People of the Philippines vs. Ma. Consuelo Toroba Palma Gil-Roflo*, Jerico O. Ebita, Norman Jay Jacinto P. Doral, Derrick P. Andrade, Sergio U. Andrare and Cho Na Andrade,
G.R. Nos. 249564 & 249568-76, March 21, 2022
Facts:
1. Raul M. Antopuesto, a media practitioner in Davao, filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman regarding the alleged ghost employees in the office of Roflo, then a Sanggunian Panlalawigan member of the Provincial Government of Davao Oriental. Antopuesto claimed that Rosie Bajenting, former Administrative Aide Officer III in the Office of Roflo in Davao Oriental, informed him that accused appellants Jerico, Norman, Derrick, Sergio, and Chona, are ghost employees of Roflo.
2. On the strength of Antopuesto' s complaint, the Office of the Ombudsman recommended the filing of criminal charges against Roflo with the Sandiganbayan for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019, and Estafa Through Falsification of Public Documents. The Information was later amended to include Jerico, Norman, Derrick, Sergio, and Chona, all of whom were allegedly job order employees assigned at the Satellite Office of Roflo located in Davao City, during the period from 2001 to 2003.
3. For her defense, Roflo claimed that Jerico, Norman, Derrick, Sergio, and Chona, were legitimate job order employees of the provincial government of Davao Oriental assigned in her Satellite Office in Davao City during the period relevant to the case.
4. Roflo did not impose specific work hours to Jerico, Norman, Derrick, Sergio, and Chona, because a job order employee is not considered a government employee, hence, is not required to report during the prescribed office hours like regular employees, as long as they rendered work for eight hours a day. Further, they can be assigned any task that they are capable of and may be assigned anywhere, even outside the province.
5. Anent the DTRs of Jerico, Norman, Derrick, Sergio, and Chona, reflecting their time worked as 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m, these were prepared by her staff stationed in her office in Davao Oriental, but were personally signed by the concerned job order employees, contrary to the claim of Bajenting that she and Morales signed the same.
6. The Sandiganbayan found accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of violation of Sec. 3 (e), RA 3019 and falsification of a public document under Article 171 (4) of the RPC
Issue:
Whether or not accused-appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 3(e) of RA 3019 and for Falsification of Public Documents under Article 171 (4) of the RPC.
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
Ruling:
The Supreme Court held that forgery was not substantiated by clear, positive and convincing evidence.
The accused-appellants were able to adduce sufficient evidence to prove that they truly worked in the satellite office of Roflo in Davao City.
The defense submitted Jerico, Norman, Derrick, Sergio, and Chona's contracts of services showing that they were engaged by the Provincial Government of Davao Oriental as job order employees from 2001 to 2003. Their DTRs and ARs were likewise presented to substantiate the submission that they rendered work in Roflo's satellite office in Davao City during the time material to the case. Finally, their service records, as certified by the HR Department, were adduced to prove that they indeed worked as job order employees in the Provincial Government of Davao Oriental.
Forged Signature
The Sandiganbayan relied primarily on the alleged forged signatures of Jerico, Norman, Derrick, Sergio, and Chona in convicting them for violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019.
The testimony of a witness who was physically present at the signing of the questioned document prevails over the comparison made by a witness or the court of the alleged forged handwriting or signature against the writings admitted to be genuine.
Here, Fidela testified affirmatively that she personally witnessed Jerico, Nonnan, Derrick, Sergio, and Chona sign their contracts of services, DTRs and ARs. Fidela categorically declared under oath that the signatures thereon were not forgeries as she was physically present at the time of signing thereof.
At any rate, the subject contracts of services were notarized, and it is a well-settled principle that a duly notarized contract enjoys the prima facie presumption of authenticity and due execution, as well as the full faith and credence attached to a public instrument.
False Entries in the DTR
Settled is the rule that Falsification of Public Documents is an intentional felony committed by means of "dolo" or "malice" and could not result from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill. Intentional felony requires the existence of dolus malus - that the act or omission be done willfully, maliciously, with deliberate evil intent, and with malice aforethought. This felony falls under the category of mala in se offenses that requires the attendance of criminal intent. In fine, criminal intent is required in order to incur criminal liability under Article l 71 of the RPC.
In this case, the element of malicious intent on the part of accused appellants is sorely wanting.
Accused-appellants cannot be held criminally culpable for Falsification of Public Documents by making untruthful statements in a narration of facts in the absence of a clear showing that they acted with malicious intent when they affixed their signatures on the contested documents. To be sure, Jerico, Norman, Derrick, Sergio, and Chona, were acting in good faith and in the honest belief that they were permitted to work outside the agency's prescribed office hours pursuant to CSC Resolution No. 020790, and as confirmed by the HR Department.
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
0 comments:
Post a Comment