G.R. No. 228610 . March 20, 2019.
FLORO T. TADENA, PETITIONER, V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

The case involves Floro T. Tadena, then Municipal Mayor of Sto. Domingo, Ilocos Sur. The Sangguniang Bayan (SB) passed an ordinance for the 2002 municipal budget. A provision in this ordinance stated that the position of Municipal Administrator “shall not be created unless 2% of the Mandatory 5% Salary Increase for 2002 be implemented.” This version was transmitted to Mayor Tadena for his approval. The SB Secretary, Rodel Tagorda, later discovered that the copy returned by the Mayor’s office had a substituted first page. The critical provision was altered to read that the position “shall be created and the 2% of the Mandatory 5% Salary Increase for 2002 be implemented,” thereby reversing the condition imposed by the SB. The SB subsequently passed a resolution noting the unauthorized changes. Tagorda filed a complaint for Falsification of Public Document under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code. The Office of the Ombudsman filed an Information against Tadena, who pleaded not guilty. The Sandiganbayan found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Floro T. Tadena is guilty of the crime of Falsification of Public Document under Article 171(6) of the Revised Penal Code.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s conviction. The Court meticulously examined the elements of Falsification under Article 171(6): that the offender is a public officer; that he takes advantage of his official position; and that he falsifies a document by altering a true statement. All elements were proven. First, Tadena was the Municipal Mayor, a public officer. Second, he took advantage of his official position, as the document was presented to him in his official capacity for approval. His act of substituting a page and altering the text was an abuse of that official function. Third, he falsified the document by making it appear that the SB approved the creation of the position without condition, when in truth it had imposed a precondition. The alteration changed the very meaning and legal effect of the ordinance. The Court rejected Tadena’s defense that the document was not yet a “public document” because it was not yet approved. An ordinance, once passed by the SB, is an official act and record of a local legislative body, hence a public document under the Rules of Court, regardless of the mayor’s pending approval. The mayor’s authority is limited to approving or vetoing the ordinance in its entirety; he has no power to unilaterally alter its substantive content. By doing so, Tadena committed falsification. The Court also found no merit in his claim of inordinate delay, as the period was justified and did not prejudice his right to a speedy disposition.