G.R. No. 174730 -37 and G.R. Nos. 174845-52, February 9, 2011
ROSALIO S. GALEOS, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

PAULINO S. ONG, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Paulino S. Ong was the Mayor of Naga, Cebu. On June 1, 1994, he extended permanent appointments to Rosalio S. Galeos and Federico T. Rivera as Construction and Maintenance Man and Plumber I, respectively. Prior to this, they were casual employees. In their respective Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) for the years 1993, 1994, 1995, and 1996, Galeos and Rivera either answered “No” or left blank the question asking if they were related within the fourth degree to anyone in government service. Ong administered the oath on these SALNs. A certification dated June 1, 1994, signed by Ong and an HR Officer, attested that all legal requirements, including the nepotism rule under Section 79 of the Local Government Code, were complied with for the appointments.
On October 1, 1998, a complaint was filed with the Office of the Ombudsman against Ong, Galeos, and Rivera. Subsequently, Informations were filed charging them with falsification of public documents under Article 171(4) of the Revised Penal Code. The charges alleged that in the SALNs, they made it appear they were not related within the fourth degree, when in truth Galeos is related to Ong within the fourth degree of consanguinity (their mothers are sisters), and Rivera is related to Ong within the fourth degree of affinity (Rivera’s wife’s mother is the sister of Ong’s mother).
The Sandiganbayan convicted Ong of eight counts and Galeos of four counts of falsification. The court found that the certifications in the SALNs regarding the absence of such relatives were false, and that Ong, as the appointing authority and oath-administering officer, conspired with the appointees in making these false statements.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting petitioners Paulino S. Ong and Rosalio S. Galeos of the crime of falsification of public documents under Article 171, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the Sandiganbayan Decision and ACQUITTED petitioners Paulino S. Ong and Rosalio S. Galeos.
The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the crime of falsification under Article 171(4) beyond reasonable doubt. The elements of this crime are: (1) the offender makes in a public document untruthful statements in a narration of facts; (2) he has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated; and (3) the facts narrated are absolutely false.
The Court found the second element lacking. The legal obligation to disclose the truth must be imposed by law. The question in the SALN form regarding relatives in government was based on the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees ( R.A. No. 6713 ), which requires the identification of relatives within the fourth degree “in the government.” The Court ruled that the law only requires disclosure of the names of such relatives who are also in government service. It does not require a public official to answer “Yes” or “No” to the question of mere existence of a relative in government. The form’s “Yes/No” query was a conclusion of law, not a narration of fact. A “No” answer is a conclusion that none of one’s relatives within the prohibited degree are employed in the government. The prosecution did not prove that Galeos or Rivera had any other relative in government besides Ong. Therefore, their “No” answers or blank responses were not proven to be absolutely false narrations of fact.
Furthermore, the Court ruled that no conspiracy was established. For Ong’s conviction as a co-principal, his knowledge of the falsity of the statements in the SALNs was essential. The mere fact that he administered the oath does not prove he knew the contents were false, especially since the legal meaning of the question was ambiguous. The certification he signed regarding compliance with the nepotism rule pertained to the appointment process, not the contents of the SALNs. His act of appointing relatives, while potentially constituting a separate administrative offense of nepotism, does not by itself establish criminal conspiracy to falsify the SALNs. The petitions were granted, and the petitioners were acquitted.