THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

RAFAEL BALMORES Y CAYA,

defendant-appellant.

Facts: He was accused of having falsified a genuine 1/8 unit of the Philippine Charity
Sweepstakes ticket for the June, 1947, draw by tearing off at its bottom in a cross-wise direction
a portion, thereby removing the true and unidentified number of said ticket and substituting and
writing in ink at the bottom on the left side the number 074000, thus making said ticket bear a
prize-winning number. He was convicted of attempted estafa thru falsification of an obligation or
security and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of from 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor
12 years and 1 day of reclusion temporal, and to pay a fine of P100 plus the costs. He waived
the right to be assisted by counsel and merely pleaded guilty to the information.

Issue: WON the accussed is guilty of the crime of estafa.

Ruling: No, He is not guilty of estafa; for the act committed by the accused was attempt to
commit estafa. The alteration, or even destruction, of a losing sweepstakes ticket could cause
no harm to anyone and would not constitute a crime were it not for the attempt to cash the ticket
so altered as a prize-winning number. This being a complex crime of attempted estafa through
falsification of an obligation or security of the Philippines, the penalty should be imposed in its
maximum period in accordance with article 48 of the RPC. Taking into consideration the
mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction, and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the
minimum cannot be lower than prision mayor in its maximum period, which is 10 years and 1
day to 12 years.

ROSALIO S. GALEOS, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

Facts: As mayor, Ong extended permanent appointments to Rosalio S. Galeos and Federico T.
Rivera for the positions of Construction and Maintenance Man and Plumber I, respectively, in
the Office of the Municipal Engineer. Prior to their permanent appointment, Galeos and Rivera
were casual employees of the municipal government.

In their individual SALN for the year 1993, Galeos answered "No" to the question: "To the best
of your knowledge, are you related within the fourth degree of consanguinity or of affinity to
anyone working in the government?" while Rivera indicated "n/a" on the space for the list of the
names of relatives referred to in the said query. The boxes for "Yes" and "No" to the said query
were left in blank by Galeos in his 1994 and 1995 SALN. Rivera in his 1995 SALN answered
"No" to the question on relatives in government. In their 1996 SALN, both Galeos and Rivera
also did not fill up the boxes indicating their answers to the same query. Ong’s signature
appears in all the foregoing documents as the person who administered the oath when Galeos
and Rivera executed the foregoing documents.
Galeos and Ong were convicted on separate counts by the Sandiganbayan with falsification of
public documents under Article 171, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code. Rivera died before
the promulgation of the decision

On October 1, 1998, the members of the Sangguniang Bayan of Naga, Cebu filed letter of
complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman - Visayas against Ong, Galeos and Rivera
for dishonesty,nepotism, violation of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees and anti graft and Corruption Practices Act, and for the crime of
falsification of public documents.

Issue: WON Galeos is guilty of committing crime of falsification of public documents

Ruling: Yes, Since petitioner Galeos answered "No" to the question in his 1993 SALN if he has
relatives in the government service within the fourth degree of consanguinity, he made an
untruthful statement therein as in fact he was related to Ong, who was then the municipal
mayor, within the fourth degree of consanguinity, he and Ong being first cousins (their mothers
are sisters). As to his 1994, 1995 and 1996 SALN, Galeos left in blank the boxes for the answer
to the similar query. In Dela Cruz v. Mudlong, it was held that one is guilty of falsification in the
accomplishment of his information and personal data sheet if he withholds material facts which
would have affected the approval of his appointment and/or promotion to a government position.
By withholding information on his relatives in the government service as required in the SALN,
Galeos was guilty of falsification considering that the disclosure of such relationship with then
Municipal Mayor Ong would have resulted in the disapproval of his permanent appointment
pursuant to Article 168 (j) (Appointments), Rule XXII of the Rules and Regulations Implementing
the Local Government Code of 1991 (R.A. No. 7160), which provides that “No person shall be
appointed in the local government career service if he is related within the fourth civil degree of
consanguinity or affinity to the appointing power or recommending authority.”

RODOLFO S. DE JESUS, petitioner, vs. HON. SANDIGANBAYAN and OFFICE OF THE

OMBUDSMAN, respondents.

Facts: On December 12, 2001, in Quezon City, the accused Rodolfo De Jesus and Edelwina
Parungao, being the Deputy Administrator and the Manager, HRMD, respectively, of the Local
Water Utilities Administration (LWUA), Katipunan Road, Balara, Quezon City, conspiring and
confederating together and helping each other, while in the performance of their official
functions, committing the offense in relation to their office, and taking advantage of their official
positions, with legal obligation to disclose the truth, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously falsify, or cause to be falsified the appointment of one Jesusito R. Toren, a
confidential staff of the Trustees of the said LWUA, which is a public document, by making it
appear that the said appointment paper was prepared, approved and issued on October 15,
2001 and that the said appointee assumed office on the same date, thereby allowing the said
appointee to withdraw or receive the salaries and allowances for the period from October 15,
2001 to December 31, 2001, when in truth and in fact the accused had known fully well that said
appointee was officially appointed only on December 12, 2001, as shown by another set of
appointment paper of said Jesusito Toren, endorsed and subsequently approved by the Civil
Service Commission, thus making untruthful statement in a narration of facts.

In the present case, the Ombudsman allegedly found a prima facie case of falsification of public
documents under Article 171, par. 4 of the Revised Penal Code against petitioner because he
prepared and signed the appointments of the nine confidential staff with dates earlier than the
actual date of appointment which was December 12, 2001.

Issue: WON the accussed is guilty of the crime of falsification of public documents.

Ruling: No. Criminal intent must be shown in felonies committed by means of dolo, such as
falsification. In the case at bar, there is no reasonable ground to believe that the requisite
criminal intent or mens rea was present. The petitioner admits having signed two sets of
appointment papers but nothing in said documents constitutes an absolutely false narration of
facts. The first set was prepared and signed on the basis of the inter-office memoranda issued
by the members of the Board appointing their respective confidential staff conformably with the
DBM approval. There was no untruthful statement made on said appointment papers as the
concerned personnel were in fact appointed earlier than December 12, 2001. In fact, the DBM
also clarified that the authority to hire confidential personnel may be implemented retroactive to
the date of actual service of the employee concerned. There was nothing willful or felonious in
petitioner's act warranting his prosecution for falsification. The evidence is insufficient to sustain
a prima facie case and it is evident that no probable cause exists to form a sufficient belief as to
the petitioner's guilt.

ARK TRAVEL EXPRESS, INC., petitioner, vs. The Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial
Court of Makati, Branch 150, HON. ZEUS ABROGAR, VIOLETA BAGUIO and LORELEI
IRA, respondents.

Facts: On or about the 19th day of February, 1996, in the City of Makati, Philippines, the above-
named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously give false testimony
upon a material fact in Civil Case No. 95-1542, relative to a complaint for Collection of sum of
money, torts and damages filed by Ark Travel Express, Inc. against New Filipino Maritime
Agencies, Inc. (NFMAI). During the trial of the aforesaid civil case before Branch 137 of the
Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Metro Manila, in which one of the principal issues was
whether or not payment of the claim of ARK, Inc. has been made by NFMA, Inc., the said
accused while testifying for NFMA, Inc., with malicious intent, did, then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously and knowingly testified on direct testimony, by way of a sworn
statement, and while under oath on the witness stand, that the claims of ARK, Inc. supported by
a statements of accounts sent to and received by defendant-corporation NFMA, Inc. is baseless
and/ or been paid, which testimony as accused very well knew and ought to know, by reason of
accuseds position as cashier, was false inasmuch as the claim based on the statement of
accounts of ARK, Inc.
Issue: WON the accussed committed the crime of false testimony

Ruling: No. o constitute the crime of False Testimony in a Civil Case under Article 182 of the
Revised Penal Code, the following requisites must concur:

1. the testimony must be given in a civil case;

2. the testimony must relate to the issues presented in the case;

3. the testimony is false;

4. the false testimony must be given by the defendant knowing the same to be false;
and

5. such testimony must be malicious and given with and intent to affect the issues
presented in the case.[22]

There is no doubt that the first two requisites are extant in this case. The records show that Ark
Travel filed a complaint for collection of sum of money, torts and damages against New Filipino
Maritime Agencies, Inc. (NFMAI) and Angelina T. Rivera with the Regional Trial Court of Makati
(Branch 137), docketed as Civil Case No. 95-1542. In said civil case, private respondents were
presented by NFMAI as witnesses. They executed their respective sworn statements and
testified before the trial court that NFMAI has no outstanding obligation with Ark Travel as the
same had been paid in full.
The existence of the last three requisites is quite dubious. The falsity of the subject testimonies
of private respondents is yet to be established. It is noted that at the time of the filing of the
criminal complaints, the civil case filed by Ark Travel is still pending decision. Ark Travel has yet
to prove the validity of its monetary claims and damages against NFMAI. It is only after trial that
the RTC can assess the veracity or falsity of the testimony and correspondingly render a
decision. Thus, the civil case is so intimately connected with the subject crime that it is
determinative of the guilt or innocence of the respondents in the criminal cases. In other words,
whether or not the testimonies of private respondents in the civil cases are false is a prejudicial
question.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANTONIO ENRIQUE, JR., accused-

appellant.

Facts: The accused-appellant, Antonio Enrique, Jr. was charged with violation of Section 4, Art.
II in relation to Section 2, par. (e), No. 1 and par. (1), Article I of RA No. 6425, as amended,
otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. That on or about May 9, 1988, in the
municipality of Aparri, province of Cagayan, the said accused, Antonio Enrique, Jr., y. Gumtang,
not being authorized by law to sell, deliver, give away to another or distribute any prohibited
drug, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver five (5) sticks of
marijuana cigarettes, as prohibited drug, to one Patrolman Danilo Natividad, a member of the
Integrated National Police (INP) and assigned with the 2nd Narcotics Regional Unit, Narcotics
Command, who was then posing as a buyer of the said prohibited drug for the consideration of
TEN (P10.00) PESOS.

Issue: WON the accused appelant is guilty beyond resonable doubt in violiting RA 6425

Ruling: Yes. The prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt. The marijuana cigarettes brought to the laboratory of the P.C. Narcotics Command at
Echague for examination after the time of its confiscation is indeed marijuana. The test
performed is judicially admissible. The SC held that a chemical analysis is not an indispensable
prerequirement to establish whether a certain substance offered in evidence is a prohibited drug
or not and that the ability to recognize these drugs can be acquired without a knowledge of
chemistry to such an extent that the testimony of a witness on the point may be entitled to great
weight. The SC hold that the trial court did not err in convicting the accused-appellant. The
evidence on record has fully established his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
CIPRIANO CARDENAS y GOFRERICA, Accused-Appellant.

The accused-appellant was found guilty for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No.
9165 (R.A. 9165), the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Appellant was convicted
for selling the prohibited drug methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. That on or about the
6th day of January, 2003 in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, not being authorized by
law to sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any dangerous drug, did, then and there,
willfully, and unlawfully sell, dispense, deliver, transport, distribute or act as broker in the said
transaction, zero point zero five (0.05) gram of white crystalline substance containing
Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride otherwise known as "SHABU" a dangerous drug.