GR 168437; (January, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 168437, January 8, 2009
LAURINIO GOMA and NATALIO UMALE, Complainant, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, and SANGGUNIAN MEMBER MANUEL G. TORRALBA, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioners Laurinio Goma (Barangay Chairman) and Natalio Umale (Barangay Secretary) of Barangay Cabanbanan, Pagsanjan, Laguna, were charged with falsification of a public document under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code. The Information alleged that on or about September 24, 1995, they falsified Barangay Resolution No. T-95 by making it appear that it was passed upon motion and seconded by Kagawads, and unanimously approved in a meeting held on that date, when in fact no meeting was held due to lack of quorum. The prosecution presented complaining witnesses who testified that no session took place on September 24, 1995, as only four members (including Goma) were present, and that they later discovered the resolution allocating PhP 18,000 for a seminar. The Sanggunian later passed a resolution stating no session was held on that date. In their defense, petitioners admitted signing the resolution but claimed it was merely a draft or proposal prepared a week before the scheduled meeting and was not the enabling instrument for fund release.
ISSUE
Whether petitioners are guilty of falsification of a public document under Article 171(2) of the Revised Penal Code, specifically: (a) whether Resolution No. T-95 is a public document, and (b) whether the elements of falsification are present.
RULING
Yes, petitioners are guilty. The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals.
1. Resolution No. T-95 is a public document. Under Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, public documents include written official acts of public officers and official bodies. A barangay resolution, being an official act of the Sanggunian in the exercise of its legislative authority, is a public document. For falsification under Article 171(2), it is sufficient that the fabricated document has the appearance of a true and genuine document.
2. All elements of falsification under Article 171(2) are present: (a) petitioners were public officers; (b) they took advantage of their official positions; (c) they falsified the document by causing it to appear that persons (the Sanggunian members) participated in an act or proceeding (the September 24, 1995 session and the passing of the resolution); and (d) such persons did not in fact so participate, as no quorum was mustered and no session was held. The Court deferred to the factual findings of the trial and appellate courts, which found the prosecution’s evidence credible and the defense of a “mere draft” incredulous. The penalty imposed by the lower courts was affirmed.