FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 226647. September 14, 2021.]
ANDRES C. CAMANIA, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 14, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 226647 (Andres C. Camania v. People of the Philippines). — The criminal liability of petitioner Andres C. Camania (Councilor Camania) for falsification of public documents is at focus in this Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assailing the Sandiganbayan's Joint Decision 2 dated January 21, 2016 and Resolution 3 dated August 26, 2016 in Criminal Case No. 27510 for Falsification of Public Documents.
ANTECEDENTS
In 1999, the Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of Alfonso Castañeda (municipality), Nueva Vizcaya passed Resolution No. 289, or the supplemental appropriation for various projects which included the construction of the Lublub-Dibilit Road (road project), and the Five-Span Gymnasium (gymnasium project). Councilor Camania served as a member of the Prequalification, Bids and Awards Committee (PBAC). On May 11, 1999 Councilor Camania signed the Bid Forms for the gymnasium project and the Abstracts of Bids for both the road and gymnasium projects. The abstracts of bids stated the participating bidders, namely, Lotus Design and Construction Corporation, JTY Construction, and OQC Construction including their corresponding bid proposals and bonds. Eventually, the municipality awarded both contracts to Lotus Design and Construction Corporation. 4
Later, the Commission on Audit (COA) examined the municipality's financial transactions and found that the Sangguniang Panlalawigan rejected the supplemental appropriation for lack of cash support. However, the municipality continued with the projects despite an inoperative budget. 5 Further, the COA discovered that no competitive public biddings occurred on both the road and gymnasium projects. In their separate letters to the COA, JTY Construction and OQC Construction denied participation in any public biddings with respect to the projects. Lastly, the COA's investigation revealed that Municipal Mayor Alfredo Castillo, Jr. (Mayor Castillo), had a pecuniary interest on the projects being an incorporator of Lotus Design and Construction Corporation. 6 CAIHTE
Accordingly, the Office of the Ombudsman filed an Information 7 for Falsification of Public Documents against Mayor Castillo and Councilor Camania, together with Municipal Engineer Edward N. Javate (Engineer Javate) before the Sandiganbayan docketed as Criminal Case No. 27510, to wit:
That on or about May 11, 1999 or sometime prior or subsequent thereto in the Province of Nueva Vizcaya, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, all are public officers, accused Alfredo M. Castillo, Jr. being then the Municipal Mayor, accused Andres C. Camania being then the Municipal Councilor and accused Edward N. Javate being then the Municipal Engineer, committing the crime herein charged in relation to, while in the performance and taking advantage of their official functions and mutually and feloniously cause and fabricate the bid documents relative to the construction of Lublub-Dibilit Road and a Gymnasium by making it to appear that public biddings were conducted for the two (2) projects when in truth and in fact, no such biddings were held.
CONTRARY TO LAW.8 (Emphasis in the original.)
Mayor Castillo, Councilor Camania, and Engineer Javate pleaded not guilty. At the trial, the prosecution presented the testimonies of the COA audit team supervisor, the other PBAC members, and the owner of OQC Construction. The prosecution likewise submitted the COA Report, Bid Forms, Abstracts of Bids, and the Letters from JTY Construction and OQC Construction. On the other hand, Councilor Camania testified for the defense and denied the accusation. Councilor Camania averred that Mayor Castillo summoned him to sign the bid documents. Initially, Councilor Camania was apprehensive but eventually signed the documents after Mayor Castillo pressured him into believing that the projects, would serve his constituencies' welfare. On cross-examination, Councilor Camania admitted that no competitive public biddings were conducted on the projects and that the three bidders neither appeared nor submitted any quotation or proposal. 9
On January 21, 2016, the Sandiganbayan found Mayor Castillo and Councilor Camania guilty of Falsification of Public Documents under paragraph 2 of Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), i.e., "[c]ausing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate." The Sandiganbayan explained that Mayor Castillo and Councilor Camania made it appear that competitive public biddings actually occurred even if there were none. The Sandiganbayan rejected Councilor Camania's defense that he signed the bid documents under compulsion of an irresistible force or an uncontrollable fear of an equal or more significant injury. However, the Sandiganbayan acquitted Engineer Javate for lack of evidence, 10 thus:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
2. In Criminal Case No. 27510, the Court finds accused Alfredo C. Castillo, Jr. and Andres C. Camania GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of falsification of public documents under Article 171, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code. Accordingly, each of them is sentenced to suffer the penalty of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional medium, as minimum to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor medium, as maximum, and to pay a FINE of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS ([P]5,000.00) each.
Accused Edward N. Javate is ACQUITTED for lack of evidence.
SO ORDERED.11 (Emphases in the original.)
Councilor Camania sought reconsideration but was denied.
Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari. 12 Councilor Camania contends that the Sandiganbayan erred in not appreciating his good faith and absence of criminal intent. Councilor Camania reiterates that he did not finish high school and merely relied on Mayor Castillo's words. Thus, the plaintiff-respondent failed to establish all the elements of falsification of public documents. 13 In its Comment/Opposition, 14 the Office of the Special Prosecutor, Office of the Ombudsman, argues that the Sandiganbayan did not err in ruling that Councilor Camania is guilty of falsification of public documents.
RULING
The petition is unmeritorious.
The elements of falsification of public documents are the following: (a) that the offender is a public officer, employee, or notary public; (b) that the offender takes advantage of his or her official position; and (c) that the offender falsifies a document by committing any of the acts enumerated under Article 171 of the RPC. 15 Specifically, Councilor Camania was charged under paragraph 2 of Article 171 of the RPC, or causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate. This paragraph requires that: (a) the offender caused it to appear in a document that the person/s participated in an act or proceeding, and (2) that the person/s did not participate in the act or proceeding. 16
Here, all these elements were sufficiently alleged in the Information and established during trial with evidence of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The presence of the first element is undisputed. At the time the complained act was committed, Councilor Camania was a public officer, being a member of the Sangguniang Bayan who likewise served as one of the PBAC members relative to the road and gymnasium projects. Anent the second element, the offender is considered to have taken advantage of his/her official position in falsifying a document if he/she had the duty to make or prepare, or otherwise intervene in the preparation of the document; or he/she has official custody of the falsified document. 17 In this case, Councilor Camania, acting as a PBAC member, definitely has the duty to make, prepare, or intervene in the preparation of the bid documents with respect to the prequalification of contractors, evaluation of bids, and recommendation of awards of local infrastructure projects. 18 Councilor Camania could not have signed the bid documents for the road and gymnasium projects if not for his position as PBAC member. 19
More importantly, by signing the bid documents which stated the names of Lotus Design and Construction Corporation, JTY Construction, and OQC Construction as well as their supposed bid proposals and bonds, Councilor Camania made it appear that the three construction firms participated in competitive public biddings even if none was duly conducted. The COA report and the Letters from JTY Construction and OQC Construction confirmed this fact. In the sworn statement of Councilor Camania, 20 which forms part of the COA report, he even attested in signing the bid documents in the absence of actual biddings. To be sure, Councilor Camania admitted at the trial that no biddings were conducted on the projects and that the three firms neither appeared nor submitted any quotation or proposal, 21viz.:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
ATTY. CARBONELL:
xxx xxx xxx
Q: So, on the same date as I said, May 11, 1999, have you come across the project in the Municipality of San Alfonso Castañeda, Nueva Vizcaya for the construction of Lublub-Dibilit Road and Five Span Gymnasium?
A: Yes, Sir. DETACa
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Mr. Witness, why did Mayor Castillo, Jr., and Auditor Abad called (sic) you during that time?
A: During that time we were in Bayumbong, I am with Kagawad Perfecto Dela Cruz and all of a sudden our cellphone rang. It was Mayor Castillo and he said: "Uncle pumunta kayo dito sa CIMAU Office."
xxx xxx xxx
Q: What do you think why you were being called at the CIMAU Office?
A: He would like us to sign some documents.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: And upon arrival at the CIMAU Office, what did you do?
A: The mayor talked to us, Sir.
Q: And what was the conversation all about?
A: He said, "Uncle since you are already here in CIMAU, can you please sign the document?"
xxx xxx xxx
Q: And what happened next?
A: The Auditor said, "Sige, pirmahan nyo, walang problema dyan. Ako bahala dyan." (Sign that, there will be no problem with that. I'll take care of that).
xxx xxx xxx
Q: And what did you come up to do?
A: Since they said, "It is the project of our town, you must sign that because our townmate will benefit from that."
Q: After that, what did you do?
A: We were pressured that's why we signed, Sir.
Q: After signing these several documents which you mentioned, what happened next?
A: We talked to Mayor and said, "Promise us Mayor that you will implement that[.]"
ATTY. DE LA CRUZ:
Why did you ask that question? Why did you tell the Mayor about that matter?
WITNESS:
Since I am the Chairman of the INFRA, I am the one who is persistent to have the project implemented.
xxx xxx xxx
JUSTICE QUIROZ:
xxx xxx xxx
So, you signed the documents asked?
WITNESS:
We signed, Your Honor.
xxx xxx xxx
ATTY. CARBONELL:
Q: In your honest opinion Mr. Witness, why did you sign those documents?
A: I signed the documents so that there will be a project in our town and our townmates will benefits [sic] from it.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: So, what can you say about the charged [sic] against you that it appears that those public biddings were conducted for the two projects, w[h]ere in fact there was no bidding that was held?
A: I did not make it appear that there was a bidding, Sir.
Q: And what do you know of this bidding?
A: There was really no bidding conducted, Sir. We only signed the bidding documents because we were pressured by Mayor Castillo.
CROSS EXAMINATION
PROS. DAQUIS:
Q: And you also confirmed that there was no bidding conducted for the two projects namely: Five Span Gymnasium Project and Lublub-Dibilit Road project?
A: That is what I know Ma'am, there is none.
Q: You know it because you are a part of the PBAC, Sir?
A: Yes, Ma'am.
xxx xxx xxx
ATTY. CARBONELL:
May we request that the witness be confronted with those documents, Your Honors. aDSIHc
PROS. DAQUIS:
Cont'n.
I will show you some of the bidding documents relating to the two projects marked as Exhibit "G" for the prosecution. Sir, in this particular document, would you recognize whether you have indicated your signature on this document?
A: Ma'am this is my signature.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: How about in this exhibit "H[,]" Sir, do you have a signature on this document?
A: Yes, here, Ma'am.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: How about on Exhibit "I[,]" do you have a signature on this?
A: Yes, Ma'am.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Now, my question is, when you affix[ed] your signature[s] on [these] Exhibits "G[,]" "H[,]" and "I[,]" Sir, [were] there entries already appearing on these documents?
A: Almost complete, Ma'am.
Q: And when you signed these documents, Sir, did Mayor Castillo and Severo Abad explain to you that the entries appearing on these three documents marked as Exhibits "I[,]" "H[,]" and "G[?]"
A: The only thing that I remember they said to me is that, "you sign that so that we commence with the project[.]"
Q: And you would agree with me, Sir, that DQC [sic] Construction, JTY Construction and Lotus Design [and] Construction [Corporation] never appear[ed] in the Municipality of Castañeda to submit their quotation or their proposal for the two Construction project[s] namely Five Span Gymnasium Project and Lublud Dibilit Road Project?
A: Yes, Ma'am.
xxx xxx xxx
ATTY. DE LA CRUZ:
Q: Earlier you mentioned that you were just pressured by Severo Abad and Mayor Castillo, Jr. to sign those documents, Sir. Could you cite some of the statements that force[d] you to sign those documents?
A: "Uncle[,]" said Mayor Castillo, Jr. "Siguro naman pipirmahan nyo na yang dokumentong yan kasi nandito na rin kayo sa CIMAU, kayo ni Pekto Dela Cruz[.]" 22 (Emphases supplied.)
It is evident from the above testimony that Councilor Camania voluntarily and intelligently signed the bid documents. Under the rules of evidence, it is presumed that a person takes ordinary care of his or her concerns. 23 In this case, Councilor Camania did not even attempt to overcome the presumption as no evidence was ever presented to show that he was in any way lacking in his mental faculties and, hence, could not have fully understood the ramifications of signing the bid documents. Neither did Councilor Camania present any evidence that he had been defrauded, forced, intimidated, or threatened into affixing his signature on the documents. If Councilor Camania had any objections over the documents, he could have totally refrained from having any part in their execution. Finally, we reiterate that the presence of the idea of gain, or an intent to injure a third person is not essential in the falsification of public or official documents. The law punishes the violation of the public faith and the destruction of the truth in these documents. The public character of the document is controlling. 24
In sum, the Sandiganbayan correctly held Councilor Camania criminally liable for the crime of Falsification of Public Documents. Yet, we observe that the Sandiganbayan did not discuss whether Councilor Camania should be penalized for every signature he made on the bid documents. On this score, the circumstances call for the application of the principle of continued crime or delito continuado, wherein a series of criminal acts should be treated as constituting only one offense. 25 The courts must consider the following factors, to wit: (1) the singularity in criminal intent and penal law violation, and (2) the period of time the act was committed. 26 Here, the evidence shows that Councilor Camania signed the bid documents at the same office on a single date "on or about May 11, 1999." Further, the documents involved the same set of bidders which supposedly participated in the public biddings that never happened. Also, the bid documents merely reflect the bidding process and should not be taken independently from each other. Thus, although Councilor Camania signed several documents, he was driven by one criminal resolution of making it appear that competitive biddings took place. As such, Councilor Camania's acts constitute a single offense of falsification of public documents. ETHIDa
Considering that Councilor Camania committed the complained act prior to the enactment of Republic Act No. 10951, 27 the Court must apply the original provision of Article 171 of the RPC which prescribed a more favorable penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed P5,000.00 for the crime of Falsification of Public Documents. As this penalty exceeds one year, the Indeterminate Sentence Law becomes applicable. Absent any modifying circumstance, the maximum term of the indeterminate penalty must be within the range of prision mayor in its medium period, or eight (8) years and one (1) day to ten (10) years. The minimum term of the indeterminate penalty must be within the range of the penalty next lower in degree which is prision correccional in any of its periods, or six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years. Accordingly, the Sandiganbayan correctly imposed the indeterminate penalty of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum, and a fine of P5,000.00.
FOR THESE REASONS, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The Sandiganbayan's Joint Decision dated January 21, 2016 and Resolution dated August 16, 2016 in Criminal Case No. 27510 are AFFIRMED. Accused-petitioner Andres C. Camania is held guilty of Falsification of Public Documents and is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum, and to pay a fine of P5,000.00.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 14-31.
2.Id. at 35-71. Penned by Presiding Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Alex L. Quiroz, Oscar C. Herrera, Jr., and Sarah Jane T. Fernandez, Associate Justice Samuel R. Martirez, with Separate Dissenting Opinion.
3.Id. at 73-81.
4.Id. at 36-37 [with dorsal portions].
5.Id. at 152-153; and 172.
6.Id. at 36-37 [with dorsal portions].
7.Id. at 95-96.
8.Id. at 95.
9.Id. at 63 [with dorsal portion].
10.Id. at 59-64 [with dorsal portions].
11.Id. at 64, dorsal portion.
12.Id. at 14-31, supra note 1.
13.Id. at 22.
14.Id. at 522-524.
15.Regidor, Jr. v. People, 598 Phil. 714, 732 (2009).
16.Santos, Jr. v. People, 586 Phil. 54, 58-59 (2008).
17.Fullero v. People, 559 Phil. 524, 532-545 (2007). See also Office of the Ombudsman v. Santidad, G.R. Nos. 207154 & 222046, December 5, 2019.
18. Republic Act No. 7160 also known as the "Local Government Code of 1991," October 10, 1991, Section 37, provides:
SEC. 37. Local Prequalification, Bids and Awards Committee (Local PBAC). — (a) There is hereby created a local prequalification, bids and awards committee in every province, city, and municipality, which shall be primarily responsible for the conduct of prequalification of contractors, bidding, evaluation of bids, and the recommendation of awards concerning local infrastructure projects. The governor or the city or municipal mayor shall act as the chairman with the following as members:
xxx xxx xxx.
19. Implementing Rules and Regulations of Presidential Decree No. 1594, as amended on July 5, 2000 which become effective on August 12, 2000, provides:
xxx xxx xxx
IB 10.2 — SUBMISSION, OPENING AND ABSTRACTING OF BIDS/TENDERS
xxx xxx xxx
7. After all bids have been received and opened, the corresponding Abstract of Bids shall be prepared. The Abstract of Bids shall be signed by all members of the BAC OR DESIGNATED PROCUREMENT UNIT attaching thereto all the bids with their corresponding bid securities and the minutes or proceedings of the bidding. x x x:
xxx xxx xxx
20.Rollo, pp. 225-230. SWORN STATEMENT GIVEN BY MR. ANDRES C. CAMANIA BEFORE COA LAWYER X X X.
21.Id. at 401-417.
22.Id.
23. Rules of Court, Rule 131, Section 3 (d).
SEC. 3. Disputable presumptions. — x x x.
xxx xxx xxx
(d) That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns[.]
24. See Typoco v. People, 816 Phil. 914, 934 (2017).
25.Santiago v. Hon. Justice Garchitorena, 298-A Phil. 164, 174-175 (1993).
26.Ambagan, Jr. v. People of the Philippines, 844 Phil. 270, 279-280 (2018). See also Navaja v. Judge de Castro, 817 Phil. 1072, 1079-1080 (2017), citing Santiago v. Hon. Justice Garchitorena, supra.
27. Entitled "AN ACT ADJUSTING THE AMOUNT OR THE VALUE OF PROPERTY AND DAMAGE ON WHICH A PENALTY IS BASED AND THE FINES IMPOSED UNDER THE REVISED PENAL CODE, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE ACT NO. 3815, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS 'THE REVISED PENAL CODE[,]' AS AMENDED," approved on August 29, 2017.
Particularly, Section 25 of the law amended Article 171 of the RPC as follows:
"ART. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastic minister. — The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed One million pesos (P1,000,000) shall be imposed upon any public officer, employee, or notary who, taking advantage of his of position shall falsify a document by committing any of the following acts:
xxx xxx xxx."