwise to intervene in the preparation of the
document; or, (2) he has the official custody of the document which he falsified, p. 202
People vs. Advincula
Criminal Case No. 27783
DECISION
Page 18 of 25
x-------------------------------------------x

The erroneous statements made by accused in the subject PDS as

to the pendency of an administrative and criminal cases against him as
well as to the fact of his conviction in an administrative case the truth of
which he had a legal obligation to disclose, in essence, constitute making
untruthful statements in a narration of facts, the very act penalized
under paragraph 4, Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code.

Indeed, the evidence appears to have established that the disputed

answers to Questions Nos. 25 and 27 of the PDS are contrary to the
truth which answers, though actually done by the Personnel Officer,
were presumptively made by accused as signified by his signature. But
would this suffice to hold accused liable as charged?
We resolve the question in favor of accused.

Accused essentially put up the defense of good faith and/or lack of

criminal intent, claiming that his principal concern in preparing/signing
the PDS was to comply with the Memorandum requiring the updating of
the provincial employees’ record of education, training and seminars and
not for any other purpose.

A circumspect consideration of the facts and circumstances

obtaining in this case reveals the absence of criminal intent or malice on
the part of accused when he prepared and/or signed the PDS. Accused
has clearly manifested his lack of criminal intent in signing the PDS
which showed that he had no pending cases and he had not been
convicted of any administrative case as will be explained hereafter.

. The subject PDS was accomplished and/or prepared and

submitted solely in compliance with the July 27, 2000 Memorandum of
People vs. Advincula
Criminal Case No. 27783
DECISION
Page 19 of 25
x-------------------------------------------x

the Provincial Administrator of Samar for the update on the

qualifications of all personnel of the province, the text of which reads:

“In view of the various changes in your present qualification

which may be brought about by augmented attainment in
education, training and seminars, this office finds it imperative to
require all personnel of the province the submission of an updated
Personal Data Sheet (CSC Form 212) in one copy.

These records will form part of your 201 files. Submit said
documents to the Personnel Section on or before August 31, 2000.”

Accused thus claims and, rightly so, that he prepared and/or signed the
PDS to comply with what was being required in the Memorandum which
was only to update the record on training and seminars attended,
stressing that he was not applying for any promotion as he was already
occupying the highest position in the office. In this connection, it is
relevant to point out that in Civil Service Commission vs. Sta Ana, 56 the
Supreme Court found respondent liable for falsification of a document by
making an untruthful statement in a narration of facts, as defined under
Article 171, paragraph 4, of the Revised Penal Code, when he stated in
his Personal Data Sheet (PDS) dated August 5, 1996 under Item 18 that
he passed the Career Service Professional examination when in fact he
knew that he did not pass the same which PDS he submitted in support
of his application for promotion to enhance his qualification and, as a
consequence, increase his chances of being considered for promotion.

Further, considering the fact that accused got to sign the PDS
almost at closing time of August 31, 2000 which was the deadline for its
submission and when he had just arrived in the office from an out-of-
town trip not to mention that he also had visitors to attend to and
documents to peruse at that time, it is fair to assume that he was
56
386 SCRA 1
People vs. Advincula
Criminal Case No. 27783
DECISION
Page 20 of 25
x-------------------------------------------x

focused on and mainly concerned with the correct information as to the

training and seminars attended being stated in the PDS and that,
understandably, he could not have noticed the disputed answers the
same having been indicated simply by inconspicuous check marks
which, it must again be noted, were written by the Personnel Officer and
not by accused.

Also, prosecution witness Victoria Sabillon Chiu whose testimony

was centered on documents in her custody as Records Officer testified on
the pendency of cases against accused with the Office of the
Ombudsman-Visayas and, as to the pendency of the criminal case before
the Sandiganbayan, the same is not denied and is easily verifiable from
court records. Certainly, accused, like everyone else, would not
consciously lie on facts that are on record. To do so is simply absurd
and will not serve accused any purpose. Moreover, given the not-so-
urbanized character of a community like Catbalogan, Samar, where
everybody practically knows everybody and where talks in the sort of
cases filed against somebody or one having been convicted of any offense
spread like wildfire and therefore are practically known to all, it was
entirely useless for accused to deliberately lie on the same facts.

Another thing going for accused which would somehow show

absence of any intent to falsify his answers to Questions Nos. 25 and 27
of his PDS is the fact that it was only when he received a copy of the
complaint against him that he realized the errors in the said answers. In
other words, up to the time of his receipt of the complaint, he had no
idea that he ever did enter in his PDS falsified statements.
People vs. Advincula
Criminal Case No. 27783
DECISION
Page 21 of 25
x-------------------------------------------x

Interestingly, neither did the prosecution question the good faith of

accused nor did it present evidence to show that accused acted with
malice or any evil motive when he prepared and signed his PDS.

Conformably with the time-honored principle that there can be no

crime when the criminal mind is wanting, we find the defense put forth
by accused as good and valid a basis to exculpate accused from
culpability. In Tabuena vs. Sandiganbayan, 57the Supreme Court held
that good faith is a valid defense for it negates criminal intent on the part
of accused; and, as stated in the old cases of United States vs.
Catolico58and United States vs. Elvina:59

“To constitute a crime, the act must, except in certain

crimes made such by statute, be accompanied by criminal intent
or by such negligence or indifference to duty or to consequences
as, in law, is equivalent to criminal intent. The maxim is actus
non facit reum, nisi mens sit res – a crime is not committed if the
mind of the person performing the act complained of is innocent.”

The Supreme Court also made a similar pronouncement in People vs.

Pacana,60 where it declared that:

“Ordinarily, evil intent must unite with an unlawful act for

there to be a crime. Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea. There
can be no crime when the criminal mind is wanting.”

and in Llamoso vs. Sandiganbayan61 where it ruled that:

“We hold that the accused are not criminally liable because
they had no criminal intent. Making no concealment or evasion,
57
G.R. No. 103501-03, February 17, 1997, and its companion case of Peralta vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R.
No. 103507.
58
18 Phil 504
59
24 Phil. 230
60
47 Phil. 48
61
138 SCRA 92
People vs. Advincula
Criminal Case No. 27783
DECISION
Page 22 of 25
x-------------------------------------------x

they admitted that there was a false entry. They acted in good
faith. They may be disciplined administratively for the irregularity
but their inclusion of Aninipo in the payroll is outside the pale of
criminal law.”

xxx xxx xxx

“In the instant case, as in the Arceo case, it cannot be said
that accused perverted the truth in including Aninipo in the
payroll in order to attain any felonious objective. Their honest
motive was to enable Cagais to receive his compensation which
he needed very badly.”

In Layug vs. Sandiganbayan where the petitioner was charged with

falsification under Article 171, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal
Code,62the Supreme Court declared that in all criminal prosecutions for
offenses under the Revised Penal Code, the prosecution must prove
beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had criminal intent to commit
the offense charged, citing the case of Beradio vs. Court of Appeals 63 and
therein stated that:

“Of great weight in our criminal justice system is the

principle that the essence of an offense is the wrongful intent
(dolo), without which it cannot exist. Actus non facit reum, nisi
mens sit rea, the act itself does not make a man guilty unless his
intentions were so. Article 3 of the Revised Penal Code clearly
indicates that malice or criminal intent (dolo) in some form is an
essential requisite of all crimes and offenses defined in the Code,
except in those cases where the element required is negligence
(culpa).”

It cannot be gainsaid that, in this case, the prosecution has failed to

establish beyond reasonable doubt that accused had criminal intent when
he accomplished/prepared his PDS of August 31, 2000.

62
338 SCRA 156, 168
63
191 Phil. 153, 163; 103 SCRA 567
People vs. Advincula
Criminal Case No. 27783
DECISION
Page 23 of 25
x-------------------------------------------x

It is fundamental in any criminal prosecution that before the

accused may be convicted of a crime, his guilt must be proven beyond
reasonable doubt.64 Clearly, this has not been done in this case.

WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, accused Florencio L.

Advincula is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime of Falsification under Article
171, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code.

The cash bond posted by accused for his provisional liberty is

hereby cancelled and ordered released to said accused subject to the
usual auditing and accounting rules and regulations. The Hold
Departure Order issued against him is hereby lifted and set aside.

The facts from which civil liability may arise do not exist.

SO ORDERED.
Quezon City, Philippines, December 13, 2006.

ROLAND B. JURADO
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

64
People vs. Soberano, 281 SCRA, 438
People vs. Advincula
Criminal Case No. 27783
DECISION
Page 24 of 25
x-------------------------------------------x

MA. CRISTINA CORTEZ-ESTRADA TERESITA V. DIAZ-BALDOS

Chairperson Associate Justice

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.

MA. CRISTINA CORTEZ-ESTRADA

Chairperson, Fifth Division

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13, of the Constitution and

the Division Chairman’s Attestation, it is hereby certified that the
People vs. Advincula
Criminal Case No. 27783
DECISION
Page 25 of 25
x-------------------------------------------x

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.

TERESITA J. LEONARDO – DE CASTRO

Presiding Justice