United States vs. Maleza and Adlaon

Falsification of a public document by reckless negligence is a valid and punishable crime under Article 568 of the Penal Code, which provides that any act executed through reckless negligence that would constitute a grave crime if done with malice shall be punished with a corresponding reduced penalty.

Luciano Maleza served as treasurer of the municipality of Sevilla, Province of Bohol. Gabriel Adlaon was an individual whose signature appeared on a municipal account document certified by Maleza. The prosecution was conducted by the provincial fiscal, with the Attorney-General's office representing the appellant. The case was governed by the Penal Code then in force in the Philippine Islands, which was substantially similar to the Spanish Penal Code.

On May 31, 1906, Luciano Maleza, acting as treasurer of the municipality of Sevilla, Province of Bohol, certified an account of the same date showing payments made to carpenters and day laborers who had worked on the construction of the municipal building during 1903 and 1904, as well as the cost of certain packages of nails used therein. The account amounted to P249.35 and had been approved by a resolution of the municipal council. Maleza further certified that the services were rendered as stated and were necessary for the public interest, and that the articles purchased had been recorded in the municipal register. Gabriel Adlaon's signature appeared at the foot of the document, indicating that he had received the said amount as the balance due on a former account.

Maleza's certification was false. He stated that the money was intended to pay carpenters, when in fact it was drawn and paid to himself, he having been commissioned by P. Cayetano Bastes to collect and receive the amount loaned by Bastes to the municipal president and treasurer of Sevilla in 1903. Adlaon, likewise with reckless negligence, failed to tell the truth in the document: he stated that he had received the money, when in reality neither was the money paid for work done by carpenters nor was it received by him.

In view of these facts, the provincial fiscal filed a complaint charging both individuals with the crime of falsification of a public document by reason of reckless negligence. Counsel for the accused demurred to the complaint, alleging that the facts did not constitute a crime, that the complaint was not drawn according to law, and that if the facts mentioned constituted a crime, two crimes would be charged under the same complaint. On October 7, the lower court sustained the demurrer, the trial judge opining that there neither exists nor can exist any such crime as falsification of a public document by reckless negligence. From that order the fiscal appealed.

• No Crime Constituted: Counsel for the accused argued that the facts alleged in the complaint did not constitute a crime under the Penal Code.
• Defective Complaint: Counsel maintained that the complaint was not drawn according to law.
• Duplicity of Charges: Counsel contended that if the facts mentioned constituted a crime, the result would be that two crimes were charged under the same complaint.

• Existence of the Crime: Whether falsification of a public document by reason of reckless negligence constitutes a punishable offense under the Penal Code.

• Existence of the Crime: Yes. The classification of falsification of documents by reckless negligence is perfectly legal under Article 568 of the Penal Code, which punishes acts executed through reckless negligence that would constitute a grave crime if done with malice.

• Existence of the Crime: The Court reasoned that between an act performed voluntarily and intentionally and another committed unconsciously and unintentionally, there exists an intermediate category: an act performed without malice but nonetheless punishable, which the Penal Code qualifies as negligence or reckless negligence. A person must exercise due reflection and prudence in all acts and is responsible for foreseeable results and for acts that no one would perform except through culpable abandon. Article 568 of the Penal Code provides that one who executes through reckless negligence an act that, if done with malice, would constitute a grave crime, shall be punished with arresto mayor in its maximum degree to prision correccional in its minimum degree. The Court noted that the denomination or qualification of the offense depends on the circumstances and nature of the act, citing examples such as homicide by reckless negligence, infidelity in the custody of prisoners through imprudence, and falsification of documents by reckless negligence. The Court further observed that Spanish courts had tried several cases of falsification of documents by reckless negligence under Article 581 of the Spanish Penal Code, which is identical to Article 568, citing judgments from July 8, 1882; December 21, 1885; November 8, 1887; and December 7, 1896. The Court also cited The United States vs. Mariano Vega as additional authority. Accordingly, the order sustaining the demurrer was reversed and the case remanded.

• Criminal Liability for Reckless Negligence — Under Article 568 of the Penal Code, any act executed without malice or criminal intent but with lack of foresight, carelessness, or negligence, which harms society or an individual, deserves qualification as either reckless or simple negligence or imprudence. The penalty depends on the relative seriousness of the crime and the absence of malice or criminal intent. The Court applied this principle to hold that falsification of a public document by reckless negligence is a valid criminal classification, the act being one that would constitute a grave crime if done with malice but is punished in a lesser degree when committed through reckless negligence.

• "Between an act performed voluntarily and intentionally, and another committed unconsciously and quite unintentionally, there exists another, performed without malice, but at the same time punishable, though in a lesser degree and with an equal material result; an intermediate act which the Penal Code qualifies as negligence, or reckless negligence." — This passage articulates the conceptual foundation for the Court's ruling, defining the intermediate category of negligent criminal acts that bridges intentional and unconscious conduct.

• "Therefore, any act executed without malice or criminal intent, but with lack of foresight, carelessness, or negligence, and which has harmed society or an individual, deserves the qualification of either reckless or simple negligence or imprudence." — This formulation states the general principle that negligent acts causing harm are punishable, and that the specific classification depends on the circumstances and nature of the act.

• The United States vs. Mariano Vega, No. 2818 (decided March 16, 1907, not published) — Cited as additional authority supporting the proposition that falsification of documents by reckless negligence is a recognized criminal classification. The Court relied on it alongside Spanish jurisprudence to confirm the validity of the charge.

• Article 568, Penal Code — Provides that one who executes through reckless negligence an act that, if done with malice, would constitute a grave crime, shall be punished with arresto mayor in its maximum degree to prision correccional in its minimum degree, and with arresto mayor in its minimum and medium degrees if it constitutes a less grave crime. Applied to hold that falsification of a public document by reckless negligence falls within this provision, the act being one that would constitute a grave crime if done with malice.
• Article 581, Spanish Penal Code — Identified as identical to Article 568 of the Penal Code in force in the Philippines. Cited as the basis for Spanish court judgments upholding convictions for falsification of documents by reckless negligence, demonstrating historical and doctrinal support for the classification.

Arellano, C.J., Johnson, Carson, Moreland, and Elliott, JJ., concurred.