G.R. No. 172123 , April 16, 2009.
MACARIOLA S. BARTOLO and VIOLENDA B. SUCRO, Petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, SECOND DIVISION, THE HONORABLE SECRETARY HERMOGENES EBDANE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS (“DPWH”), THE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR (“OSP”), AND ANTONIO BALTAZAR, Respondents.

FACTS

An Information was filed against petitioners Macariola S. Bartolo and Violenda B. Sucro, along with other co-accused, for Falsification of Public Documents under Article 171(4) of the Revised Penal Code. The charge alleged that they conspired to falsify public documents (Statement of Time Elapsed and Work Accomplished, Inspection Report for Final Acceptance, and Certificate of Acceptance) by making it appear that the Metro Manila Flood Control Project II was 100% complete, when in fact a 320-meter parapet wall was not constructed, thereby causing damage and prejudice to public interest. After pleading not guilty, the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) moved for their suspension pendente lite under Section 13 of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The Sandiganbayan granted the motion and ordered a 90-day suspension. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Did the Sandiganbayan commit grave abuse of discretion in ordering the suspension pendente lite of the petitioners under Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019 for the offense of Falsification of Public Documents?

RULING

No, the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s Resolutions. The Court held that Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019 applies not only to offenses under Title Seven, Book II of the Revised Penal Code but also to “any offense involving fraud upon government or public funds or property.” Following the precedent in Bustillo v. Sandiganbayan, the term “fraud” is understood in its generic sense as an act of trickery or deceit involving misrepresentation. The alleged falsification of documents to make a project appear fully complete, thereby inducing the government to pay the full contract price despite an unaccomplished portion, constitutes fraud upon public funds. The petitioners’ argument that falsification is under Title Four, not Title Seven, of the Revised Penal Code is unavailing. Their ancillary argument regarding the nature of the documents and the alleged project change order were deemed improper for resolution in a certiorari petition, as they involved factual determinations touching on the merits of the pending criminal case. The petition was dismissed.