G.R. No. 221857 & G.R. No. 222020, August 16, 2017
JESUS O. TYPOCO, JR. and NOEL D. REYES, PETITIONERS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioners Jesus O. Typoco, Jr., the Provincial Governor, and Noel D. Reyes, the OIC-General Services Officer, along with other co-accused, were charged with Falsification of Public Document under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code. The charge stemmed from the alleged alteration of the date on Purchase Order (PO) No. 0628 for medicines from April 21, 2005, to May 20, 2005. The prosecution alleged this was done to conceal that a procurement from Cabrera’s Drugstore had been made prior to a public bidding conducted on May 18, 2005. The Sandiganbayan convicted petitioners of falsification, acquitting their co-accused for insufficiency of evidence. Petitioners sought review, arguing the prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The evidence established that for a provincial Medical Indigency Program, PR and PO No. 0628 were prepared and approved on April 21, 2005, for medicines from Cabrera’s Drugstore. The medicines were delivered, inspected, and accepted on April 28, 2005. A public bidding for the same items was subsequently held on May 18, 2005, with Cabrera’s Drugstore winning. The Contract and a second PO, both dated May 20, 2005, were then executed. The prosecution’s case hinged on the theory that the original PO from April was backdated to May 20 to make it appear the procurement followed the bidding.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting petitioners of the crime of Falsification of Public Document under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the Sandiganbayan and acquitted petitioners. The Court emphasized that in falsification under Article 171, the prosecution must prove that the accused made a deliberate assertion of a falsehood through the document, causing damage or at least the possibility thereof. The Court found the prosecution’s evidence insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Critically, the original PO dated April 21, 2005, remained in the official files and was never altered or replaced. The PO dated May 20, 2005, was a separate and subsequent document generated as part of the post-bidding contracting process. There was no evidence petitioners caused the creation of the May 20 PO to replace or supersede the April 21 PO. The existence of two distinct POs for the same transaction, while irregular, did not by itself constitute the criminal act of falsification, which requires proof of malicious intent to falsify a single document. The prosecution failed to prove the essential element of deliberate falsification, as the creation of the second PO could be attributed to procedural irregularities in implementing the procurement rather than a criminal conspiracy to alter a pre-existing record. Consequently, the presumption of innocence prevailed.