GR 68203; (September, 1989) (Digest)
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, which had been replaced due to an incorrect entry, and altered it to change his employment status from temporary to permanent. This falsified document was then attested by the Civil Service Commission in Manila. The discovery occurred in March 1978 when his superior, Director Kundo Pahm, decided not to renew Sarep’s temporary appointment and subsequently received a xerox copy of the altered document showing a changed date and “permanent” status approval from the Central Office.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting Sarep of the crime of Falsification of a 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 responsible for the falsification. The evidence established that the altered appointment paper (Exhibit “C”) was in Sarep’s possession and that he presented it to secure a permanent status, which his legitimate temporary appointments (Exhibits “A” and “B”) did not confer. His refusal to produce the original when demanded by Director Pahm further incriminated him. The Court rejected Sarep’s defense that other office personnel might have made the alterations, finding no evidence to support this claim.
On the legal classification of the offense, the Court agreed with the Sandiganbayan’s characterization of the crime as Falsification through Reckless Imprudence under Article 171(4) in relation to Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code. The act of altering a public document is intrinsically wrongful, and Sarep’s failure to exercise due care and diligence in handling the document—by possessing, altering, and using it to misrepresent his employment status—constituted the reckless imprudence. This quasi-offense is penalized based on the mental attitude of dangerous recklessness, not on a specific intent to falsify. The Court modified the penalty to an indeterminate sentence of THREE MONTHS AND ONE DAY to ONE YEAR, SEVEN MONTHS AND TEN DAYS, after applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and appreciating the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.