G.R. No. 197953 , August 05, 2015
People of the Philippines, Petitioner, vs. Sandiganbayan (2nd Division), Quintin Saludaga y Bordeos, Arthus Adriatico y Eruda and Romeo De Luna, Respondents.

FACTS

The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Visayas charged Mayor Quintin B. Saludaga, Revenue Collection Clerk Arthus E. Adriatico of Lavezares, Northern Samar, and private individual Romeo De Luna with falsification of public documents under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that in January 1999, Adriatico issued Official Receipt No. 7921300-D dated August 27, 1997, to De Luna for payment of a mayor’s permit, and that Mayor Saludaga, conniving with them, issued and signed a corresponding mayor’s permit also in January 1999 but antedated it to August 27, 1997. This was done to make it appear De Luna was a bona fide pakyaw contractor when contracts were awarded in December 1997, despite knowing he was not licensed. The prosecution presented witnesses including Vice Mayor Armando F. Chan, Provincial Treasurer Bonifacio M. So (who testified the receipt booklet was issued to the municipality only in October 1998), Municipal Treasurer Jose Y. Lim, and a COA auditor. After the prosecution rested, the respondents filed a joint demurrer to evidence, arguing insufficiency of evidence, particularly the lack of proof of conspiracy and individual criminal intent. The Sandiganbayan granted the demurrer, finding the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the elements of falsification, specifically that the accused took advantage of official position and made untruthful statements in a narration of facts.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the respondents’ joint demurrer to evidence and dismissing the criminal case for falsification of public documents.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the Sandiganbayan’s resolution, and reinstated the criminal case. The Court held that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in evaluating the evidence, as it ventured into the weight and credibility of the prosecution’s evidence, which is prohibited in a demurrer. A demurrer assumes the truth of the prosecution’s evidence and admits every inference reasonably deducible therefrom. The prosecution’s evidence, if unrebutted, was sufficient to establish a prima facie case. The Court found that the evidence, including the antedated official receipt and mayor’s permit, the issuance of the receipt booklet only in 1998, and the testimony that De Luna was a municipal employee and not a contractor during the relevant period, tended to prove the elements of falsification under Article 171(4) of the Revised Penal Code. The Sandiganbayan erred in making determinations on good faith, the truthfulness of statements, and De Luna’s status as a contractor, as these were matters of defense requiring a full trial. The case was remanded to the Sandiganbayan for the respondents to present their evidence.