G.R. No. 161455 ; May 20, 2008
ATTY. RODOLFO D. PACTOLIN vs. THE HONORABLE FOURTH DIVISION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

FACTS

Petitioner Atty. Rodolfo D. Pactolin, a former member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Misamis Occidental, was charged with falsification of a public document under Article 171(2) of the Revised Penal Code. The charge stemmed from a complaint he filed in 1996 against respondent Mario R. Ferraren, then OIC-Mayor of Ozamiz City, alleging illegal disbursement of public funds. Attached to Pactolin’s complaint was a falsified version of a letter requesting financial assistance for a volleyball team, which made it appear that Ferraren, and not the actual Mayor Benjamin Fuentes, had approved the request. Pactolin had obtained a copy of the original letter from the City Treasurer’s Office for photocopying.
The Sandiganbayan, after trial where Pactolin repeatedly failed to appear, convicted him not under Article 171 for public officers, but under the first paragraph of Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code, which penalizes falsification by a private individual. The court found that the falsified document was not in his official custody and the falsification was not committed in the performance of his official duties. Pactolin filed this petition, challenging the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction and alleging grave abuse of discretion in his conviction.

ISSUE

The issues are: (1) whether the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over the case for falsification; and (2) whether it gravely abused its discretion in convicting the petitioner.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction and did not commit grave abuse of discretion. On jurisdiction, the Court held that under Republic Act No. 8249, the Sandiganbayan has exclusive original jurisdiction over offenses committed by public officials in relation to their office. Pactolin, a high-ranking provincial board member at the time of the crime’s commission, was a public officer falling under the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction. The offense of falsification, as alleged in the Information, was committed by him “in relation to his office” and by “taking advantage of his official position.” The allegation that the crime was intimately connected with his official functions was sufficient to confer jurisdiction, regardless of the eventual classification of the crime after trial.
On the alleged abuse of discretion, the Court found none. The Sandiganbayan correctly applied Article 172 after determining, based on the evidence, that the essential elements of falsification by a public officer under Article 171 were not proven—specifically, that the document was not in his official custody nor falsified in the performance of duty. The variance between the crime charged (Article 171) and the crime convicted (Article 172) was permissible, as Article 172 is necessarily included in Article 171. Pactolin was fully informed of the facts constituting the offense and was able to present his defense, thus suffering no violation of his right to due process. The petition was denied, and the Sandiganbayan’s decision was affirmed.