G.R. No. 180314; April 16, 2009
Normallah A. Pacasum, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Normallah A. Pacasum, the Regional Secretary of the Department of Tourism in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (DOT-ARMM), was charged before the Sandiganbayan with Falsification of Public Documents under Article 171, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code. The Information alleged that on or about August 22-23, 2000, in Cotabato City, she willfully falsified her Employee Clearance submitted to the Office of the Regional Governor by imitating the signature of Laura Y. Pangilan, the Supply Officer I of DOT-ARMM, to claim her salary for August and September 2000. The prosecution presented witnesses Subaida K. Pangilan (Human Resource Management Officer V, ARMM), Laura Y. Pangilan, and Rebecca A. Agatep (Telegraph Operator). Subaida testified that upon receiving petitioner’s clearance, she noticed Laura’s signature was forged, being familiar with it as her daughter-in-law. Laura confirmed she did not sign the clearance because petitioner had not turned over office properties. The defense presented petitioner and Atty. Jose I. Lorena. Petitioner testified she did not need the clearance to receive her salary as she had no cash advances and was reappointed, and denied forging or causing the forgery of Laura’s signature. The Sandiganbayan found petitioner guilty, ruling she took advantage of her official position and used the falsified document. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for New Trial/Reception of Newly Discovered Evidence, which were denied.

ISSUE

The main issue is whether petitioner Normallah A. Pacasum is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Falsification of Public Documents under Article 171, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the Sandiganbayan’s Decision and ACQUITTED petitioner Normallah A. Pacasum. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner committed falsification. Specifically, the prosecution did not establish that petitioner imitated or caused the imitation of Laura Pangilan’s signature on the Employee Clearance. The Sandiganbayan erroneously applied the presumption that the possessor and user of a falsified document is the author of the falsification, as this presumption applies only when the possessor benefits from the document. Here, petitioner did not need the clearance to receive her salaries, as she had no cash advances and was reappointed, thus she did not profit from it. Furthermore, the element of “taking advantage of official position” was not proven, as merely being a public officer who submits a clearance does not constitute taking advantage of that position. The Court emphasized that criminal intent (mens rea) is essential for falsification, and no such intent was shown since petitioner had no ill motive to falsify a document she did not need. Therefore, petitioner’s guilt was not established beyond reasonable doubt.