G.R. No. 194390 , August 13, 2014.
VENANCIO M. SEVILLA, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Venancio M. Sevilla, a former councilor of Malabon City, was charged with the intentional felony of falsification of public document under Article 171(4) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). The Information alleged that on or about July 2, 2001, he willfully made a false statement in his Personal Data Sheet (PDS) by answering “no” to the question of whether he had any pending criminal case, despite knowing that Criminal Case No. 6718-97 for Assault Upon An Agent Of A Person In Authority was pending against him before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Malabon City. Upon arraignment, he pleaded not guilty. During trial, Sevilla admitted marking “no” but claimed no intent to falsify, asserting that his staff member, Editha Mendoza, prepared the PDS by copying entries from his previous PDS, and he signed it without verifying the entries. The Sandiganbayan found that Sevilla made an untruthful statement in a public document, taking advantage of his official position, and had a legal obligation to disclose the pending case, thus establishing all elements of falsification. However, it opined that he acted without malicious intent but with recklessness, as the PDS was haphazardly prepared (e.g., also containing a false entry about not being a candidate in a local election despite having served as councilor from 1992 to 1998). Consequently, the Sandiganbayan convicted Sevilla of “Falsification of Public Documents Through Reckless Imprudence” under Article 365 of the RPC, imposing a penalty of four months of arresto mayor as minimum to two years, ten months, and twenty-one days of prision correccional as maximum. Sevilla appealed, arguing that since the Information charged him with an intentional felony, convicting him of a culpable felony (reckless imprudence) violated his constitutional right to be informed of the nature of the accusation.

ISSUE

Whether Sevilla can be convicted of the felony of falsification of public document through reckless imprudence notwithstanding that the charge against him in the Information was for the intentional felony of falsification of public document under Article 171(4) of the RPC.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s Decision and Resolution. The Court clarified that the Sandiganbayan’s designation of the crime as “falsification of public document through reckless imprudence” was inaccurate, as reckless imprudence under Article 365 of the RPC is a distinct quasi-offense, not merely a modality of committing a crime. However, the Court held that a conviction for reckless imprudence is permissible even if the Information charges an intentional felony, provided that the reckless imprudence is included in the offense charged. The Court explained that reckless imprudence is not a separate crime but a way of incurring criminal liability, and it is considered included in the intentional felony because the elements of the intentional felony are necessarily included in the quasi-offense. Since the Information alleged all the elements of falsification of public document and the trial established that the act was committed through reckless imprudence, Sevilla’s conviction for reckless imprudence did not violate his right to be informed. The Court noted that the penalty imposed by the Sandiganbayan—arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its medium period for reckless imprudence resulting in falsification—was correct under Article 365 of the RPC and the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Thus, the Sandiganbayan’s ruling was affirmed.