Regidor v People of the Philippines GR No. 166086-92, 13 Feb. 2009 N!h"r,. J #
F$%&'#
On various dates of the month of June and July 1988, Mayor Eleno Rogidor and other officials of Tangub Tangub City falsified various resolutions maing it a!!ear that the resolutions "ere deliberated u!on, !assed and a!!roved "hen it truth and in fact, it "as never taen u! by the #angunian$ %t "as alleged that "hen Regidor assumed office on & May 1988 !ro!osals for resolutions and ordinances originated originated from his office$ office$ More often, a !re!ared resolution resolution "as available so that it "ould be easier for the #angunian to 'ust acce!t or ado!t the resolutions$ (uring session of the #angguniang on )* July 1988, the Council "as !resented "ith the Minutes for the sessions held on June )+, +, July 1- and )1, res!ectively stating therein that various resolutions and ordinances "ere deliberated and !assed, "hich "ere .uestioned by the members of the #angunian$ %t "as alleged that the the said resolutions and ordinances ordinances "ere neither taen u!, deliberated nor !assed u!on$ /ence, on 1& Oct$ 1988, council members filed filed a com!laint "ith the (%0 and administrative case against the accu sed for misconduct in office and neglect of duty$ duty$ The councillors claim that they they "ere !revented from attending the session session because the schedule of sessions "as randomly changed "ithout them being notified$ %n his defense, Regidor testified that before a!!roving resolutions or ordinances, he consults his legal counsel to chec if there are any irregularities and if they are beneficial2 that h e did not attend or !artici!ate in the session of the city council2 that he did not influence the deliberation of the #angunian2 that he signed the resolutions in good faith believing that deliberation "as !assed u!on2 that the minutes of the sessions "ere inaccurately taen by secretary$ secretary$ /ence, no falsification under !ar$ !ar$ ) for they did not cause it to a!!ear that other !ersons !artici!ated in an act or !roceedings "hen they did not in fact so !artici!ate$ 3lso, no falsification under !ar$ * for according to the !etitioners, such falsification involves no n4e5istent document and the falsifier !roduces one !ur!orting to be the original, "hereas they !assed and a!!roved authentic, genuine and original documents$ On )- #e!t$ )-, #andiganbayan held that the !etitioners guilty$ guilty$
('')*#
67 the accused "ere guilty of falsification$
+*#
es$ The !etition is bereft of merit$ Elements of falsification of public document: 1$ Offender Offender is !ublic !ublic officer officer,, em!loyee, em!loyee, or notary2 notary2 1
)$ /e taes advantage of his official !osition2 3. They had the duty to make, prepare or intervene in the preparation of document, or have the official custody. -$ /e falsifies a document by committing any of the acts in 3rt$ 1*1$ %t is not necessary that there be !resent idea of gain or intent to in'ure a third !erson for "hat is !unished is the violation of !ublic faith and destruction of truth$ %n the case at bar, !etitioners made it a!!ear that the com!lainants !artici!ated in the session "hen they did not in fact$ The Court also held the validity and im!ortance of the dis!uted minutes of the meeting$ Citing (e los Reyes v #andiganbayan, the Court accords full recognition to the minutes as the official re!ository of "hat actually trans!ires in every !roceeding$ Threefold liability rules. 3 sim!le act or omission can give rise to criminal, civil or administrative liability, each inde!endently of the others$ /ence, the dismissal of the administrative cases "ill not necessarily result in the dismissal of the criminal com!laints$ :indings of fact of the #andiganbayan are binding and conclusive,except ; 1$ 6hen the conclusion is grounded entirely on s!eculation, surmises and con'ectures2 )$ The inference made is manifestly mistaen2 +$ There is a grave abuse of discretion2 -$ Judgment is bases on misa!!rehension of facts2 &$ :indings are "ithout citation of s!ecific evidence on "hich they are bases2 <$ :indings are !remised on the absence of evidence on record$ %n falsification of a !ublic document, the falsification need not be made on an official form$ %t is sufficient that the document is given the a!!earance of, or made to a!!ear similar to the official form$
2