G.R. No. 186329 , G.R. Nos. 186584-86 & G.R. No. 198598, August 2, 2017. DR. FRISCO M. MALABANAN, Petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, Respondent; ABUSAMA MANGUDADATU ALID, Petitioner, vs. THE HON. SANDIGANBAYAN – 1st DIVISION, OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, HON. SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Respondents; ABUSAMA M. ALID, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS

Abusama M. Alid, Assistant Regional Director of the Department of Agriculture (DA), obtained a cash advance for official travel from July 28-31, 2004, to attend a turnover ceremony and follow up funds. The ceremony was postponed, and Alid’s trip was deferred. He eventually traveled from Cotabato to Manila on August 22, 2004, attended the rescheduled ceremony on August 23, and returned on August 24. To liquidate his cash advance, Alid submitted a Post Travel Report falsely stating his travel occurred from July 28-31. He supported this with an altered Philippine Airlines ticket, changing the date from “22 AUG 2004” to “28 JULY 2004” and the route from “Cotabato-Manila-Cotabato” to “Davao-Manila-Cotabato.” He also attached an undated Certificate of Appearance signed by Dr. Frisco M. Malabanan, Program Director of the GMA Rice Program, falsely certifying Alid’s presence at the DA Central Office from July 28-31.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Sandiganbayan correctly convicted Alid and Malabanan of falsification of public documents under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s convictions. For Alid, the Court found all elements of falsification by a public officer present. He made untruthful statements in his Post Travel Report, a narration of facts he was legally bound to disclose truthfully, and he altered a genuine document (the airline ticket) which changed its meaning. His intent to gain is presumed from the voluntary act of falsification itself, as the falsified documents were used to liquidate a cash advance for a trip that did not occur on the reported dates, constituting illicit gain. His defense of good faith, claiming he merely followed office practice, was rejected as such practice cannot legitimize a criminal act.
For Malabanan, the Court upheld his conviction as a principal by indispensable cooperation under Article 17 of the Revised Penal Code. By issuing the false Certificate of Appearance, he knowingly participated in and facilitated Alid’s falsification scheme. His signature was indispensable to making Alid’s fraudulent liquidation appear legitimate. His claim that he signed a blank document was deemed unworthy of credence, as a person of his education and position would not sign a blank certificate carelessly. The Court emphasized that the gravamen of the offense is the violation of public trust and the integrity of official documents, not merely the actual disbursement of funds. Both petitioners, as public officers, committed the offenses in relation to their office, warranting affirmation of their criminal liability.