G.R. Nos. 160243-52; July 20, 2009
Romeo D. Lonzanida, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Romeo D. Lonzanida, then Municipal Mayor of San Antonio, Zambales, was charged with ten counts of Falsification of Public Document under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code. The charges stemmed from his notarization of thirteen Affidavits of Ownership and a Joint Affidavit concerning a 117-hectare public land. The Affidavits of Ownership were purportedly executed by various individuals, including his minor children and the minor children of his co-accused, Romulo Madarang. Seven of these affiants were minors, and two others, Efren Tayag and Elsie de Dios, denied having executed or signed the affidavits. The Joint Affidavit was purportedly signed by Rufino Aniceto, who was illiterate, and Roberto Querubin, who was already deceased at the time of its alleged execution.
The prosecution established that these documents were submitted to support applications for Tax Declarations for the subject land. Petitioner, in his capacity as a notary public ex-officio by virtue of his position as Municipal Mayor, notarized these documents, thereby certifying that the affiants personally appeared before him, were known to him, and voluntarily executed the instruments. The Sandiganbayan found him guilty on all counts.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan correctly convicted petitioner of ten counts of Falsification of Public Document under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The legal logic centers on the elements of falsification of public document under Article 171(2) and (4). As a notary public ex-officio, petitioner had the duty to ensure the affiants personally appeared before him and acknowledged the documents. By notarizing the affidavits, he made an untruthful narration of facts (violating paragraph 4) by certifying to the personal appearance and voluntary execution by individuals who, in truth, did not participate. Specifically, the minors could not have validly executed the affidavits, and the two denying affiants and the deceased affiant plainly did not participate, causing it to appear that they did (violating paragraph 2).
Petitioner’s defense, that he relied on the representations of his co-accused Madarang, was unavailing. The Court emphasized that a notary public must not notarize a document unless the signatory is physically present. His failure to verify the identities and the voluntariness of the execution, especially given the obvious circumstances involving minors and a deceased person, constituted gross negligence equivalent to malice and criminal intent. His official position aggravated the offense. All elements of the crime were proven beyond reasonable doubt, warranting the affirmation of the Sandiganbayan’s decision.