People v. Sandiganbayan

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 197229-37. April 15, 2015.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION/SPECIAL DIVISION OF FIVE JUSTICES) AND MGEN. RALPH L. FLORES, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated April 15, 2015, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 197229-37 (People of the Philippines vs. Hon. Sandiganbayan (Third Division/Special Division of Five Justices) and MGen. Ralph L. Flores). — This is a petition for certiorari1 under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, which assails the Decision 2 dated April 14, 2011 of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case Nos. 28392-28400, acquitting private respondent Major General Ralph L. Flores (MGen. Flores) of the crime of falsification of public documents.

MGen. Flores was charged before the Sandiganbayan with nine counts of falsification of public documents under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), by making it appear in the following documents that he was born on March 30, 1949 when according to the prosecution, he was in truth and in fact born on March 30, 1946: (1) his Annual Income Tax Return for the year 1999; (2) Annual Income Tax Return for the year 2000; (3) Annual Income Tax Return for the year 2001; (4) Personal and Family Background; (5) Summary of Information; (6) National Bureau of Investigation Clearance; (7) Report to Medical History; (8) Report of Medical Examination; and (9) Dental Health Record. The documents were submitted by MGen. Flores to the Commission of Appointments for his promotion and continued stay in the government service, and allegedly allowed him to extend his length of service by three years, i.e., from April 1, 2002 to March 30, 2005. 3

On April 14, 2011, the Sandiganbayan rendered its Decision 4 acquitting MGen. Flores of the charges in view of the prosecution's failure to prove all the elements of falsification. MGen. Flores was specifically accused of violating paragraph (4), Article 171 5 of the RPC, with elements as follows: (a) the offender makes in a public document untruthful statements in a narration of facts; (b) he has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him; and (c) the facts narrated by him are absolutely false. 6

Upon review, the Court finds no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Sandiganbayan in acquitting MGen. Flores. Time and again, the Court has emphasized that a petition under Rule 65 will prosper only if grave abuse of discretion is alleged and proved to exist. 7Grave abuse of discretion has a specific meaning:

It is the arbitrary or despotic exercise of power due to passion, prejudice or personal hostility; or the whimsical, arbitrary, or capricious exercise of power that amounts to an evasion or refusal to perform a positive duty enjoined by law or to act at all in contemplation of law. For an act to be struck down as having been done with grave abuse of discretion, the abuse of discretion must be patent and gross. . . . . 8 (Citation omitted) TCAScE

Specifically on the third element of the offense, the prosecution's claim that MGen. Flores was born in 1946, instead of 1949 as indicated in the subject documents, was not sufficiently established. Even the petitioner does not dispute that such fact could have been best established through the presentation of MGen. Flores' Certificate of Live Birth showing his date of birth as March 30, 1946. However, when called by the prosecution to the witness stand, the Assistant Department Head of the Civil Registrar's Office of the City of Lipa, Batangas testified on the absence of record of birth of MGen. Flores in the years 1946 and 1949. 9

Notwithstanding the non-presentation of a birth certificate, it is true that similar authentic documents, such as school records, could be admitted to establish MGen. Flores' date of birth. To adequately support a conviction, it is however necessary for these documents to be direct, clear and convincing. On this aspect, the prosecution failed. Its evidence, particularly the Cadet Information Sheet 10 signed by MGen. Flores in 1966 and the Secondary Pupil's Permanent Record 11 issued by the Our Lady of the Rosary Academy in 1961, fail to suffice as adequate proof of MGen. Flores' true date of birth. TAIaHE

The prosecution further relied on the years when MGen. Flores completed his elementary, secondary, tertiary schooling and Philippine Military Academy course, 12 seeking the Sandiganbayan's notice that MGen. Flores could not have finished his elementary education in 1957 if he was born in 1949. The prosecution contended that MGen. Flores would have been 2 years old when he was in Grade 1. By this premise, the prosecution sought the accused's conviction on the basis of mere speculations and conjectures. As the Sandiganbayan correctly pointed out, there were varied possibilities, including accelerations in grade levels, as to why and how MGen. Flores could have completed his elementary schooling in 1957. The records do not even indicate that MGen. Flores actually commenced his elementary schooling in 1951.

Instead of providing the court with convincing evidence that could establish the alleged falsity of MGen. Flores' statement, the prosecution also harped on the defenses of MGen. Flores. It is a settled principle in criminal cases, however, that "evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence of the defense." 13 "The law demands that only proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt can justify a verdict of guilt." 14 Thus, the Court emphasized in Patula v. People: 15

[I]n all criminal prosecutions, the Prosecution bears the burden to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In discharging this burden, the Prosecution's duty is to prove each and every element of the crime charged in the information to warrant a finding of guilt for that crime or for any other crime necessarily included therein. The Prosecution must further prove the participation of the accused in the commission of the offense. In doing all these, the Prosecution must rely on the strength of its own evidence, and not anchor its success upon the weakness of the evidence of the accused. The burden of proof placed on the Prosecution arises from the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused that no less than the Constitution has guaranteed. Conversely, as to his innocence, the accused has no burden of proof, that he must then be acquitted and set free should the Prosecution not overcome the presumption of innocence in his favor. . . . . 16 (Citations omitted) cDHAES

The foregoing sufficiently justifies the Sandiganbayan's acquittal of MGen. Flores; the Court finds it unnecessary to address the other issues raised in the petition. The Court reiterates that certiorari does not lie to assail a judgment of acquittal unless any of the following grounds are present: (i) when the prosecution is denied due process of law; and (ii) when the trial court commits grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. 17 Otherwise, the constitutional right against double jeopardy of an accused as enshrined in Section 21, Article III of the 1987 Constitution would be violated.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit." (Villarama, Jr., J., on sabbatical leave; Mendoza, J., designated additional Member per Special Order No. 1966 dated March 30, 2015.)

Very truly yours,

 

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 2-54.

2. Penned by Associate Justice Samuel R. Martires, with Associate Justices Francisco H. Villaruz, Jr. and Ma. Cristina J. Cornejo concurring, and Associate Justices Alex L. Quiroz and Rafael R. Lagos dissenting; id. at 55-76.

3. Id. at 55-59.

4. Id. at 55-76.

5. Art. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastic minister. — The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed P5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer, employee, or notary who, taking advantage of his official position, shall falsify a document by committing any of the following acts:

xxx xxx xxx

  (4) Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts[.]

xxx xxx xxx

6. Fullero v. People, 559 Phil. 524, 539 (2007).

7. Novateknika Land Corporation v. Philippine National Bank, G.R. No. 194104, March 13, 2013, 693 SCRA 423, 434; Bergonia v. Court of Appeals (4th Division), G.R. No. 189151, January 25, 2012, 664 SCRA 322, 328; Fajardo v. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al., 591 Phil. 146, 153 (2008).

8. Beluso v. COMELEC, et al., 635 Phil. 436, 443 (2010).

9. Rollo, pp. 61-62.

10. Id. at 91-92.

11. Id. at 93.

12. MGen. Flores finished his elementary education in 1957 and his secondary education in 1961, studied at FEATI University from 1961 to 1966, and completed his PMA course in 1971; id. at 72.

13. People v. Quintal, et al., 656 Phil. 513, 523 (2011).

14. People v. De la Cruz, 666 Phil. 593, 618 (2011).

15. G.R. No. 164457, April 11, 2012, 669 SCRA 135.

16. Id. at 150.

17. See Ysidoro v. Leonardo-de Castro, G.R. No. 171513, February 6, 2012, 665 SCRA 1.