ADAZA VS. SANDIGANBAYAN SB: Ludwig Adaza, found guilty of falsification of public document penalized undert Art. 172 in relation to Art. 171, par. 1 of the RP. FACTS: !he "P#$ of the 1 st "istrict of %amboanga %a mboanga del &orte awarded to the P!A of 'anawan &ational ✔ $igh (chool a contract for the construction of a school building consisting of two classrooms at an agreed sum of money. Petitioner, Ludwig Adaza, Adaza, at that tome to me was the municipal mayor. ma yor. ✔ )*en after the pro+ect has been completed, the P!A failed to recei*e the last las t installment payment of ✔ the building. ✔ pon *erificaion with the "P#$, "P #$, P!A President -eli 'e+orada was informed by $azel Penaranda that the chec/ for the last installment has been released to the petitioner. ✔ 'e+orada thereupon as/ed from the 0ffice of the Auditor copies of the rele*ant documents pertaining to the contract. pon perusal of the chec/, 'e+orada noticed that there were two signatures his forged signature and ✔ that of Aristela Adaza, wife of petitioner. Penaranda 0ne afternoon, petitioner approached her and in3uired whether the chec/ for the final installment ✔ payment on the contract was already prepared. prepared. Petitioner offered to ta/e the disbursement *oucher and ha*e it signed by 'e+orada. ✔ #hen pwtitioner returned the *oucher to P enaranda, the chec/ already bore a si gnature purporting to ✔ be that of 'e+orada. Petitioner thereupon re3ueested that the corresponding chec/ be gi*en to him in behalf of 'e+orada. ✔ 4n order to eculpate herself, Penaranda as/ed petitioner to sign the *oucher before releasing the ✔ chec/.
'e+orada filed to the &54 a complaint against petitioner and his wife, and eecuted a sworn statement together with Penaranda. "uring the pendency of the preliminary in*estigation, 'e+orada eecuted an Affida*ot of "esistance alleging that his and the P!A6s claims had been paid in full by the spouses Adaza and re3uesting that the cases against them be dismissed. !he Adaza spouses also filed a oint oint ounter8Affida*it stating that 'e+orada6s claim had been paid in full9 that the proceeds of the chec/ were actually paid to the laborers.
✔
✔
✔
Office of the Ombd!man issued a resolution finding probable cause to conclued that the crime of falsification of public ✔ document is probably commited by 'ayor 'a yor Adaza and another falsification of public document was probably committed by both the spouses. ✔ Sandi"anba#an ✔ !he (5 found petitioner guilty in the first case, and ac3uitted him and his wife in the second case for insufficiency of e*idence. ISS$%: #hether or not (adiganbayan has +urisdiction o*er the offense charged. &%'D: ✔ ✔
✔
:es :es !he offender under Article 172 must be a pri*ate indi*idual or maybe a public officer, employee or notary public who does not ;ta/e ad*antage of his official position.; nder Article 171, an essential element of the crime is that the act of falsification must be committed by a public officer, officer, employee or notary who who ;ta/es ad*antage of his official position.; position.;
✔
✔
✔
✔
4t is thus apparent that for purposes of ac3uisition of +urisdiction by the (andiganbayan, the re3uirement imposed by R.A. <2=> that the offense be ;committed in relation; to the offender6s office is entirely distinct from the concept of ;ta/ing ad*antage of one6s position; as pro*ided under Articles 171 and 172 of the Re*ised Penal ode. R.A. <2=> mandates that for as long as the offender6s public office is intimately connected with the offense charged or is used to facilitate the commission of said offense and the same is properly alleged in the information, the (andiganbayan ac3uires +urisdiction. ;ta/ing ad*antage of one6s position; becomes rele*ant only in the present case for the purpose of determining whether the (andiganbayan has +urisdiction, but for purposes of determining whether petitioner, if he is held to be liable at all, would be legally responsible under Article 171 or Article 172. #hile the (andiganbayan is declared bereft of +urisdiction o*er the criminal case filed against petitioner, the prosecution is not precluded from filing the appropriate charge against him before the proper court.
NOT%: ✔
✔
✔
!he offender under Art. 172, must be a pri*ate indi*idyal or maybe a public officer, employee, or notary public who does not ?ta/e ad*antage of his official position.@ nder Art. 171, an essential element of the crime is that the act of falsification must be committed b y a public officer, employee or notary who ?ta/es ad*antage of his official position.@ !he offender ta/es ad*antage of his official position in falsifiying a document when 1. he had the duty to ma/e or to prepare or otherwise inter*ene in the preparation of the document 2. he has the official custody of the document which he falsifies.