G.R. No. 139610 ; August 12, 2002
AUREA R. MONTEVERDE, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Aurea R. Monteverde was the Barangay Chairman of Barangay 124, Zone 10, District 1, Malaya, Balut, Tondo, Manila. She received P44,800.00 from the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) for barangay projects. To liquidate the amount, she submitted a financial statement with supporting sales invoices/receipts to PAGCOR. Among these was Sales Invoice No. 21568 dated January 17, 1991, from Sanford Hardware for P13,565.00. Residents of the barangay filed a complaint, leading to an investigation. Luz Co, manager of Sanford Hardware, testified that the duplicate original of Invoice No. 21568 (Exhibit D-1) was dated July 20, 1981, for only P157.00, and that the invoice submitted by Monteverde (Exhibit E) was not genuine. Antonio Araza, a complainant, testified that he verified the invoice with Sanford Hardware and was told it was falsified. Monteverde was charged with estafa through falsification of commercial documents. The Sandiganbayan acquitted her of estafa but convicted her of falsification of a commercial document under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code, sentencing her to an indeterminate penalty and a fine.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting petitioner Aurea R. Monteverde of the crime of falsification of a commercial document.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the Sandiganbayan’s Decision and Resolution. Petitioner Aurea R. Monteverde was ACQUITTED of the crime of falsification of a commercial document. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence did not establish that Monteverde personally falsified the sales invoice or caused its falsification. The testimony of Luz Co only confirmed that the invoice presented by the prosecution (Exhibit E) was not issued by Sanford Hardware, but it did not prove that the falsified invoice was the one actually submitted by Monteverde to PAGCOR. The original of the alleged falsified document was not presented in court, violating the best evidence rule. Furthermore, the Information charged her with estafa through falsification, a complex crime, but she was convicted only of falsification, which constituted a variance between the allegation and the proof, violating her right to be informed of the nature of the accusation against her. The Court emphasized the constitutional presumption of innocence and ruled that where the evidence does not establish guilt with moral certainty, acquittal is mandatory.