G.R. No. 217064 -65, June 13, 2023
NAOMI LOURDES A. HERRERA, PETITIONER, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Naomi Lourdes A. Herrera, a Management and Audit Analyst IV at the Provincial Accountant’s Office of Surigao del Sur, attended a Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) meeting on February 22, 1994, as the representative of her superior, Acting Provincial Accountant Gracia Coleto, who was on official leave. The meeting was to decide the award for the purchase of typewriters. The BAC subsequently issued Resolution No. 007, which awarded the contract to New Datche. The Resolution stated, among others, that among the bidders were New Datche and Olympia Business Machines. Petitioner signed the Resolution. She, along with other signatories, was charged with and convicted by the Sandiganbayan for Falsification of Public Documents under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code for causing it to appear that persons (New Datche and Olympia Business Machines) participated in the bidding when they did not in fact participate. The Court’s Second Division initially dismissed her petition and affirmed her conviction. After procedural motions, the Court en banc recalled the entry of judgment and ultimately voted to acquit her. Justice Rosario dissented from this acquittal.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Naomi Lourdes A. Herrera should be acquitted of the crime of Falsification of Public Documents.

RULING

The dissenting opinion argues that petitioner should not be acquitted. While agreeing with the ponencia that the second element of Falsification of Public Documents under Article 171 (“taking advantage of official position”) is absent, as petitioner had no duty under COA Circular No. 92-386 to sign the BAC Resolution, the dissent concludes she can still be convicted under Article 172 (falsification by a private individual) in relation to Article 171. The act of signing the Resolution, which falsely stated that New Datche and Olympia Business Machines participated in the bidding, constitutes falsification. Her authority to sign for her superior, while a judicial admission, did not confer the duty required under Article 171. Furthermore, her defense of good faith is unavailing as falsification is a mala in se crime where criminal intent is presumed from the consummation of the act, and neither gain to the offender nor prejudice to a third party is essential. The dissent also questions the unusual recall of the entry of judgment based on the purported failure of a prior resolution to expound on the facts, arguing this is insufficient to disregard the doctrine of immutability of final judgment.