G.R. Nos. 240402-20, June 28, 2021
Cesar P. Alpay vs. People of the Philippines

FACTS

Petitioner Cesar P. Alpay, the former Municipal Mayor of Unisan, Quezon, was charged with thirty-nine (39) counts of Falsification by Public Officer under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code. The Informations alleged that on or about June 30, 2004, Alpay falsified or caused the falsification of Disbursement Vouchers and supporting documents under the “Isang Bayan, Isang Produkto, Isang Milyong Piso” program. The documents made it appear that named beneficiaries received specific amounts as financial assistance (P63,830.00 for hand tractors or P12,300.00 for motor engines), when in truth, the beneficiaries did not receive the cash but were instead given the equipment purchased by the municipality without public bidding and in violation of the program’s terms.
The case stemmed from the distribution of a P1,000,000.00 financial assistance to SMEs in Unisan. Alpay invited 42 beneficiaries to his residence, gave them cash, and they simultaneously purchased hand tractors or motor engines. Municipal Accountant Teresita Musca processed the disbursement vouchers, which bore Alpay’s certification that the expenses were necessary and lawful. Municipal Treasurer Bernardita de Jesus noted the vouchers bypassed the normal procedure, as they already bore the signatures of Alpay and Musca before her certification on fund availability. The checks were issued and sent to Alpay for signature but were not returned to the Treasurer’s office for distribution.
At trial, out of the 39 named beneficiaries, six testified for the prosecution, 20 for the defense, and 13 recanted their previous testimonies in favor of Alpay. The Sandiganbayan, in its Decision dated April 24, 2018, acquitted Alpay in 20 cases but convicted him in 19 cases (Criminal Case Nos. SB-10-CRM-0048, 0050, 0051, 0054, 0055, 0056, 0057, 0058, 0059, 0061, 0063, 0065, 0066, 0067, 0069, 0070, 0071, 0074, & 0083). It found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of falsification under Article 171(4) of the RPC, sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty of six (6) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum, and a fine of P5,000.00 for each case. His Motion for Reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely erred in finding petitioner Cesar P. Alpay guilty of 19 counts of falsification under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Sandiganbayan’s Decision and Order. The Court found no reversible error in the Sandiganbayan’s ruling.
The Sandiganbayan correctly found all elements of Falsification by Public Officer under Article 171(4) of the RPC present. First, Alpay was a public officer, being the Municipal Mayor. Second, he took advantage of his official position. Third, he committed the act in relation to his official functions. Fourth, he made untruthful statements in a narration of facts in the disbursement vouchers by certifying that the supporting documents were complete and proper, and that the cash advances were necessary and lawful, when in fact the transactions were irregular. The vouchers indicated the release of “financial assistance” to beneficiaries, but the evidence showed the municipality purchased the equipment directly without public bidding, contrary to the program’s guidelines requiring the release of funds to beneficiaries for their own procurement. Alpay’s certification on the vouchers was therefore false.
The defense of good faith was rejected. Alpay’s claim that he did not intervene in document preparation was belied by his signatures on the vouchers certifying to the propriety of the transactions. As the local chief executive, he had the duty to ensure the regularity of transactions. The recantations of 13 beneficiaries were given scant credence, as recantations are inherently unreliable and viewed with suspicion. The Sandiganbayan’s factual findings and assessment of witness credibility are accorded great respect and are binding absent a clear showing of arbitrariness. No such showing was made. The penalty imposed was also in accordance with law, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and crediting the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.