G.R. Nos. L-61017-18 November 14, 1988
FELIPE FAJELGA, petitioner, vs. HON. ROMEO M. ESCAREAL, HON. CONRADO M. MOLINA AND HON. RAMON V. JABSON, MEMBERS, SECOND DIVISION, SANDIGANBAYAN, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Felipe Fajelga, a government driver, was charged and convicted by the Sandiganbayan in two related cases. In Criminal Case No. 3690, he was found guilty of Falsification of a Public Document through reckless imprudence. The charge stemmed from a Deed of Absolute Sale for a motorcycle, executed by Serenico Ablat in favor of the Provincial Government of Batanes. The motorcycle was registered in Fajelga’s name, having purchased it earlier. The sale was initiated for the use of a provincial auditor but was later cancelled. The Sandiganbayan initially convicted Fajelga under Article 171(4) of the Revised Penal Code but later modified this to a conviction for falsification through reckless imprudence under Article 171(2) in relation to Article 365.
In Criminal Case No. 3691, Fajelga was convicted of Infidelity in the Custody of Documents under Article 226 of the Revised Penal Code. After the sale was cancelled, the new Provincial Auditor, Elena Alcantara, gave the cancelled vouchers and related documents to Fajelga. These documents were subsequently lost when a fire burned the cabinet in the Provincial Auditor’s office where Fajelga had placed them.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) Whether petitioner Felipe Fajelga could be validly convicted of falsification of a public document under the circumstances; and (2) Whether his conviction for infidelity in the custody of documents was proper.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the Sandiganbayan’s decision and acquitted Fajelga of both charges. On the charge of falsification, the Court held that the essential elements of the crime under either paragraph 2 or 4 of Article 171 were not established. For falsification by making untruthful statements in a narration of facts (Article 171(4)), the law requires a wrongful intent to injure a third person and a legal obligation on the part of the narrator to disclose the truth. The prosecution failed to prove such wrongful intent on Fajelga’s part. Furthermore, he was not a party to the Deed of Sale nor the public officer required by law to prepare it; thus, he had no legal obligation to narrate facts truthfully in that document. His mere ownership of the motorcycle, which was the subject of the sale, did not make him a participant in the falsification of the deed itself.
Regarding the conviction for infidelity in the custody of documents under Article 226, the Court found the elements of the crime were not met. For this offense to exist, the documents must be required by law, regulations, or circulars to be kept or archived. The testimony of Provincial Auditor Alcantara established that the vouchers were already cancelled, considered mere “scrap of paper,” and were not required to be officially kept. Moreover, the documents were given to Fajelga without any specific instructions to safeguard or deliver them, and there was no showing they were entrusted to him by reason of his official duties. Therefore, his failure to produce them after the fire did not constitute the crime charged. Consequently, the Supreme Court acquitted petitioner Felipe Fajelga.