REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

~auoiBauha~au
Quezon City

FIRST DIVISION

PEOPLE OFT HE PHILIPPINES, CRIM. Case No. 25118

Petitioner, For: Falsification of a Public Document

- versus - Present:

DE LA CRUZ, J., Chairperson

LEOA. ACBO, MUSNGI*, J.
Accused. CRUZ**, J.

Promulgated on:

-~
x - - -- --- - -- - - ---- --- ---- -- ---- - ~-- - -- - - -- -- -- -- -- '
/1. Mfft
DECISION

DE LA CRUZ, J.

Accused Acbo stands charged for Falsification of Public

Document, defined and penalized under paragraph 4, Article 17-1of
the Revised Penal Code. This case was archived on September 24,
2001 because the warrant of arrest could not be served on the
accused, but was revived on March 23, 2015 upon his voluntary
submission to the jurisdiction of the Court.

The accusatory portion of the Information against the accused

reads:

That on or about 27 May 1998, in the Municipality of

Isabela, Basilan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, accused LEO A. ACBO, a public officer being
then the Municipal Mayor of the Municipality of Isabela, with a
salary grade 27, taking advantage of his official position and
committing the crime in relation to his office, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously issue a Memorandum,
"designating Hon. Pedrito A. Eisma as Officer-In-Charge of the
Municipality of Isabela effective 28 May 1998, and until his return
who is on official leave of absence and official travel to Manila on

'Sitting as Special Member of the First Division as per Administrative Order No. 317-2016, dated November 18,2016.
"Sitting as Special Member of the First Division as per Administrative Order No. 327-2016, dated November 25, 2016.
DECISION
pp vs. Leo A. Acbo
Crim. Case No. 25118

Page 2 of13

)(- ----------------------------------------------- -------- )(

intended that he would be travelling to Los Angeles, California,

USA, and not on official travel, thus perverting the truth.
CONTRARY TO LAW.

At the ore-trial.' the prosecution and the defense entered into

the following stipulation of facts.

1. The accused is the same Leo A. Acbo charged in the

Information.

2. The accused had authorization to travel to the USA, dated

March 16, 1998, which was issued by the Department of the Interior
and Local Government (DILG) when the accused was a
Sangguniang Bayan Member of Isabela, Basilan.

3. Accused Acbo became mayor of the Municipality of Isabela,

Basilan, during the time material to this case, having ascended to
the position of mayor by succession.

4. Accused Acbo issued a memorandum dated May 27, 1998,

designating Hon. Pedrito A. Eisma as Officer-In-Charge, as
indicated in Exhibit A.

5. The accused declared in that Memorandum that he was on

official leave of absence on May 27, 1998, basing it on a prior
application for leave of absence he made when he was still a
Sangguniang Bayan Member.

6. The accused left the Philippines for Los Angeles, USA, on

May 29, 1998 via PR102 of the Philippine Airlines, as shown in
Exhibit B.

7. The travel of the accused to the USA was for personal

reasons.

8. Since the accused left the country on May 29, 1998, he had
returned to the Philippines only on March 23, 2015.

The parties also agreed on the following issues to be

resolved:

1 Pre-trial Order, dated November 16, 2015, Record, pp. 164-170

 DECISION
. pp vs. Leo A. Acbo
Crim. Case No. 25118

Page 3 of 13

)(- ------------------------------------------------------- )(

As proposed by the prosecution

Whether or not accused Leo A. Acbo is guilty of Falsification

of Public Document, as defined and penalized under Article
171, par. 4 of the Revised Penal Code.

As proposed by accused Acbo:

Whether or not the phrase "designating Hon. Pedrito A.

Eisma as Officer-in-Charge of the Municipality of Isabela
effective 28 May 1998, and until his return who is on official
leave of absence and official travel to Manila on 3-4 June
1.998", which official travel was not undertaken due to the
accused absence from the country, may be construed and
considered untruthful narration of facts contemplated in Art.
171 (4) of the Revised Penal Code.

Whether or not an intended official travel of a government

official, if not undertaken, under the circumstances obtaining
in this case, constitutes an offense punishable by law.

Whether or not the accused's failure to undertake the

intended official travel on June 3-4, 1998 has caused
prejudice, injury or damages upon the rights and interests of
the private complainant, or to either the constituents of the
Municipality of Isabela, or to the government.

EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION

In view of the stipulation of facts between the parties during

the preliminary conference and, as reflected on the Pre-Trial Order,
dated November 16, 2015, the prosecution opted not to present a
witness. Instead, it proceeded to make an oral formal offer of the
following exhibits, which were admitted by the Court, in view of the
manifestation of the accused that he had no objection to the
admission, but only made reservation for further comments in a
memorandum:

Exhibit Documents

A Memorandum, dated May 27, 1998 issued by

Acbo, Mayor of Isabela, designating
DECISION
pp vs. Leo A. Acbo
Crim. Case No. 25118

Page 4 of13

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

Sangguniang Bayan (SB) Member Pepito A.

Isma as Officer-in-Charge of the Municipality
of Isabela, Basilan.

B to B-1 Philippine Airlines Manifest, dated May 29,

1998.

o to 0-1 Certification, dated June 29, 2015 from the

Bureau of Immigration.

EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE

The defense presented as its lone witness the accused whose

direct testimony is summarized below.

Accused Leo A. Acbo, the Municipal Mayor of Isabela,

Basilan at the time material to this case.

He testified that he became Mayor of Isabela by succession in

April 1998, when the Mayor and Vice Mayor of the Municipality filed
certificates of candidacy for higher positions in the May 11, 1998
election. Prior to assuming the position of Mayor, he was the first
member of the Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality.

About March 1998, Acbo's brother invited him to come to the

United States of America for his brother's wedding. For this
purpose, he requested for an authority to travel from the DILG
secretary and was granted in May 1998, a period often (10) days
from May 26 to June 4, 1998.

When Acbo assumed the position of Mayor, he undertook to

travel to Manila from June 3 to 4, 1998 to attend an awarding
ceremony in Malacanang as the Kumilang River, a river in his
Municipality, was awarded as one of the cleanest rivers in the
Philippines.

In order to reconcile his two proposed travels, Acbo explained

that he would leave the country on May 28, 1998 and leave USA on
May 31, 1998 or June 1, 1998 to be able to make it to the ceremony
on June 3 and 4, 1998.

He was aware of the provision of the Local Government Code

that after three (3) days, the Vice Mayor who was Atty. Leo Jay
DECISION
pp vs. Leo A. Acbo
Crim. Case No. 25118

Page 5 of 13

)(- ------------------------------------------------------- )(

Principe, would automatically assume the powers of the local chief

executive. However, he was compelled to draft a memorandum
designating Councilor Pedrito Eisma as officer-in-charge because
on the day before he left for the US, only Eisma was present. He
did not want that nobody would take care of the office when he left
the following day. He looked for Principe but he was not around.

In the memorandum designating Eisma, he indicated that he

would be attending an official business in Manila. He did not,
however, disclose therein that he would be going to America
because he was not sure about it, having been denied a visa the
first time he applied. But as to his travel to Manila, he was certain
about it.

Acbo confirmed having executed a Counter-Affidavit, dated

July 10, 2015,2 submitted before the Office of the Ombudsman.
Annexed to the affidavit were the Application for Leave, dated
February 23, 1998;3 the Certification of Cleerence' issued by the
Province of Basilan; a certification, dated March 9, 1998,5 issued by
the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Isabela, Basilan; the
Certificate of Clearance, dated March 9, 1998,6 of the Office of the
Provincial Prosecutor of Basilan; a letter, dated March 9, 1998,7 of
the accused to Hon. Epimaco Velasco, Secretary of DILG; and the
1st Indorsement, dated March 16, 1998,8 signed by Secretary
Velasco.

When asked about his relationship with Vice Mayor Principe at

the time (material to this case), Acbo said that they were friends.
They sat beside each other in the council and he (Acbo) helped him
campaign in the elections because he wanted a lawyer and an
intelligent guy who would help them to legislate. In fact, upon
learning the present case, Acbo requested his wife to go to Principe,
and the latter issued an Affidavit of Desistance, dated March 20,
2006.9

Acbo professed his innocence on the charge against him

saying his invitation to attend the ceremony in Malacanang was real

2 Exhibit 1 (with sub-marking)

3 Exhibit 2
4 Exhibit 3
5 Exhibit 4
6 Exhibit 5
7 Exhibit 6
8 Exhibit 7
9 Exhibit 8
DECISION
pp vs. Leo A. Acbo
Crim. Case No. 25118

Page 60f13

)(- ------------------------------------------------------- )(

and true. However, he could no longer produce any proof of that

invitation. He also said that in his conscience and in his heart, he
had no intention to deprive Vice Mayor Principe of the right to
assume the position of Mayor while he (Acbo) was on vacation. In
fact, Vice Mayor Principe assumed the position on June 1, 1998.

THE FACTS

Prior to his assumption of the Office of the Municipal Mayor of

Isabela, Basilan by succession, the accused was the first councilor
of the Municipality. While still a councilor, he processed an
application for leave for his intended travel to the United States of
America. Based on his leave documents on record, he started
processing on February 23, 1998, the date of his Application for
Leave, and he was granted authority to leave the country for ten
(10) days effective March 26, 1998 per 1st Indorsement, dated
March 16, 1998, of then Secretary Velasco to then Mayor Leonardo
A. Pioquinto of the Municipality of Isabela.

Before the accused could leave the country, he succeeded the

Office of the Mayor of the Municipality of Isabela when the
incumbent mayor and vice-mayor filed certificates of candidacy for
higher positions in the May 11, 1998 elections.

A day before accused Acbo left the country for the US, he
issued on May 27, 1998, a Memorandum designating Councilor
Pedrito A. Eisma as officer-in-charge effective May 28, 1998 until
his (Acbo) return from an official travel to Manila on June 3 and 4,
1998.

Councilor Eisma sat as officer-in-charge only for three (3)

days from his designation because on June 1, 1998, Councilor
Principe took over the office.'?

Accused Acbo left the country for the US on May 28, 1998
and returned to the Philippines only on May 23, 2015.

DISCUSSION

In the Information, the prosecution charged Acbo of

falsification of public document by making untruthful statements in a
narration of facts under paragraph 4, Article 171 of the Revised

10 TSN. dated April 19, 2016, pp. 38-39

DECISION
pp vs. Leo A. Acbo
Crim. Case No. 25118

Page 7 of 13

)(- ------------------------------------------------------- )(

Penal Code, on the ground that he perverted the truth when he

"issue(d) the Memorandum, dated May 27, 1998, 'designating Hon.
Pedrito A. Eisma as Officer-In-Charge of the Municipality of Isabela
effective 28 May 1998, and until his return who is on official leave of
absence and official travel to Manila on 3-4 June 1998', when in
truth and in fact, as the accused very well intended, that he would
be travelling to Los Angeles, California, USA, and not on official
travel .... " The said Memorandum reads:

MEMORANDUM

TO Hon. Pedrito A. Eisma

Sangguniang Bayan Member
Municipality of Isabela

FROM Mayor Leo A. Acbo

SUBJECT DESIGNATION

Until after the resolution of the issues as to who is the

legitimate Vice-Mayor of Isabela Municipality which is being
contested by and between Hon. Taib Alejo and Hon. Leo Jay I.
Principe, per letter of Hon. Taib Alejo addressed to DILG Regional
Director, Zamboanga City, copy of which hereto attached,
effective May 28, 1998 and until the return of the undersigned who
is on official leave of absence and official travel to Manila on June
3 and 4, 1998, you are hereby designated as Officer In-Charge of
this Municipality.

xxx.

This order being for the good of public service is hereby

confirmed and made on record.

Issued this zz" day of May, 1998, Isabela, Basilan

Province.

(Sgd.) LEO A. ACBO

Mayor
XXX11

According to the prosecution, such declaration is contrary to

the true intent of Acbo to actually travel to Los Angeles, California,
USA and not for an official purpose.

"Exhibit A
DECISION
pp vs. Leo A. Acbo
Crim. Case No. 25118

Page 8 of 13

)(- -- ----------------------------------------------------- )(

Acbo did not deny his statement on the memorandum, but

explained that he, indeed, had an official function in Malacaf'iang on
June 3 and 4, 1998, and he intended to return in time for the event.
However, upon the advice of his family because of a threat to his
life, he did not go back to the Philippines until May 23, 2015.12

The Court finds for accused Acbo. The prosecution failed to

prove with moral certainty that Acbo committed the offense of
falsification of public document under paragraph 4, Article 171 of the
Revised Penal Code which states:

Art. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or

notary or ecclesiastic minister.-The. penalty of prision mayor
and a fine not to exceed 5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any
public officer, employee, or notary who, taking advantage of his
official position, shall falsify a document by committing any of the
following acts:

xxx

4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts;

xxx

In falsification by false narration of facts, (1) the offender

makes untruthful statements in a narration of facts; (2) he has a
legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him; (3)
the facts narrated are absolutely false; and (4) it was made with a
wrongful intent to injure a third person."

It must also be proven that the public officer or employee had

taken advantage of his official position in making the falsification. In
falsification of public document, the offender is considered to have
taken advantage of his official position when (1) he has the duty to
make or prepare or otherwise to intervene in the preparation of a
document; or (2) he has the official custody of the document which
he talsifies."

There is nothing untrue about Acbo's assailed statement in

the memorandum. Taking into context the phrase "designating Hon.
Pedrito A. Eisma as Officer-In-Charge of the Municipality of Isabela
effective 28 May 1998, and until his return who is on official leave of

12 Id., pp. 34-35

13 Civil Service Commission, NCR v. Sta. Ana, A.M. No. OCA-01-5, 386 SCRA 1, 9-10
14 Galeos v. People, 642 SCRA 485,506
DECISION
pp vs. Leo A. Acbo
Crim. Case No. 25118

Page 9 of 13

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

charge from May 28, 1998, Acbo specified that his official travel to
Manila would cover from June 3 to 4, 1998. This interpretation is
reconcilable with Acbo's admission at the pre-trial that the
declaration in the memorandum that he was on official leave of
absence on May 27, 1998 was based on his prior application for
leave of absence made when he was still a member of the
Sanggunian.

Acbo's declaration in the memorandum that he was on official

leave from June 3 to 4, 1998 was not absolutely false. It was not
rendered untruthful by the fact that he actually left for abroad on
May 28, 1998 and went back only 17 years after. In other words,
even if Acbo did not disclose his intention to go abroad prior to June
3 or 4, 1998 and that he already had procured an authority to travel
before he assumed the mayorship, it does not necessarily follow
that he lied when he said he would be in Manila for an official
function on June 3 and 4, 1998. His going abroad was entirely a
different matter from the official affair in Malacafiang. They were
two separate occasions which the Court views independently. And
for both instances, Acbo had shown that he had no malicious
reason to conceal the truth. It is a fact that Acbo was issued a
travel authority, and it was not seriously refuted by the prosecution
that he was invited to an awarding ceremony in Malacafiang to take
place on June 3 to 4, 1998.

Acbo's trip to the US and his plan to attend the awarding in

Malacanang are not inconsistent to each other. He convincingly
explained that both were possible. He would leave the country on
May 28, 1998, as he did leave, for his brother's wedding on May 30,
1998. He was supposed to depart from the US on May 31 or June
1, 1998, in time for the gathering in Malacarianq."

The Court believes that when Acbo issued the memorandum

in controversy, he had not resolved yet of not coming back to the
Philippines. The Court does not perceive any ulterior motive why
Acbo would hide his trip to the US. The clearances Acbo secured
from the Office of the Clerk of Court of Isabela and the Office of the
Provincial Prosecutor of Basilan showed that he had no pending
cases, and he was cleared of any accountability by the Municipality.
In fact, his travel abroad was not at all a secret as he had previously.
applied for it, and was issued a travel authority after it was
processed.
15 TSN, supra, pp. 10-11
DECISION
pp vs. Leo A. Acbo
Crim. Case No. 25118

Page 10 of 13

)(- ------------------------------------------------------- )(

The Court does not also discern from the record any
competent evidence to prove that the non-disclosure of Acbo about
his travel abroad was intended to deprive Vice Mayor Principe the
right to discharge the office of the local chief executive in the
absence of Acbo. Principe was not presented in Court to at least
testify on matters from which to deduce the possibility that Acbo
was motivated by ill-will against him (Principe). On the contrary,
Acbo testified that he and Principe were friends, and the latter even
readily executed an affidavit of desistance in 2006.

What is more, Section 46, Chapter 2, Title 2, of the Local

Government Code implies that the officer-in-charge designated by
the local chief executive to take his place while the latter is traveling
within the country but outside his territorial jurisdiction, may only
assume the position for a period not exceeding three (3)
consecutive days. Thereafter, the next-in-rank to the Mayor should
assume the duties and functions of the office. Therefore, whether
Acbo was within the country or abroad, Eisma would automatically
cease to perform the powers and duties of the Office of the Mayor,
and Principe would, by law, take his place, as he did on June 1,
1998. In the absence of evidence showing bad faith on the part of
Acbo, the three days that was lost to Principe by the designation of
Eisma cannot be taken to mean that Acbo, indeed, kept his travel
abroad a secret.

Considering the surrounding circumstances in this case, the

Court believes and so holds that Acbo had decided not to return to
the Philippines as scheduled only when he was already at the US
after discussing with his family regarding the threat to his life. At
most, he had probably entertained the idea of staying in the US
inasmuch as he already knew of the danger before he left the
Philippines. However, that thought had not reached the point of
certainty until he was in the US and the decision was reached upon
consultation with his family. There is no evidence on record that he
had made some sort of preparations and arrangements suggestive
that he was not returning to the office soon. On the contrary, and
consistent to the authority to travel granted to him by the Secretary
of the DILG, Acbo had thought of returning to the country before the
day of the function in Malacanang, by his statement in the
memorandum that Councilor Eisma's designation as officer-in-
charge was only until Acbo's return from his official travel to Manila
on June 3 and 4, 1998.
DECISION
pp vs. Leo A. Acbo
Crim. Case No. 25118

Page 11 of 13

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

charge was only until Acbo's return from his official travel to Manila
on June 3 and 4, 1998.

Strictly speaking, there is no legal obligation on the part of

Acbo to disclose that he would be traveling to the US. "Legal
obligation" means that there is a law requiring the disclosure of the
truth of the facts narrated." There is no law that specifically
mandates Acbo to divulge where he would spend his leave of
absence.

But, considering Acbo's position as Mayor, the prosecution

may be correct in saying that Acbo had a legal obligation to disclose
his travel abroad because it would make a difference as who would
exercise the power of the local chief executive in his absence under
Section 46, Chapter 2, Title 2 of the Local Government Code.
However, this element of the offense of falsification of public
document must be taken in conjunction with the element that the
accused made an untruthful statement in a narration of facts. In this
case, as discussed above, Acbo did not make an untruthful
statement in a narration of facts when he said he was on official
leave on June 3 and 4, 1998.

Every accused is presumed innocent until the contrary is

proved; that presumption is solemnly guaranteed by the Bill of
Rights. The contrary requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, or
that degree of proof that produces conviction in an unprejudiced
mind. Short of this, it is not only the right of the accused to be freed;
it is even the constitutional duty of the court to acquit them."

WHEREFORE, in light of all the foregoing, accused Leo A.

Acbo is hereby ACQUITTED of the charge of falsification of public
document defined and penalized under paragraph 4, Article 171 of
the Revised Penal Code, on reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, the hold departure issued against the accused is

hereby LIFTED and SET ASIDE, and his bond RELEASED, subject
to the usual accounting and auditing procedures.

Considering that the act or omission from which the civil

liability might arise did not exist, no civil liability may be. assessed
against the accused.

16 Enemecio v. Office of the Ombudsman, 419 SCRA 82, 92

17 People v. Baulite, 366 SCRA 732,739
DECISION
pp vs. Leo A. Acbo
Crim. Case No. 25118

Page 12 of 13

)(- ----------------------------------- -------------------- )(

SO ORDERED.

EFREN kif Q LA CRUZ

Chairperso~',lA~~ciateJustice

WE CONCUR:

MICHAEL FREDER CK L. MUSNGI

Associate J stice
DECISION
pp vs. Leo A. Acbo
Crim. Case No. 25118

Page 13 of 13

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above decision were

reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court's Division.

EFREN ~~ LA CRUZ
Chairperl:ln~~rstDivision

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13, of the Constitution, and the

Division Chairperson's Attestation, it is hereby certified that the
conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.