G.R. No. 68203 September 13, 1989
METUROGAN L. SAREP, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Meturogan L. Sarep, a Soil Technologist II under a temporary appointment, was charged with Falsification of an Official Document. The prosecution alleged that on or about December 30, 1977, Sarep took his original appointment paper dated January 19, 1976, from office records without permission. He then allegedly altered the date and other entries on that document to change his appointment status from “temporary” to “permanent.” This falsified appointment was subsequently attested by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) Central Office in Manila, bypassing the regional office with proper jurisdiction.
The antecedent facts reveal that Director Kundo Pahm of the Bureau of Soils initially signed an appointment for Sarep on January 19, 1976, but noticed an error in the civil service eligibility entry. A corrected appointment paper was prepared and signed, approved as “temporary” by the CSC Regional Office. This temporary appointment was later renewed. In March 1978, Director Pahm decided not to renew Sarep’s appointment due to performance issues. Shortly after, Pahm received a xerox copy of an appointment paper dated December 30, 1976, bearing erasures and superimpositions, which had been approved as “permanent” by the CSC Central Office. Sarep refused to produce the original when asked.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting petitioner of the crime of Falsification of Public Document through Reckless Imprudence.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court upheld the Sandiganbayan’s finding that Sarep was guilty of Falsification through Reckless Imprudence under Article 171(4) in relation to Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code. The legal logic centered on the nature of reckless imprudence as a quasi-offense. The Court explained that criminal negligence provides a middle ground between an intentional wrongful act (a felony) and an act without any criminal intent. What is penalized is the mental attitude of dangerous recklessness and lack of care, regardless of whether the harmful result was specifically intended.
The evidence established that Sarep, as the appointee and primary beneficiary of the altered document, was in the best position to commit the falsification. His refusal to surrender the original altered appointment paper to Director Pahm further indicated consciousness of guilt. While the evidence did not conclusively prove a deliberate intent to falsify, it sufficiently demonstrated that Sarep acted with reckless disregard of the consequences by presenting a manifestly altered document to the CSC Central Office for attestation. This reckless act resulted in the falsification of a public document. The Sandiganbayan correctly appreciated the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. Consequently, the penalty was modified to an indeterminate sentence of THREE MONTHS AND ONE DAY to ONE YEAR, SEVEN MONTHS, AND TEN DAYS of imprisonment.