Arias vs. People

A public officer who affixes his signature to falsified official documents—such as Disbursement Vouchers, Reports of Waste Materials, Requisitions for Supplies and/or Equipment, and Certificates of Emergency Purchase—as a necessary means to defraud the government is guilty of the complex crime of Estafa Through Falsification of Official/Commercial Documents under Article 315, in relation to Article 171 and Article 48, of the Revised Penal Code. The repeated issuance and execution of such documents negates the claim that the signing function was merely ministerial, as these documents were necessary for the claims for payment of fictitious emergency repairs.

Petitioner Florendo B. Arias was the Assistant Director of the Bureau of Equipment of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), Port Area, Manila, holding Salary Grade 27. He was charged together with other high-ranking public officials and employees of the DPWH, as well as private individuals, in connection with a scheme involving reimbursements for purported emergency repairs of DPWH service vehicles. The DPWH had set forth specific funding requirements for the payment of claims for emergency repairs, including documentation requirements under COA Circular No. 92-389 dated November 3, 1992, and a DPWH Memorandum dated July 31, 1997.

During the period March to December 2001, or sometime subsequent thereto, reimbursements were claimed and paid by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) in an amount totaling millions of pesos covering 409 transactions purportedly for the emergency repairs of 39 DPWH service vehicles. Of the 409 transactions, 274 transactions were made in the name of accused Julio T. Martinez, then the Clerk/Supply Officer of DPWH, for which the total sum of ₱5,166,539.00 was claimed and paid as reimbursements. The spare parts were purportedly supplied by J-CAP Motorshop, owned by accused Jesus D. Capuz, and DEB Repair Shop and Parts Supply, owned by accused Conchita M. Dela Cruz.

The transactions were covered by Disbursement Vouchers with supporting documents, including Job Orders, Pre-Repair Inspection Reports, Requisitions for Supplies and Equipment (RSEs), Accreditation Papers, Sales Invoices or Official Receipts, Certificates of Acceptance, Post-Repair Inspection Reports, Reports of Waste Materials, Requests for Obligation of Allotment (ROAs), Certificates of Emergency Purchase, Certificates of Fair Wear and Tear, Canvass from 3 suppliers, and Price Monitoring Sheets. The 39 vehicles included various models such as Mitsubishi L-200, Nissan Pathfinder, Nissan Pick-Up, Toyota Land Cruiser, Mitsubishi Pajero, Toyota Corolla, and Toyota Prado, with reimbursements ranging from ₱768,561.00 for the Mitsubishi L-200 with Plate No. TSC 482 to ₱3,400.00 for the Toyota Prado with Plate No. SFT-207. Of the 39 vehicles, only the Mitsubishi L-200 with Plate No. SFG-361/H1-4237 was assigned to accused Martinez; the others were assigned to other agencies or officials of the DPWH.

The prosecution established that except for the Cash Invoices issued by the suppliers, the documents required under the DPWH Memorandum dated July 31, 1997, were prepared, accomplished, and signed by all the public officials concerned, taking advantage of their official positions in making untruthful statements in the narration of facts. The documents were made to appear that the 39 service vehicles underwent emergency repairs or required purchase of spare parts. The Disbursement Vouchers were also falsified to justify the release of checks. The Sandiganbayan found that the falsified documents were accomplished and signed or initialed by the accused, including petitioner Arias, who, as OIC Assistant Director of the Bureau of Equipment, affixed his signature approving and/or recommending approval of the falsified Disbursement Vouchers, Reports of Waste Materials, Requisitions for Supplies and/or Equipment, and Certificates of Emergency Purchase.

Petitioner did not impugn his signatures appearing in the falsified documents. He contended that in signing documents, he performed only ministerial functions and relied on the tasks performed by his subordinates which were done in a regular manner. The Sandiganbayan, however, found that the repeated issuance and execution of these documents belied petitioner's claim that his participation was not necessary and that his function in signing documents was merely ministerial; on the contrary, these documents were necessary for the claims for payment of emergency repairs of DPWH service vehicles and/or purchases of spare parts which were found to be fictitious.

• Reversible Error in Finding Guilt: Petitioner argued that the Sandiganbayan committed a reversible error when it found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa and Violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019, contrary to the factual circumstances of the case.
• Self-Serving Testimonies: Petitioner contended that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were self-serving and that the findings of fact made by the Sandiganbayan were not proven during the trial, with its ruling based mainly on conjectures and surmises.
• Ministerial Function: Petitioner maintained that in signing documents, he performed only ministerial functions and relied on the tasks performed by his subordinates which were done in a regular manner.
• Best Evidence Rule: Petitioner argued that the Sandiganbayan committed a reversible error when it gave due course to the prosecution's exhibits despite the failure to present the original documents alleged to have been falsified.

N/A — The decision does not separately recount the respondent's arguments beyond the prosecution's evidence and the Sandiganbayan's findings as summarized in the decision.

• Guilt for Estafa Through Falsification: Whether the Sandiganbayan committed reversible error in finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Estafa Through Falsification of Official/Commercial Documents and Violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, contrary to the factual circumstances of the case.
• Admission of Exhibits Without Originals: Whether the Sandiganbayan committed reversible error in giving due course to the prosecution's exhibits despite the failure to present the original documents alleged to have been falsified.

• Guilt for Estafa Through Falsification: No. The conviction was affirmed, the prosecution having established all the elements of the complex crime of Estafa Through Falsification of Official/Commercial Documents under Article 315, paragraph 2(a), in relation to Article 171, paragraph 4, and Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, as well as all the elements of Violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019.
• Admission of Exhibits Without Originals: No. The Best Evidence Rule was not violated because the rule applies only when the subject of the inquiry is the contents of the document; here, petitioner's objection related to the materiality, relevance, or purpose for which the documents were offered, which had nothing to do with the contents thereof.

• Guilt for Estafa Through Falsification: The Court applied the elements of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code: (1) there must be a false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means; (2) such false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (3) the offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means, that is, he was induced to part with his money or property because of the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means; and (4) as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage. The Court also applied Article 171, paragraph 4 of the RPC, which penalizes a public officer who, taking advantage of his official position, falsifies a document by making untruthful statements in a narration of facts. The prosecution proved that the falsified documents were prepared, accomplished, and signed by all the public officials concerned, taking advantage of their official positions in making untruthful statements in the narration of facts. The documents were made to appear that the 39 service vehicles underwent emergency repairs or required purchase of spare parts, and the Disbursement Vouchers were falsified to justify the release of checks. The government was induced to pay the claims relying on the false pretenses, fraudulent acts, or fraudulent means employed, and suffered damages in the total amount of ₱5,166,539.00. The Court cited Tanenggee vs. People and Domingo vs. People for the proposition that when the offender commits on a public, official, or commercial document any of the acts of falsification enumerated in Article 171 as a necessary means to commit another crime like estafa, the two crimes form a complex crime under Article 48 of the RPC. The Court noted that the falsified documents involved in this case are official or public documents, which are self-authenticating and require no further authentication to be presented as evidence in court. The Court rejected petitioner's claim that his signing function was merely ministerial, holding that the repeated issuance and execution of these documents belied this claim, and that his signatures were a clear manifestation of his assent and participation or complicity to the illegal transactions. As to the violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, the Court applied the elements: (1) the offender is a public officer; (2) the act was done in the discharge of the public officer's official, administrative, or judicial functions; (3) the act was done through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence; and (4) the public officer caused any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or gave any unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference. All elements were present: petitioner was a public officer, being then the Assistant Director of the Bureau of Equipment of DPWH; he acted with evident bad faith by affixing his signature to the falsified documents in order to induce the government to pay the claim for fictitious emergency repairs and purchases of spare parts; and his act caused undue injury or damage to the government in the total amount of ₱5,166,539.00. The Court defined bad faith as not simply connoting bad judgment or negligence, but imputing a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong, a breach of sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill will, partaking of the nature of fraud. The Court also modified the penalty pursuant to R.A. No. 10951, which amended Article 315 of the RPC, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law to impose an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional medium, as minimum, to eight (8) years of prision mayor minimum, as maximum.
• Admission of Exhibits Without Originals: The Court applied the Best Evidence Rule as discussed in Citibank, N.A. vs. Sabeniano, which states that the rule applies only when the subject of the inquiry is the contents of the document. Where the issue is only as to whether such document was actually executed, or exists, or on the circumstances relevant to or surrounding its execution, the best evidence rule does not apply and testimonial evidence is admissible. The Court noted that petitioner's objection to the prosecution's documentary evidence, as stated in his Comment/Objections to Formal Offer of Exhibits, essentially related to the materiality, relevance, or purpose for which the documents were offered, which had nothing to do with the contents thereof. Thus, the Best Evidence Rule was not violated.

• Complex Crime of Estafa Through Falsification of Public Documents — When the offender commits on a public, official, or commercial document any of the acts of falsification enumerated in Article 171 of the RPC as a necessary means to commit another crime like estafa, the two crimes form a complex crime under Article 48 of the RPC. The falsification is already consummated, and it is the defraudation which causes damage or prejudice to another that constitutes estafa. The two crimes are not separate crimes but component crimes of the single complex crime, animated by and resulting from one and the same criminal intent for which there is only one criminal liability.
• Elements of Estafa Under Article 315, Paragraph 2(a) of the RPC — The elements are: (1) there must be a false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means; (2) such false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (3) the offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means, that is, he was induced to part with his money or property because of the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means; and (4) as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.
• Elements of Violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 — The elements are: (1) the offender is a public officer; (2) the act was done in the discharge of the public officer's official, administrative, or judicial functions; (3) the act was done through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence; and (4) the public officer caused any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or gave any unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference.
• Best Evidence Rule — The best evidence rule applies only when the subject of the inquiry is the contents of the document. Where the issue is only as to whether such document was actually executed, or exists, or on the circumstances relevant to or surrounding its execution, the best evidence rule does not apply and testimonial evidence is admissible. When a document is presented to prove its existence or condition, it is offered not as documentary, but as real, evidence.
• Credibility of Witnesses — Findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are generally accorded great respect by an appellate court. Findings of facts and assessment of credibility of witnesses are matters best left to the trial court because of its unique position of having observed that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witnesses' deportment on the stand while testifying, which opportunity is denied to the appellate courts. The trial court's findings are accorded finality, unless there appears in the record some fact or circumstance of weight which the lower court may have overlooked, misunderstood, or misappreciated and which, if properly considered, would alter the results of the case.

• "The Court finds, and so holds, that all the aforementioned documents submitted were falsified. Except for the Cash Invoices issued by the suppliers, the documents were prepared, accomplished and/or executed and signed by public officers/employees taking advantage of their official positions in making untruthful statements in the narration of facts. Through these documents, it was made to appear, albeit untrue, that the 39 vehicles subject of reimbursements claimed and paid to accused Martinez in the total sum of ₱5,166,539.00 underwent emergency repairs that required purchases of spare parts." — This passage, quoted from the Sandiganbayan's decision, establishes the factual foundation for the conviction, identifying the falsified documents and the amount of government funds fraudulently claimed.
• "When the offender commits on a public, official or commercial document any of the acts of falsification enumerated in Article 171 of the RPC as a necessary means to commit another crime like Estafa under Article 315 of the RPC, the two crimes form a complex crime under Article 48 of the same law." — This statement articulates the controlling doctrine on complex crimes of estafa through falsification of public documents, which is central to the Court's ruling.
• "As the afore-quoted provision states, the best evidence rule applies only when the subject of the inquiry is the contents of the document. Where the issue is only as to whether such document was actually executed, or exists, or on the circumstances relevant to or surrounding its execution, the best evidence rule does not apply and testimonial evidence is admissible." — This passage from Citibank, N.A. vs. Sabeniano, quoted by the Court, defines the scope of the Best Evidence Rule and supports the rejection of petitioner's objection to the admission of the prosecution's exhibits.

• Tanenggee vs. People, 712 Phil. 310 (2013) — Cited as controlling precedent for the doctrine that when the offender commits on a public, official, or commercial document any of the acts of falsification enumerated in Article 171 as a necessary means to commit another crime like estafa, theft, or malversation, the two crimes form a complex crime under Article 48 of the RPC.
• Domingo vs. People, 618 Phil. 499 (2009) — Cited for the proposition that the falsification of a public, official, or commercial document may be a means of committing estafa, because before the falsified document is actually utilized to defraud another, the crime of falsification has already been consummated, damage or intent to cause damage not being an element of the crime of falsification of public, official, or commercial document.
• Citibank, N.A. vs. Sabeniano, 535 Phil. 384 (2006) — Cited as controlling authority on the scope of the Best Evidence Rule, holding that the rule applies only when the subject of the inquiry is the contents of the document, and that where the issue is only as to whether such document was actually executed, or exists, or on the circumstances relevant to or surrounding its execution, the best evidence rule does not apply.
• Patula vs. People, 685 Phil. 376 (2012) — Cited for the definition of public documents under Rule 132, Section 19 of the Rules of Court, and the principle that a public document is self-authenticating and requires no further authentication to be presented as evidence in court.
• Intestate Estate of Manolita Gonzales Vda. De Carungcong vs. People, et al., 626 Phil. 177 (2010) — Cited for the principle that in considering whether the accused is liable for the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public documents, it would be wrong to consider the component crimes separately from each other, as both felonies are animated by and result from one and the same criminal intent.
• People vs. Suarez, 496 Phil. 231 (2005) — Cited for the rule that findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are generally accorded great respect by an appellate court.
• Sison vs. People, 628 Phil. 573 (2010) — Cited for the elements of Violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019.
• Fonacier vs. Sandiganbayan, 308 Phil. 661 (1994) — Cited for the definition of bad faith as not simply connoting bad judgment or negligence, but imputing a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong.

• Article 315, Paragraph 2(a), Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes Estafa (Swindling) committed by means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud, including the use of fictitious name, falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business, or imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar deceits. The Court applied this provision to the petitioner's use of falsified documents to defraud the government.
• Article 171, Paragraph 4, Revised Penal Code — Penalizes a public officer, employee, or notary who, taking advantage of his official position, falsifies a document by making untruthful statements in a narration of facts. The Court applied this provision to the public officials who prepared, accomplished, and signed the falsified documents.
• Article 48, Revised Penal Code — Provides for the penalty for complex crimes, where a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or an offense is a necessary means for committing another. The Court applied this provision to the complex crime of Estafa Through Falsification of Official/Commercial Documents.
• Section 3(e), Republic Act No. 3019 — Declares as unlawful corrupt practices of public officers causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference in the discharge of official, administrative, or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence. The Court applied this provision to petitioner's acts of affixing his signature to falsified documents.
• Section 85, Republic Act No. 10951 — Amends Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, adjusting the amounts of property and damage on which penalties are based. The Court applied this provision to modify the penalty imposed by the Sandiganbayan, resulting in an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional medium, as minimum, to eight (8) years of prision mayor minimum, as maximum.
• Rule 132, Section 19, Rules of Court — Defines public documents as: (a) the written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines or of a foreign country; (b) documents acknowledged before a notary public except last wills and testaments; and (c) public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to be entered therein. The Court applied this provision to classify the falsified documents as public documents.

Leonen, A. Reyes, Jr., Hernando, and Inting, JJ., concurred.

N/A — The decision does not mention any dissenting opinion.