GR 85667; (February, 1995) (Digest)
G.R. No. 85667 February 23, 1995
ILUMINADO ILUMIN Y CARBONELL, petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (Third Division), and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Iluminado Ilumin, a special disbursing officer/liaison officer of the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS), was tasked with collecting salaries from the senior disbursing officer for distribution to employees based on the payroll register. An audit revealed that Payroll Register No. 2110 for February 8-15, 1984, was post-audited and allowed only in the amount of P9,557.00, but a disallowance of P1,000.00 was noted because the amount paid was P10,557.00. The disallowed amount corresponded to unauthorized increases in the net pay of Arceo Castillo (from P201.00 to P721.00) and Iluminado Ilumin (from P147.00 to P627.00). Petitioner was charged before the Sandiganbayan with the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public document for allegedly altering the payroll, collecting the increased amount, and misappropriating the P1,000.00 difference. The Sandiganbayan convicted him, sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty and ordering him to indemnify the MWSS.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting petitioner of the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public document based on the evidence presented.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s decision with a modification to the penalty. The Court held that the petition, while raising factual issues, could be reviewed to ensure the constitutional presumption of innocence was overcome. It found that the Sandiganbayan correctly concluded petitioner was the author of the falsification based on circumstantial evidence. The evidence showed that the payroll was altered after it was signed by the chief of section and given to petitioner, and before he presented it to the cashier for payment. Petitioner, as the liaison officer, had sole custody of the payroll during this interval, presented the falsified document to the cashier, received the increased amount of P10,557.00, and distributed only P9,557.00 to the employees, thereby misappropriating the P1,000.00 difference. The Court cited the presumption that the possessor and user of a forged document who benefits from it is presumed to be the forger. The Court modified the maximum term of the penalty to 10 years of prision mayor, as the original sentence of 10 years and 1 day was in the maximum period, whereas the proper period should be the medium.