G.R. No. 107383 December 7, 1994
FELIX NIZURTADO, petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Felix Nizurtado, the Barangay Captain of Panghulo, Malabon, received a P10,000.00 check from a government livelihood program. The check could only be encashed upon submission of a Barangay Council resolution identifying a specific livelihood project. The Council, however, failed to agree on a project. Nizurtado subsequently obtained signatures from councilmen, including the Barangay Treasurer Manuel Romero, on a blank resolution form, assuring them it was for a “barangay service center” project to expedite matters with the funding agency.
Unknown to the signatories, Nizurtado later filled out the blank resolution to state the project was “T-shirt Manufacturing” and submitted it. This falsified document facilitated the encashment of the check. Nizurtado then distributed the P10,000.00 as personal loans of P1,000.00 each to members of the Barangay Council, instead of using it for the stated T-shirt manufacturing project. He was charged with the complex crime of malversation of public funds through falsification of a public document before the Sandiganbayan.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan correctly convicted Nizurtado of the complex crime of malversation through falsification of a public document.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The legal logic is that the elements of both crimes were present and intimately connected, forming a single complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. Nizurtado committed falsification by making it appear the Barangay Council passed a resolution approving a T-shirt project when no such meeting or agreement occurred. This falsification was not an independent act; it was the indispensable means to accomplish the malversation. The falsified resolution was the essential document required to encash the check, after which he misappropriated the public funds by distributing them as personal loans, an act inconsistent with the professed project. The Court found his intent to gain evident from this diversion of funds. While modifying the penalty due to mitigating circumstances, the Court upheld the Sandiganbayan’s finding that the falsification and the misappropriation constituted one single criminal enterprise, where the former was a necessary means to commit the latter.