People of the Philippines vs. Ma. Consuelo Toroba Palma Gil-Roflo, et al.

The prosecution must prove forgery by clear, positive, and convincing evidence and must establish criminal intent for Falsification of Public Documents under Article 171(4) of the Revised Penal Code and evident bad faith for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 beyond reasonable doubt; job order employees under CSC Resolution No. 020790 are not government employees and are not required to observe regular office hours, so their DTR entries of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. do not establish criminal liability absent malicious intent.

Ma. Consuelo Toroba Palma Gil-Roflo was a member of the Sanggunian Panlalawigan of Davao Oriental. Jerico O. Ebita, Norman Jay Jacinto P. Doral, Derrick P. Andrade, Sergio U. Andrade, and Chona Andrade Tolentino were engaged under job orders and assigned to Roflo's satellite office in Davao City. The satellite office had operated since 1992 to serve constituents of the first district of Davao Oriental in Davao City. The charges were brought under Section 3(e) of RA 3019 and Article 171(4) of the Revised Penal Code, with CSC Resolution No. 020790 governing job order employment during the material period.

Ma. Consuelo Toroba Palma Gil-Roflo was a member of the Sanggunian Panlalawigan of Davao Oriental. Her satellite office in Davao City had been established in 1992, when her mother was still the representative of the first district of Davao Oriental, and it operated 24 hours a day to provide assistance to constituents in Davao City, including indigent patients of Davao Medical Center, transportation assistance, and medical needs. Jerico O. Ebita, Norman Jay Jacinto P. Doral, Derrick P. Andrade, Sergio U. Andrade, and Chona Andrade Tolentino were allegedly engaged as job order employees assigned to that satellite office from 2001 to 2003. Raul M. Antopuesto, a media practitioner in Davao, filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman regarding alleged ghost employees in Roflo's office, based on information from Rosie Bajenting, former Administrative Aide Officer III in Roflo's office, who claimed that Jerico, Norman, Derrick, Sergio, and Chona were ghost employees.

The Informations alleged that Roflo, as a member of the Sanggunian Panlalawigan, conspired with Jerico, Norman, Derrick, Sergio, and Chona by making it appear that they were legitimate job order employees in her office when, in truth, they worked as house helpers of Roflo and her family in Davao City. Bajenting testified that Roflo instructed her to submit the names of Jerico, Norman, Derrick, Sergio, and Chona to the Human Resources Department for contracts of services, representing them as job order employees; Bajenting signed Chona's contract while a certain Bobong Morales signed for Jerico, Norman, Derrick, and Sergio. Bajenting prepared the daily time records, accomplishment reports, time book, payroll, and supporting documents; she signed Chona's DTR and AR while Morales signed for the others. According to the prosecution, these falsified DTRs and ARs allowed Jerico, Norman, Derrick, Sergio, and Chona to collect salaries from the provincial government, to its damage and prejudice. Roflo allegedly instructed Bajenting to claim their salaries under a special power of attorney and, a few days later, to return the money to Bajenting for deposit to Roflo's personal bank account at the Mati Branch of the Philippine National Bank. On cross-examination, Bajenting admitted that Roflo dismissed her on February 19, 2003 for anomalies in her duties; criminal charges for Qualified Theft and Falsification were filed against her between March 6 and 10, 2003, and she filed the instant complaint against Roflo on March 26, 2003. Carmencita E. Vidamo, Vice President for Students Personnel Service and University Registrar of the University of Mindanao in Davao City, testified that Derrick and Sergio were enrolled in the University of Mindanao for school years 2002-2003 and 2001-2002, respectively.

Roflo denied the charge and claimed that Jerico, Norman, Derrick, Sergio, and Chona were legitimate job order employees of the provincial government assigned to her satellite office. She described their functions: Sergio acted as security aide and radio operator; Chona managed the satellite office, bills, and filing; Derrick was alternate security aide, operated the telephone and fax machine, and entertained walk-in constituents; Norman was researcher and liaison officer, including follow-ups in Manila for funding; and Jerico performed research, canvassed suppliers, and helped entertain constituents. Roflo maintained that job order employees were not government employees and were not required to report during prescribed office hours, provided they rendered eight hours a day; she monitored them by phone or radio and they worked beyond 5:00 p.m. and on weekends because the satellite office was open 24 hours. Derrick and Sergio were working students, and Roflo employed Sergio to help him become a police officer. Chona denied being a house helper; a household helper named "Nang Ilyang" did the cleaning and maintenance. The DTRs and ARs were prepared by staff in Roflo's Davao Oriental office but signed personally by the job order employees; the DTRs were for salary processing, and job order employees were not required to submit them under CSC Resolution No. 02-0790. They indicated 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. because the HR Department advised it and the Accounting Office would return DTRs showing other hours. Norman was tasked in Manila from August to September 2002 to follow up funding requests while he was reviewing for and taking the Bar examinations. Roflo claimed the complaints were ill-motivated because she had dismissed Bajenting after discovering anomalous transactions and failure to remit salary; Bajenting was charged with Qualified Theft and Falsification, and Palma-Gil corroborated this, introducing a certified true copy of the September 4, 2015 Joint Decision of the MTC of Davao Oriental finding Bajenting guilty of Falsification.

Reynaldo T. Bicoy, HR Manager of the Provincial Government of Davao Oriental, testified that no rule prohibited assigning job order employees outside the province, that working students were not disqualified, and that for job order employees in far-flung municipalities, DTRs and ARs were prepared by the designated payroll clerk and sent to the employees for signature. He acknowledged that under CSC Resolution No. 020790, the provision in the contracts of service requiring service from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. was deleted, and that the Accounting Office would not receive DTRs or payrolls unless the prescribed working hours were stated. Morales, Administrative Assistant III and a job order employee in the Provincial Health Office, denied signing the contracts, DTRs, and ARs of Jerico, Derrick, Sergio, and Norman; his office was in a different building about 100 meters from Bajenting's. Josephine S. Bandigan also denied writing entries in Sergio's and Chona's DTRs. Jerico, Norman, Derrick, Sergio, and Chona corroborated Roflo: they were legitimate job order employees, their DTRs and ARs were prepared by Roflo's Davao Oriental office but signed personally, and the documents were brought to them by Fidela Toroba, private secretary of former Governor Palma-Gil, who visited the satellite office two to three times a week. They signed 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. because the Accounting Office required it, otherwise their salaries would not be processed. Derrick and Sergio admitted changing signatures later, and Norman said he had three signatures that he changed because they were easy to imitate. Fidela testified that she personally witnessed Jerico, Norman, Derrick, Sergio, and Chona sign their contracts, DTRs, and ARs, that the signatures were not forgeries, and that she regularly brought their salaries and documents for signature while supervising the satellite office.

The Sandiganbayan found the signatures of Jerico, Norman, Derrick, Sergio, and Chona on their contracts of services, DTRs, and ARs to be forgeries. It also found that they did not actually render service, that the entries in their DTRs and ARs were false, and that Roflo signed and certified the DTRs as true and correct despite their falsity. The Sandiganbayan relied on these findings, together with incomplete or inaccurate AR entries, the false DTR entries, and evidence that Sergio and Derrick were working students and Norman was reviewing for the Bar, to hold that the presumption of regularity in Roflo's performance of official duties was rebutted. It further found that Jerico, Norman, Derrick, Sergio, and Chona received salaries without rendering work, causing the Provincial Government of Davao Oriental damage in the total amount of P349,250.00, and that accused-appellants conspired with one another in committing Falsification of Public Documents.

• Misapprehension of Facts: Accused-appellants asserted that the Sandiganbayan committed a serious misapprehension of facts and that its findings were premised on a want of evidence, thereby wrongly concluding guilt beyond reasonable doubt; the prosecution's evidence fell short of the required quantum.
• Forgery: They maintained that their signatures on the contracts of services, DTRs, and ARs were genuine, that the Sandiganbayan's plain comparison was insufficient, and that forgery must be proved by clear, positive, and convincing evidence, preferably through an expert witness.
• Falsification and Criminal Intent: They argued that they could not be criminally liable for Falsification of Public Documents because they acted in good faith, having indicated 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. in their DTRs pursuant to the Accounting Office's directive and CSC Resolution No. 020790, which did not require job order employees to observe regular office hours.
• Evident Bad Faith under RA 3019: They argued that they were legitimate job order employees who rendered actual services, that Roflo signed the DTRs, ARs, and contracts in the honest belief that the entries were required for salary processing, and that they received salaries to which they were entitled, negating evident bad faith.

• Violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019: Whether accused-appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 3(e) of RA 3019.
• Falsification of Public Documents: Whether accused-appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Falsification of Public Documents under Article 171(4) of the Revised Penal Code.

• Violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019: No. The prosecution failed to prove evident bad faith beyond reasonable doubt; accused-appellants were legitimate job order employees who rendered services and received salaries without manifest deliberate intent to cause damage.
• Falsification of Public Documents: No. Forgery was not established by clear, positive, and convincing evidence, and the prosecution failed to prove malicious intent, an essential element of falsification under Article 171(4).

• Violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019: The Sandiganbayan found Roflo acted in evident bad faith by repeatedly signing the DTRs, ARs, and contracts of service despite the alleged non-rendition of work, causing damage to the provincial government. The Supreme Court disagreed. The evidence showed that Jerico, Norman, Derrick, Sergio, and Chona were actually engaged by the provincial government under job contracts, as evidenced by their service records and the testimony of Bicoy, who signed as a witness to their contracts of services. Roflo signed the DTRs under the honest belief that the entries were what the Accounting Office required for processing the salaries of job order employees, and she signed the ARs on the notion that the statements therein were accurate and required to support compensation claims. These actions did not reflect a fraudulent and dishonest purpose or conscious wrongdoing for some perverse motive or ill will. Jerico, Norman, Derrick, Sergio, and Chona also did not act in bad faith when they received their salaries because they had rendered actual services and were entitled to compensation. The Court cited Ysidoro vs. Leonardo-De Castro and People vs. Bacaltos, where acquittal for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 was upheld because the prosecution failed to prove bad faith and good faith was present. The Court further noted that job order employees under CSC Resolution No. 020790 are not government employees, are not covered by Civil Service law, are not under the direct control and supervision of the agency, and are not required to observe definite working hours provided they render at least 40 hours of service per week; it would be unjust to require them to strictly comply with rules governing government employees when they do not enjoy the same benefits.

• Falsification of Public Documents: Falsification of Public Documents has the following elements: (1) the offender is a public officer, employee, or notary public; (2) the offender takes advantage of his or her official position; and (3) the offender falsifies a document by committing any of the acts enumerated in Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code. To warrant conviction for falsification by making untruthful statements in a narration of facts under Article 171(4), the prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt: (1) the offender makes in a public document untruthful statements in a narration of facts; (2) he or she has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated; and (3) the facts narrated are absolutely false. Falsification is an intentional felony committed by means of dolo or malice and cannot result from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill; criminal intent is required. Here, malicious intent was sorely wanting. The defense established that Roflo's satellite office in Davao City had been operating since 1992, was open 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and that Bicoy testified that maintaining satellite offices outside the provincial capitol and assigning job order employees outside the province were not prohibited but were established practice. CSC Resolution No. 020790 removed the requirement that job order employees render service only during the agency's prescribed office hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The Accounting Office required DTRs to reflect 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., otherwise salaries would not be processed. ARs were prepared by the designated payroll clerk, and general statements such as "doing assigned jobs" were sufficient. The accused therefore acted in good faith and in the honest belief that they were permitted to work outside regular office hours. As to forgery, the prosecution failed to prove it by clear, positive, and convincing evidence. Under Rule 132, Section 22 of the Rules of Court, genuineness of handwriting may be proved by a witness who saw the person write or by comparison. Fidela testified that she personally witnessed Jerico, Norman, Derrick, Sergio, and Chona sign their contracts, DTRs, and ARs, and that the signatures were not forgeries. This direct evidence prevailed over the Sandiganbayan's plain comparison of signatures, which was merely circumstantial. Morales and Bandigan denied signing or writing the entries. No expert witness was presented. The contracts of services were notarized and enjoyed the prima facie presumption of authenticity and due execution. The Sandiganbayan's comparison was also questionable because it used signatures from 2001 to 2003 as standards against the 2009 Deposit for Bail and 2016 Judicial Affidavits, documents executed six to fifteen years later; Domingo vs. Domingo and Cogtong vs. Kyoritsu require comparison standards to be as close as possible in time to the suspected signature. Chona's change of signature after marriage and Sergio's differing signatures were explained. Ombudsman vs. Elipe was distinguished because the respondent there was not a job order employee and travel records showed it was physically impossible for her to have rendered work; here, no such direct evidence existed. Derrick and Sergio were working students but the satellite office was in the same locality and open 24/7, and Norman's follow-ups in Manila were supported by certifications from Representatives Lozada, Jr. and Cabilao, which are prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. The prosecution therefore failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

• Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt and Presumption of Innocence — In every criminal case, the accused enjoys the presumption of innocence, and acquittal is warranted unless guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. The Court applied this to reverse the Sandiganbayan because the prosecution failed to discharge its burden for both charges.
• Forgery Must Be Proved by Clear, Positive, and Convincing Evidence — Forgery is never presumed; the prosecution must establish it by clear, positive, and convincing evidence. Notarized contracts enjoy prima facie presumption of authenticity and due execution. The Court found the prosecution failed to overcome this presumption because it presented no expert witness and no countervailing evidence against Fidela's direct testimony.
• Direct Testimony of a Witness Present at Signing Prevails Over Court Comparison — Under Rule 132, Section 22 of the Rules of Court, genuineness of handwriting may be proved by a witness who saw the person write or by comparison. Jurisprudence holds that a witness who was physically present at the signing and has personal knowledge prevails over a court's or expert's comparison, which is merely circumstantial. Fidela's testimony that she saw the accused sign the documents defeated the Sandiganbayan's plain comparison.
• Handwriting Comparison Standards Must Be Close in Time — The standards of comparison must be as close as possible in point of time to the suspected signature; signatures executed years apart may involve different characteristics. The Sandiganbayan compared signatures from 2001-2003 with 2009 Deposit for Bail and 2016 Judicial Affidavits, making its forgery finding questionable.
• Falsification of Public Documents Is an Intentional Felony Requiring Dolo or Malice — Falsification under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code is a mala in se offense requiring criminal intent; it cannot result from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill. The Court found no malicious intent because the accused acted in good faith under CSC Resolution No. 020790 and the Accounting Office's directive to indicate 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
• Elements of Falsification by Making Untruthful Statements in a Narration of Facts — Under Article 171(4), the prosecution must prove: (1) the offender makes in a public document untruthful statements in a narration of facts; (2) he or she has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated; and (3) the facts narrated are absolutely false. The Court found these elements not established beyond reasonable doubt, especially absent malicious intent.
• Evident Bad Faith Under Section 3(e) of RA 3019 — Evident bad faith connotes not only bad judgment but also a palpably and patently fraudulent and dishonest purpose to do moral obliquity or conscious wrongdoing for some perverse motive or ill will; it contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or self-interest. Mere judgmental error does not amount to malice or criminal intent. The Court found no evident bad faith because the accused were legitimate job order employees and acted in good faith.
• Job Order Employees Under CSC Resolution No. 020790 — Job order employees are not government employees, are not covered by Civil Service law, rules and regulations, do not enjoy government employee benefits, and their services are not considered government service. They are not required to report during the agency's prescribed office hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. or forty hours per week, and are not under the direct control and supervision of the agency. The Court used this to negate criminal intent and bad faith.
• Presumption of Regularity of Official Duty — Certifications issued by public officers in their official capacities are prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein and are presumed truthful absent plausible proof to rebut. The Court applied this to the certifications from Representatives Lozada, Jr. and Cabilao regarding Norman's follow-ups in Manila.

• "It is settled that the prosecution must establish the fact of falsification or forgery by clear, positive, and convincing evidence, as the same is never presumed." — This states the evidentiary threshold for forgery and is the basis for rejecting the Sandiganbayan's finding that the signatures were forged.
• "In fine, criminal intent is required in order to incur criminal liability under Article 171 of the RPC." — This is the ratio for the falsification charge: because the accused acted in good faith under CSC Resolution No. 020790 and accounting-office directives, the required dolo was absent.
• "Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence; it imputes 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; it partakes of the nature of fraud." — This defines evident bad faith under Section 3(e) of RA 3019 and supports the acquittal because Roflo's acts showed no fraudulent or dishonest purpose.
• "A plain reading of the foregoing provisions of CSC Resolution No. 020790 shows that workers hired under job orders are not government employees. They do not enjoy the same benefits as government employees and their services rendered are not considered government service. More importantly, they are not, as a matter of course, required to work during the agency's regular hours." — This establishes the status of job order employees and explains why the 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. DTR entries did not prove criminal falsification or bad faith.

• Layug vs. Sandiganbayan, 392 Phil. 691 (2000) — Cited for the rule that criminal intent (dolo) is essential in offenses under the Revised Penal Code and that mere judgmental error does not amount to malice; applied to negate malice in falsification and bad faith.
• Beradio vs. Court of Appeals, 191 Phil. 153 (1981) — Cited in Layug for the principle that the act itself does not make a man guilty unless his intentions were wrongful; supports the requirement of criminal intent.
• People vs. Claro, 808 Phil. 455 (2017) — Cited for the presumption of innocence and the rule that acquittal is warranted unless guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt.
• People vs. Macalaba, 443 Phil. 565 (2003) — Cited as the basis of the Sandiganbayan for shifting the burden to the defense on the negative averment of non-rendition of work; the Supreme Court found the reliance misplaced and held the prosecution still failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Lamsen vs. People, 821 Phil. 651 (2017) — Cited for the rule that forgery must be proved by clear, positive, and convincing evidence and that the testimony of a witness physically present at signing prevails over expert or court comparison.
• Gatan vs. Vinarao, 820 Phil. 257 (2017) — Cited for the prima facie presumption of authenticity and due execution of a duly notarized contract; forgery must be established by clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant evidence.
• Domingo vs. Domingo, 495 Phil. 213 (2005) — Cited for the rule that handwriting comparison standards must be as close as possible in point of time to the suspected signature; applied to question the Sandiganbayan's forgery finding.
• Cogtong vs. Kyoritsu, 555 Phil. 302 (2007) — Cited for the same rule that standards for handwriting comparison should embrace the time of the origin of the document.
• Fullero vs. People, 559 Phil. 524 (2007) — Cited for the elements of Falsification of Public Documents and the rule that an offender takes advantage of official position when he has the duty to prepare or custody of the document; also cited for presumption of regularity.
• Villareal vs. People, 680 Phil. 527 (2012) — Cited for the rule that an intentional felony requires dolus malus, done willfully, maliciously, with deliberate evil intent and malice aforethought.
• Ombudsman vs. Elipe, G.R. No. 239188 (Notice), November 14, 2018 — Distinguished; the respondent there was not a job order employee and travel records showed it was physically impossible for her to have rendered work, unlike the accused here.
• Fuentes vs. People, 808 Phil. 586 (2017) — Cited for the definition of bad faith and evident bad faith under Section 3(e) of RA 3019.
• Ysidoro vs. Leonardo-De Castro, 681 Phil. 1 (2012) — Cited as precedent where acquittal for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 was upheld because the prosecution failed to prove bad faith and good faith was present.
• People vs. Bacaltos, G.R. No. 248701, July 28, 2020 — Cited as precedent exonerating the accused for failure to establish evident bad faith, manifest partiality, or gross inexcusable negligence, and on account of good faith.
• Lopez vs. Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System, 501 Phil. 115 (2005) — Cited for the principle that job contract workers are not entitled to benefits due regular government employees, making it unjust to require strict compliance with rules governing government employees.
• Yap vs. Lagtapon, 803 Phil. 652 (2017) — Cited for the rule that the prosecution is bound to present evidence supporting a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

• Section 3(e), Republic Act No. 3019 — Prohibits causing undue injury to any party, including the government, or giving any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence. The Court found no evident bad faith, so the charge failed.
• Article 171(4), Revised Penal Code — Defines falsification of public documents by making untruthful statements in a narration of facts. The Court held the elements were not proved beyond reasonable doubt and criminal intent was absent.
• Article 315, paragraph (1)(b), in relation to Articles 171(4) and 48, Revised Penal Code — Estafa through falsification of public documents; the Sandiganbayan exonerated Roflo from Estafa with Abuse of Confidence for failure to establish its elements. The Supreme Court's acquittal covered the falsification and RA 3019 charges.
• Rule 132, Section 22, Rules of Court — Provides how genuineness of handwriting may be proved: by a witness who believes it to be the handwriting because he saw the person write, or by comparison with writings admitted or treated as genuine. The Court applied this to prefer Fidela's direct testimony over the Sandiganbayan's comparison.
• Rule 45, Section 1, Rules of Court — Provides that only questions of law should be raised in petitions filed under Rule 45. The Court recognized exceptions, including misapprehension of facts and findings premised on want of evidence, and re-evaluated the facts.
• CSC Resolution No. 020790, Sections 1 and 3 — Defines individual contract of services/job order; states that job order employees are not covered by Civil Service law, do not enjoy government benefits, and their services are not considered government service; Section 3(b) prohibits contracts requiring report during agency's prescribed office hours from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. or forty hours per week. The Court relied on this to negate criminal intent and bad faith.
• CSC-COA-DBM Joint Circular No. 1, series of 2017, Paragraph 7.0 — Reiterates limitations on contract of service and job order hiring and states that their services are not covered by Civil Service law and not creditable as government service. The Court cited it to reinforce the status of job order employees.
• Article 3, Revised Penal Code — Cited in the Layug quotation for the principle that malice or criminal intent (dolo) is an essential requisite of all crimes defined in the Code, except those requiring negligence. Applied to require criminal intent for falsification.

Zalameda, Rosario, and Marquez, JJ., concur. Perlas-Bernabe, S.A.J., on official leave.