G.R. No. 217064 , June 13, 2023
NAOMI LOURDES A. HERRERA, PETITIONER, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Naomi Lourdes A. Herrera was convicted of Falsification of Documents under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code by the Sandiganbayan on October 23, 2014. The Special Second Division of the Supreme Court denied her motion for reconsideration with finality on February 26, 2020, and ordered the issuance of an entry of judgment. Despite this finality, petitioner filed numerous subsequent motions and manifestations seeking reversal. On June 22, 2021, the Court en banc accepted the case, reinstated the petition, and recalled the entry of judgment. The majority of the Court en banc subsequently acquitted petitioner.

ISSUE

Whether the Court en banc erred in: (1) reviewing and reversing a final and executory judgment of a Division, thereby disregarding the doctrine of immutability of final judgments and the principle that the en banc is not an appellate court over Divisions; and (2) acquitting petitioner based on the conclusions that she did not take advantage of her official position and lacked criminal intent, allegedly overlooking material facts and judicial admissions.

RULING

Justice Marquez, in his dissenting opinion, ruled that:
1. The Court en banc’s act of reviewing and reversing the final and executory judgment of the Second Division was repugnant to the doctrine of immutability of final judgments and the principle that the en banc is not an appellate court to which decisions of a Division may be appealed. This encourages litigants to disregard procedural tenets.
2. The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over Sandiganbayan decisions is limited to questions of law, and the Sandiganbayan’s factual findings are generally conclusive. None of the exceptions warranting a review of facts were present.
3. The majority erred in acquitting petitioner. Contrary to the majority’s finding, petitioner took advantage of her official position. She testified that she attended the Bids and Awards Committee meeting and signed the falsified Resolution No. 007 by virtue of an Office Order authorizing her to represent and act for her immediate superior, Acting Provincial Accountant Gracia Coleto, including signing documents. These testimonies constitute judicial admissions proving the existence and authority granted by the Office Order. It was this official authority she exploited to falsify the document.
4. Petitioner had criminal intent. Her failure to disclose the details of her participation and signing of the resolution to her superior upon her return, despite knowing the resolution contained false statements, demonstrates her conscious indifference to the truth and her deliberate intent to falsify.
5. Therefore, the prosecution proved petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for falsification of a public document under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code.