decision - sb.judiciary.gov.phsb.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions/2017/j_crim_sb-15-ar... · people of...

REPUBLIC OF THE Pl-IILIPPINES~anbiganbapan

Quezon City

FOURTH DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, SB-lS-A/R/0004Plaintiff-Appellee,

For: Falsification of PublicDocuments

- versus - Present:Quiroz, l., _Cruz, r.Jacinto, J.

ANDRES S. MORALES, Promulgated: OCT 0 6 2017 JAccused-Appellant.

x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----x

DECISION

JACINTO, J:

This is an appeal from the Decision I of the Regional Trial Court(Branch 263), Marikina City, in Criminal Cases Nos. 2007-9567 to 75-MKentitled "People of the Philippines, Plaintiff, versus Andres S. Morales,Accused," the dispositive portion of which reads -

WHEREFORE, above premises considered, this court finds theaccused GUILTY of nine (9) counts of falsification of publicdocuments thru negligence beyond reasonable doubt and is herebysentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six (6) months and one (l)day of Prision Correccional as minimum to six (6) years and one (l) dayof Prision Mayor as maximum for each count.

SO ORDERED.

Accused-appellant Andres S. Morales (appellant) was charged beforethe trial court with nine (9) counts of Falsification of Public Document, asdefined and penalized under Article 171(4) of the Revised Penal Code(RPC). Except for the names of the students whose Profiency Certificateswere alleged to have been falsified, and the courses and subjects that theyfailed to complete, the Informations were similarly worded, to wit:

1 Dated 27 August 2013, Record, Criminal Case Nos. 2007-9567-75-MK, pp. 14-27.

DECISIONPeople of the Philippines v. Andres S. MoralesSB-15-A/R-0004 of 11

That on or about March 19,2004 or sometime prior or subsequentthereto, in Marikina City, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within thejurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused ANDRESS. MORALES, a public officer, being the then Acting Registrar ofMarikina Polytechnic College (formerly, Marikina Institute of Science andTechnology) a State-owned educational institution, while in theperformance of his official function, taking advantage of his officialposition and committing the crime in relation to his office, did, then andthere, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously falsify the ProficiencyCertificate of student , a public document, by signing andcertifying that has satisfactorily completed his

course when in truth and in fact, on March 19, 2004,-----still have grade deficiencies in the subjects _

and or a total of subjects with no grade, and in fact,has not completed the course, to the damage and

prejudice of the government and of public interest.

The particulars of the subject Informations are as follows:

Criminal Case Name of Student Course Subject/sNo.

2007-9567-MK Ronel D. Lagdameo Welding and Technical Math 101Fabrication Technical Math 102Technology OJT 102

2007-9568-MK Matt G. Sollera Construction TGY 115, TGYTechnology 116, TGY 117,

TGY 118, NSTP II2007-9569-MK Eric S. ViIlamin Construction TGY 115, TGY

Technology 116, TGY 117,TGY 118

2007-9570-MK John Jayson D.L.e. Construction Technical DrawingTechnology III

2007-9571-MK Tito S. Amandy III Refrigeration and Air Physical EducationConditioning 201Technology

l,)OO7 -9572-MK Rodelio D. Austria Electrical Technology Technical Math 101

V Technical Math 102Technical Math 201Technical Math 202

2007-9573-MK Leonardo G. Ebreo Electrical Technology Technical Math 201(4

2007-9574-MK Marvin B. Sanuco Refrigeration and Air Technical EnglishConditioning 102

11 Technology2007-9575-MK Richardon U. Javate Refrigeration and Air Technical Math 202

ConditioningTechnology

DECISIONPeople of the Philippines v. Andres S. MoralesSB-lS-A/R-0004 of 11

The prosecution's case is built on the testimony of its lone witness,Ermie Linda T. Flarniniano," Registrar of the Marikina PolytechnicCollege (MPC) from 9 December 2004 to 2008. Her testimony may besummarized as follows:

(i) The Registrar serves as the custodian ofMPC students' records;evaluates the subject credits of students - especially thegraduating students based on the Students' Permanent Records(SPRs); signs transcripts of records, diplomas, and certificatesof graduating students; conducts periodic reviews; and, initiateschanges to improve existing systems and procedures.

(ii) The staff at the Registrar's office prepares the SPRs based onthe grading sheets submitted by faculty members. The list ofcandidates for graduation, in turn, is prepared by the Registrar'sOffice based on the SPRs. The list is prepared early forpurposes of the graduation programme. However, the names ofstudents in the list could still be removed if they fail tocomplete their subjects prior to graduation.

(iii) On 6 May 2005, the mother of student Matt G. Sollerarequested for her son's transcript of records and ProficiencyCertificate (Diploma). She was informed that the Registrar'sOffice cannot issue said documents because her son still had nogrades in five (5) subjects, as reflected in his SPR. Matt G.Sollera's mother expressed her shock, given that her son wentup the stage during the graduation ceremony and was "one ofthose students who were conferred by the superintendent duringthe ceremony. »s

(iv) Prompted by the information, Flaminiano 'went through theirrecords and found that a Proficiency Certificate in the name ofMatt G. Sollera was signed by appellant as Officer-in-Charge(OIC) Registrar, and Yolanda E. Olano, the Superintendent.

(v) After further investigation, Flaminiano found out that appellantissued Proficiency Certificates to three (3) more students fromthe same department as Sollera, who were allowed to graduatedespite having incomplete grades as per their SPRs.

2 TSNs dated 24 April 2008 (Record, pp. 200-209) and 6 November 2008 (id., pp. 253-284); JudicialAffidavit dated 17 April 2008 (id., pp. 211-232). ~3 Page 5 of Judicial Affidavit, Record, p. 215. {" 0

.:

DECISIONPeople of the Philippines v. Andres S MoralesSB-lS-A/R-0004 of 11

(vi) Flaminiano wrote a letter to the College President, requestingthat the anomalies she discovered be investigated. In responsethereto, a fact-finding committee was formed and appellant wasgiven a chance to be heard, but he refused to cooperate.

(vii) Further investigation revealed that appellant issued ProficiencyCertificates to six (6) more students who graduated despite thedeficiencies that were clearly reflected in their SPRs.

(viii) The School Superintendent, Mrs. Yolanda Olano, was notincluded in the case because she had no access to the permanentrecords of the students. It was only appellant, as OIC-Registrar,who had full access thereto. Thus, the Registrar's signatureserves as the assurance to the Superintendent that everything isin order.

(ix) The Proficiency Certificates for students Marvin Sanuco, MattSollera, and Richardson Javate were released to them uponsubsequent completion of their respective grade deficiencies.

After the prosecution submitted its Formal Offer of Exhibits.'appellant filed a Motionfor Leave and to Admit Demurrer to Evidence dated9 December 2009.5 The trial court, however, denied the same in an Orderdated 13 January 2010.6 Appellant's motion for reconsideration was alsodenied in an Order dated 25 May 2010.7

Aggrieved, appellant filed a Petition for Certiorari dated 5 March2011 before the Court of Appeals. However, the same was denied in aResolution dated 29 July 2001,8 for the reason that the same should haveeen filed before this COUli.

Thus, appellant filed a Petition for Certiorari (with prayer forimmediate issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ ofPreliminary Injunction) dated 15 August 2011 before this Court. The samewas denied in a Resolution dated 19 September 2011 for having being filedbeyond the 60-day reglementary period under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

4 Id., pp. 290-315.5 Id., pp. 338-347.6 Id., p. 398-399.7Id., pp. 422-423.8 ld., pp. 965-972.

DECISIONPeople of the Philippines v. Andres S MoralesSB-lS-A/R-0004 of 11

In the interim, trial proceeded, with the defense presenting two (2)witnesses: (1) appellant himself> and, (2) Ma. Elena C. Bartolome. \0 Theirtestimonies may be summarized accordingly:

(i) Appellant was an Administrative Officer at the MPC (formerlyMarikina Institute of Science and Technology), and wasdesignated Acting Registrar on 24 January 2003. He signed theCertificates of Proficiency of the nine (9) students subject of thepresent case in the honest belief that the students havecompleted the required subjects for them to graduate in theirrespective courses.

(ii) Sometime in January 2004, the Registrar's Office was furnishedwith a copy of the programme for the commencement exercisesto be held on 19 March 2004.

(iii) The Registrar's Office's staff prepared the ProficiencyCertificates for the students whose names appeared in the saidprogramme and endorsed the same for appellant's signature.

(iv) Due to the number of students and the fact that the Registrar'sOffice was then undermanned, appellant had no time to checkeach record and ascertain whether the students had any gradedeficiencies. Thus, he relied only on the commencementprogramme when he signed the Proficiency Certificates,without cross-checking the actual status of the students whosenames were listed therein as per their respective SPRs.

(v) Nonetheless, it is the school's policy that before a diploma isreleased to a student, the staff at the Registrar's office willreview and countercheck for the last time the completeness ofthe students' records. If the requesting student is found to havecertain deficiencies, or have not complied certain requirements,then the certificate/diploma will not be released until thedeficiency has been completed.

(vi) Appellant learned only several months after the graduationceremony held on 19 March 2004 that there were at least nine(9) Certificates of Proficiency that were not released, and hewas being investigated .. Sometime in December 2004, then

9 TSN dated 6 October 2011 and 22 March 2012; Judicial Affidavit dated 3 October 2011; Records, pp.974-1029, 1039-1055.IOTSN dated \3 July2012; Records, pp. 1065-109\.

DECISIONPeople of the Philippines v. Andres S. MoralesSB-lS-AlR-00040f11

school president Dr. Manuel Pangilinan appointed Ermie LindaFlaminiano to replace appellant.

Upon the evidence submitted by the parties, the trial court renderedjudgment, finding appellant guilty of nine (9) counts of "falsification ofpublic documents thru negligence."

Hence, this appeal on the following assigned errors: 11

First Assignment of Error

THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN DECLARING THEACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF FALSIFICA TIONCOMMITTED THRU NEGLIGENCE WHEN THE CHARGE IN THEINFORMATION WAS FOR WILLFULL AND INTENTIONALFALSIFICATION.

Second Assignment of Error

THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN APPLYING THE CASEOF SAMSON vs COURT OF APPEALS, ET. AL., (103 PHIL 277) INDECLARING ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF FALSIFICATIONTHRU NEGLIGENCE.

Third Assignment of Error

THAT THE FINDING OF THE LOWER COURT DECLARINGACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF FALSIFICA TION THRUNEGLIGENCE HAS NO BASIS IN FACT AND IN LAW ANDTHEREFORE, CONTRARY TO THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD.

Fourth Assignment of Error

THAT THE FINDING OF GUILTY FOR FALSIFICATION THRUNEGLIGENCE BY THE LOWER COURT CLEARLY VIOLATES

.: AND INFRINGES UPON THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF THEACCUSED-APPELLANT TO BE INFORMED OF THE NATURE ANDCAUSE OF THE ACCUSATION AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION14(2) OF ARTICLE III ON THE BILL OF RIGHTS OF THECONSTITUTION CONSIDERING THAT THE FORMAL CHARGEAGAINST HIM UNDER THE CRIMINAL INFORMATIONS WASFOR WILL FULL AND INTENTIONAL FALSIFICATION.

Fifth Assignment of Error

THE LOWER COURT HAS GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT DISMISSINGTHE INSTANT CASES FOR FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO

11 Id., pp. 172-173.


PROVE THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSEI~ BEYOND REASONABLEDOUBT.

DISCUSSION

Appellant reiterates that he had no participation in the preparation ofthe SPRs and that his role was only to sign the Certificates of Proficiency ofthe students. He maintains that he exercised due diligence by counter-checking the names of the graduating students listed in the commencementexercises programme and that he had no obligation to personally check thestudents' records to determine whether they were in fact set to graduate.

Appellant also points out that his constitutional right to be informed ofthe charges against him was violated since he was charged and tried forwill fuI falsification and yet he was found guilty of falsification throughnegligence.

Finally, appellant argues that he should have been acquitted based onreasonable doubt since the proficiency certificates were genuine - given thathe and Superintendent Olano had authority to sign them, and they in factaffixed their signatures thereto, thus they are presumed to be true andcorrect, and cannot be rebutted by the presentation of the SPRs. In any case,the prosecution's evidence have no probative value, given that thesignatories thereto did not identify them in court, and the entries in the SPRsare incomplete.

Appellee, on the other hand, argues that the trial court correctly foundappellant guilty of "falsification thru negligence" and that there was noviolation of his right to be informed of the charges against him based on the

ctrine laid down in Samson v. Court of Appeals. 12

RULING OF THE COURT

Contrary to appellant's submission, case law holds that there can be acrime of reckless imprudence resulting in falsification of a publicdocument':' and that such offense is necessarily included in the willful act offalsification of public documents. Thus, appellant's constitutional right tobe informed of the charge against him has not been violated.

12 G.R. Nos. L-10364 and L-I0376, 31 March 1958.13 Sevilla v. People, G.R. No. 194390, 13 August 2014, citing Samson v. COUl1 of Appeals, supra.

DECISIONPeople of the Philippines v. Andres S. MoralesSB-15-AlR-0004 of 11

Nevertheless, after reviewing the evidence of both parties, the Court isinclined to acquit appellant of the crime charged.

It is settled that in a criminal case, every circumstance favoring theinnocence of an accused must be duly taken into account and that proofagainst him must survive the test of reason. The prosecution's evidencemust be sufficient to sustain the guilt of the accused to the point of moralcertainty - one that convinces and satisfies the reason and the conscience ofthose who are to act upon it. The degree of proof required of the prosecutionis such that would preclude every reasonable hypothesis on the innocence ofthe accused. Failing in that, an acquittal based on reasonable doubt willprosper, even though the accused's innocence may be doubted. Thus, if theinculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations,one of which is consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfillthe test of moral certainty." .This is so because criminal conviction mustrest on the strength of the prosecution's evidence and not on the weakness ofthe defense.P

In the present case, even as appellant admitted having signed theCertificates of Proficiency of the students without checking their SPRs -which would have revealed if said students had any academic deficiencies -he testified that he did sign the Certificates at the same time, owing to thevolume of certificates to be signed, or in other words, for convenience.However, the release of said Certificates was still subject to thecompleteness of the student's records upon verification and review by theOffice of the Registrar. Arid, if the requesting student still had certaindeficiencies, or have not complied with certain requirements, thecertificate/diploma would not be released until the deficiency has been

. completed.

Plaintiff has not rebutted appellant's testimony on this matter. In fact,plaintiffs evidence which shows that the Certificates of Proficiency subjectof the present cases are still with the Office of the Registrar and have notbeen released to the students concerned - except those of Sanuco, Sollera,and Javate, which were released only upon completion of their respectivegrade deficiencies, supports appellant's claim all along.

In this regard, it must be pointed out that it is the issuance of saidCertificates of Proficiency to the students which certifies and proves thatthey have completed all the requirements for graduation - and notappellant's signature thereon or the fact they participated in the graduation

14 People v. Lagramanda, G.R. Nos. 146357 & 148170,29 August 2002.15 People v. Salguero, G.R. No. 89117,19 June 1991.

DECISION

People a/the Philippines v. Andres S. MoralesSB-15-AJR-0004 of 11

ceremonies. Thus, even if appellant signed the said Certificates ofProficiency in the manner described, there is no proof that he caused therelease thereof to the students concerned. In fact, the prosecution's evidenceunerringly show that they were still with the school, except for threecertifications that were released to the concerned students only after they hadcompleted their grade deficiencies.

In addition, sight must not be lost of the fact that appellant was thehead of the Registrar's Office at that time. As such, he was not expected topersonally review the record of every student listed in the graduationprogram and check for any grade deficiency. He had every reason to rely onthe staff of the Registrar's Office to do such work. Thus, in Arias v.Sandiganbayan'? the Supreme Court recognized that owing to the volume ofdocuments that department heads are required to routinely sign, such headshave to rely, to a reasonable extent, on their subordinates.

Hence, under the foregoing circumstances, it is extremely difficult tohold that appellant acted with negligence in signing the Certificates ofProficiency subject of the present cases, or that his act caused damage to thegovernment, as alleged in the Informations. Even assuming that some of theCertificates of Proficiency were released to the students with incompletegrades or requirements, appellant could still not be held liable in the absenceof proof that he was the one of who released them, or that it was his duty todo so after personally checking the students' SPRs.

In sum, the evidence on record support appellant's claim that hesigned the Certificates of Proficiency subject to further verification byconcerned school officials prior to their release to the students. Theprosecution's evidence falls critically short of the inflexible constitutionalrequirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt to characterize appellant's actof signing the Certi ficates of Proficiency as having been committed withcriminal intent or negligence. For this reason, appellant is entitled to averdict of acquittal.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the judgment appealedfrom is SET ASIDE. Appellant ANDRES S. MORALES is herebyACQUITTED of the charges against him.

The bond posted by the accused for his provisional liberty is orderedRELEASED, subject to the usual accounting and auditing procedures, andthe Hold Departure Order issued against him is therefore LIFTED.

16 G.R. No. 81563,19 December 1989.


SO ORDERED.

(

BAYA I . JACINTOAs ociate Justice

WE CONCUR:

i

Associate JusticeChairperson

ALDOP. CRUZAssociate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached inconsultation with the Justices of the Court's Division.

,..

DECISIONPeople of the Philippines v. Andres S. MoralesSB-15-AlR-0004 of 11

C E RT I FIe A T ION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and theDivision Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the aboveDecision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned tothe writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.