G.R. No. L-67472 July 3, 1987
Dario Cabigas y Cacho, petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Dario Cabigas, a Securities Custodian at the Land Bank of the Philippines, Makati Branch, was charged with falsification of a public document under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code. The charge stemmed from an entry he made in a Daily Report of Securities/Documents Under Custody (DR SDUC) dated March 30, 1982. After an inventory on March 29, 1982, Cabigas and a co-accused discovered the loss of six treasury bills. In the subsequent DR SDUC, Cabigas adjusted the beginning balance of securities from 1,539 to 1,533 pieces and placed a footnote stating the reduction was due to an “Adjustment on erroneous entry (incoming) dated 3/09/82.”
The Sandiganbayan convicted Cabigas, finding that the footnote constituted an untruthful statement made to conceal the loss of the securities. Cabigas appealed, arguing his actions did not constitute the crime of falsification.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioner’s act of making an adjustment and explanatory footnote in the DR SDUC constitutes the crime of falsification of a public document under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the Sandiganbayan’s decision and acquitted the petitioner. The legal logic hinges on the essential elements of falsification under Article 171(4), which requires that the accused made untruthful statements in a narration of facts, that he had a legal obligation to disclose the truth, and that he acted with wrongful intent to cause damage.
The Court found the conviction untenable. First, the DR SDUC was not an official form prescribed by the Land Bank but was a record devised by the petitioner for his own convenience and reference. Consequently, he was under no legal obligation to disclose the truth in that particular document. The absence of such a duty negates a fundamental element of the crime. Second, the evidence demonstrated a lack of wrongful intent to conceal the loss. Petitioner reported the missing securities to his supervisors immediately upon discovery, which is indicative of good faith. The adjustment made the document reflect the actual count, and the footnote, while inaccurate in its reason, actually drew attention to a discrepancy rather than concealing it. Without both the legal duty to speak the truth in that document and the requisite criminal intent, the crime of falsification was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.