PEOPLE v.

TEOFILO PANTALEON, JR and JAIME  Ken Swan Tiu said La Paz Construction did not
VALLEJOS enter into a contract with the municipality of
Castillejos
CHARGE: 3 Counts of Malversation of Public Funds o Further said he did not lend his license
through Falsification of Public Documents to other people
o He also did not receive any amount
FACTS: as payment
 Mayor Pantaleon appointed Engr. Ramos as
Acring Municipal Engineer SANDIGANBAYAN:
o He asked Engr. Ramos to prepare 3  3 counts of malversation of public funds
programs of work for 3 projects: through falsification of public documents
 Upgrading of Barangay
Roads SC:
 Upgrading of Barangay  Affirmed Sandiganbayan’s ruling
Roads  All elements of Malversation are present
 Construction of market stalls  Falsification has been a necessary means to
at Castillejos public market commit malversation
 He asked Engr. Ramos to place dates earlier  Article 171 (2)
than March 1988 on the said programs of o Vallejos filled up spaces for the
work when in fact they were just made on voucher number and accounting
March 1998. entry
o They placed January 5, 1998 on the o These are supposed to be filled up by
first and the third Nida
o They placed January 4, 1998 on the  Article 171 (5)
second o Pantaleon and Vallejos asked Engr.
 On the basis of these, the assailed Ramos to place different dates on
disbursement vouchers were issued— the programs of works
allegedly for the purpose of paying the o Appellants them affixed their
service of La Paz Construction in the signatures
construction of the projects o These programs of work then
 It was later on discovered that the vouchers became the basis of issuing
were illegally disbursed and misappropriated disbursement vouchers

COMPLAINTS AGAINST PETITIONERS  Vallejos contended he is NOT under the

 The disbursement vouchers were not signed jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan because his
by the municipal accountant and budget salary grade is SG 24
officer o SC ruled that in a conspiracy, if one of
 Sangguniang Bayan did not adopt a the accused is under the jurisdiction
resolution authorizing Pantaleon to enter into of the Sandiganbayan, others who
a contract with La Paz Construction are supposedly not under its
 No projects were actually undertaken jurisdiction will be covered as well.
 The projects were already existing even
before the programs of work were prepared
 Nida, the senior bookkeeper, reviewed the
vouchers only after they were already paid;
Pagaduan signed on her behalf without her
consent
o She alleged that Pantaleon
approved the vouchers although
they did not pass through her office
for pre-audit
AVELLA GARCIA v. COURT OF APPEALS
CHARGE: Falsification of Private Documents under
Article 172(2) in relation with Article 171(6)
SC: Petitioner GUILTY of the crime charged
FACTS
 A verbal agreement was entered into by
Alberto Quijada, Jr. and Avella Garcia,
regarding the sale of Quijada’s house and lot
located at Mandaluyong for 1.2 million pesos
 Transactions:
o Earnest money: 10,000
o Down payment: 155,000
o 2nd down payment: 5,000
 Regarding the third transaction, Garcia
prepared 2 copies of handwritten receipts
which were later on signed by Quijada and
his sister as a witness.
 Quijada and Garcia’s relationship later on
turned sour as Quijada failed to execute a
deed of sale and deliver the subject property
to Garcia.
o With this, Garcia filed a complaint for
ESTAFA against Quijada
o Garcia admitted as evidence her
copy of the 3rd transaction’s receipt
 Quijada noticed the ff. alterations and
intercalations on the receipts presented by
Garcia
o The word “fifty” was inserted before
the word “five” to make it appear as
“fifty five thousand pesos”
o The number “5” was inserted before
“5,000” to make it appear as “55,000”
o Additional words were inserted at the
last sentence: “now covered by T.C.T.
#3998 R.D. Mandaluyong M.M. the
parties agree to execute of valid
deed of conveyance covering the
same sale”
o “January 21” was altered to become
“January 24”
o On the upper left hand corner of the
receipt, there now appears the value
of “55,000” with the word “value”
under it
 With these, Quijada instituted an action
against Garcia.
CITY PROSECUTOR:
 Garcia committed an offense under Article
172 of the RPC
GARCIA’S CONTENTION:
 3 days after she paid 5,000 to Quijada, she
called Architect Cunanan to borrow 50,000.
 Architect Cunanan lent her money which she
immediately handed to Quijada.
 Quijada told her to just “add” the necessary
changes in her receipt as he has not brought
his copy.
 Garcia made the changes in his presence,
but Quijada was not able to sign it as he was
in a hurry to leave.
RTC:
 Garcia’s defenses unworthy of belief
 If by her claim, she made the changes in the
receipt while Quijada was counting the
money, it would not have taken more than 5
seconds to affix his signature thereon even if
he was in a hurry to leave.
 All elements of Article 172(2) in relation with
Article 171(6) have been proven beyond
reasonable doubt
CA:
 Affirmed the conviction but lowered the
penalty
SC:
 All elements of Article 172(2) in relation with
Article 171(6) have been proven beyond
reasonable doubt
o Private individual, private document
o Element of damage: It was made to
appear that Quijada received 50,000
when in fact he did not
 GARCIA GUILTY OF FALSIFICATION OF
PRIVATE DOCUMENTS
ELENO REGIDOR, JR. and CAMILO ZAPATOS v. COURT
OF APPEALS
CHARGE: Seven counts of Falsification of Public
Documents under Article 171 (2) and (7)
SC: Guilty if the crime charged
FACTS:
 Mayor Regidor and Sangguniang
Panglungsod member Zapatos and two
others were charged of seven counts of
Falsification of Public Documents.
 They made it appear that the following
resolutions were taken up, deliberated, and
passed upon by the Sangguniang
Panglungsod of Tangub
o Resolution granting salary increase to
employees
o Resolution approving supplemental
budget
o Resolution approving supplemental
budget
o Resolution requesting the
appointment of Dr. Sinfronia del
Castillo as City Health Officer in
Tangub Health Office
o Resolution reverting the amount of
100,000 from the construction of the
sports center to cover up deficiencies
of appropriation in the infrastructure
funds
o Resolution adopting a position paper
regarding the continued existence
and operation of Tangub City
o Resolution requesting the purchase of
10 units of motorcab, 12 microscope
compound, 1 set of encyclopedia, 1
set of Britannica Dictionary, 7 units of
electric typewriter, 1 unit electric fan,
and 1 unit of Lombardini diesel
engine for the use of offices
 During one session of the Sangguniang
Panglungsod, the Council was presented
with the Minutes of the Meetings for the
sessions held June 23 and 30, and July 14 and
21.
o These minutes reflected the
resolutions allegedly taken up,
deliberated, and passed upon by the
Sanggunian
 The Sanggunian Members questioned the
validity of the resolutions as they were not
taken up, deliberated, and passed upon by
them.
o They were in fact prevented from
attending the sessions of the
Sanggunian for 7 months as the
schedule of the sessions was
randomly changed without them
being notified
CONTENTIONS OF THE ACCUSED:
 Mayor Regidor contended that before
approving said resolutions, he consulted his
counsel to check if there are any irregularities
in the resolutions and whether or not they are
beneficial to the City of Tangub
 He said he did not attend the sessions of the
Sanggunian as it is an independent office
 He asserts that he signed the resolutions in
good faith, relying only on the certification of
the Presiding Officer that the said resolutions
are valid and lawful
 He further claimed that the resolutions were
actually passed upon.
o The minutes of the sessions were thus
inaccurate since the entire
proceedings were not entirely taken
down by the stenographer
DILG: The accused were found not guilty
 With this, the complainants signed an
affidavit of desistance thinking that the
Sandiganbayan was bound by DILG’s
findings
 The complainants still pursued the cases
against the accused and thereafter filed
criminal complaints against them in the
Sandiganbayan
SANDIGANBAYAN:
 Petitioner’s defenses of good faith and lack
of intent failed to cast doubt on the
prosecution’s allegations
 7 counts of Falsification of Public Documents
SC:
 FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS
ELEMENTS:
o 1) that the offender is a public
officer, employee, or notary public;
 o 2) that he takes advantage of his
official position; and
o 3) that he falsifies a document by
committing any of the
aforementioned acts.
- in falsification of public or
official documents, it is not
necessary that there be
present the idea of gain or the
intent to injure a third person
because in the falsification of
a public document, what is
punished is the violation of the
public faith and the
destruction of the truth as
therein solemnly proclaimed.
 The petitioners are charged under Article
171, paragraphs 2 and 7 of the Revised Penal
Code.
o Petitioners made it appear that
private complainants, among others,
participated in the Sangguniang
Panglungsod sessions when they did
not in fact so participate; and
o issued, in authenticated forms, the
assailed resolutions purporting to be
copies of original documents when
no such originals exist
 Alll the elements of the offense punishable
under Article 171, paragraphs 2 and 7 of the
Revised Penal Code are present in this case.
 While the petitioners do not wish to impute
much significance to the minutes, they are
important in the resolution of this case.
o The minutes taken in the pertinent
proceeding are important, relying
thereon to ascertain the truth when
confronted by conflicting claims of
parties.
 The Court accords full recognition to the
minutes as the official repository of what
actually transpires in every proceeding. It has
happened that the minutes may be
corrected to reflect the true account of a
proceeding, thus giving the Court more
reason to accord them great weight for such
subsequent corrections, if any, are made
precisely to preserve the accuracy of the
records. In light of the conflicting claims of
the parties in the case at bar, the Court,
without resorting to the minutes, will
encounter difficulty in resolving the dispute at
hand.
o Indeed, if the minutes merely omitted
any mention of the discussion on, and
approval of, the subject resolutions,
there would have been no need to
resubmit them for the approval of the
Sanggunian. It would have been
more convenient to simply effect the
correction of the minutes.
 OFFENSES
o Firstly, the accused caused it to
appear in a document that members
of the Sangguniang Panglungsod
participated in the sessions,
deliberations and passed the
questioned resolutions.
o Secondly, the accused are found to
have committed the act of issuing in
authenticated form, a document
purporting to be a copy of an original
document when no such document
exists. In issuing the subject
Resolutions, Mayor Eleno T. Regidor,
Jr., Vice-Mayor Aniceto T. Siete and
SP Camilo B. Zapatos, consummated
the crime of falsification by
purporting them to be original copies
of valid, deliberated and approved
resolutions when no such documents
exist and no proceedings regarding
them ever took place as established
by the prosecution. Their defense that
the minutes of the sessions were
inaccurate and did not reflect the
deliberations concerning the
questioned resolutions, does not
convince this Court.
DECISION:
 Sandiganbayan ruling affirmed.
 7 counts of Falsification of Public Documents
under Article 171 (2) and (7)
ROBERTO GUILLERGAN v PEOPLE
CHARGE: Estafa through Falsification of Public
Documents
SANDIGANBAYAN and THE SC: Falsification of Public
Documents under Art. 172 in relation with Article
171(2)
FACTS:
 Guillergan, a Lieutenant Colonel in the
Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP),
directed Seclon (Seclon), Chief Clerk of the
Comptroller’s Office, to prepare the payrolls
of their civilian intelligence agents (CIAs). The
information on the payroll were certified as
correct by Guillergan and then approved by
Brigadier General Rio (Rio).
 Each time the processing unit returned the
payrolls for lack of signatures of the payees,
Guillergan would direct Butcon, the Budget
and Fiscal Non-Commissioned Officer, to
affix his initial on the "Remarks/Sig" column of
the payrolls to complete the requirements
and facilitate the processing of the time
record, book, and payrolls.
 Information alleged that Guillergan
committed falsification by making it appear
in several public documents that
P1,519,000.00 in AFP funds intended for the
CIAs’ payroll were paid for that purpose
when in truth these were just given to Rio,
resulting in damage and prejudice to the
government.
 The AFP Anti-Graft Board filed a complaint
against Rio, Butcon, Maclang, Jr., Seclon,
and Guillergan for violating Articles of War 94
in relation to Article 217 of the Revised Penal
Code (RPC).
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN-VISAYAS:
 Dismissal of the case
OMBUDSMAN INVESTIGATOR:
 Recommends filing of charges of illegal use
of public funds
SANDIGANBAYAN SECOND DIVISION:
 Guillergan guilty of falsification penalized
under Article 172 of the RPC
ISSUES:
 1. Whether or not the Sandiganbayan can
convict Guillergan of violation of Article 172
of the RPC under an Information that
charged him with estafa in relation to Article
171 of the code; and
 2. Whether or not petitioner is guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of falsification
of public documents.
SC RULING:
 1. YES. Although the charge was estafa in
relation to Article 171 of the RPC, the facts
alleged in the information sufficiently made
out a case for violation of Article 172 of which
Guillergan was convicted.
o What is important is that the
Information described the latter
offense intelligibly and with
reasonable certainty, enabling
Guillergan to understand the charge
against him and suitably prepare his
defense.
 2. YES. What is punished in falsification of a
public document is the violation of the public
faith and the destruction of the truth as
solemnly proclaimed in it.
 The elements of falsification of documents
under paragraph 1, Article 172 are:
o 1) the offender is a private individual
or a public officer or employee who
did not take advantage of his official
position;
o 2) the offender committed any of the
acts of falsification enumerated in
Article 171; and
o 3) the falsification was committed in
a public or official or commercial
document.
 All of the foregoing elements of Article 172
are present in this case.
 1. GUILLERGAN DID NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF
HIS OFFICIAL POSITION
o His work as comptroller did not
include the preparation of the
appointments and payrolls of CIAs.
Nor did he have official custody of
the pertinent documents. His official
function was limited to keeping the
records of the resources that the
command received from Camp
Crame. Still, he took the liberty of
intervening in the preparation of the
time record, book, and payrolls in
question.

2. GUILLERGAN CAUSED IT TO APPEAR THAT

PERSONS PARTICIPATED IN AN ACT OR A
PROCEEDING WHEN THEY DID NOT IN FACT
SO PARTICIPATE.
o a person may induce another to
commit a crime in two ways: 1) by
giving a price or offering a reward or
promise; and 2) by using words of
command.
o Sandiganbayan found that
Guillergan ordered Butcon to sign the
"receive" portion of the payrolls as
payee to make it appear that
persons whose names appeared on
the same had signed the document
when they in fact did not.

3. There is no dispute that the falsification was

committed on the time record, book, and
payrolls which were public documents.

DECISION:
 Guillergan guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of Falsification of Public Documents under
Article 172 of the RPC.
 Court DENIES the petition and AFFIRMS the
Sandiganbayan’s decision
JUDGE DOLORES ESPAÑOL, RTC, Branch 90 of
Dasmariñas, Cavite v JUDGE LORINDA TOLEDO-
MUPAS, MTC, Dasmariñas, Cavite
CHARGE: Gross Ignorance of the Law
FACTS:
 The respondent was charged with gross
ignorance of the law for her act of issuing
“Detention Pending Investigation” Orders
 On three separate occasions prior to this
case, she was found guilty of gross ignorance
of the law. Aside from this, she was adjudged
guilty of incompetence and gross
misconduct.
 Aside from these offenses, the Office of the
Court Administrator (OCA) in its Report on the
Judicial Audit conducted at the MTC of
Dasmariñas, Cavite has again fount
respondent of exhibiting gross ignorance of
the law and of being guilty of other serious
offenses:
1. Respondent failed to act on motions for
execution filed by the prevailing parties in
cases which have already become final and
executory
o She failed to explain why there were
motions for execution of decided
cases which she had not acted upon
for a considerably long time
o GROSS INEFFICIENCY
2. Respondent failed to forward to the Office of
the Provincial Prosecutor of Cavite the
records of at least 370 cases she dismissed
after preliminary investigation. The parties
adversely affected by the dismissal of the
complaints after preliminary investigation
were denied the statutory right of review that
should’ve been conducted by the provincial
prosecutor
o Her supposed omission or oversight
which remained uncorrected for 7
years smacks of malice and bad faith
rather than pure and plain ignorance
o GROSS MISCONDUCT and CONDUCT
PREJUDICIAL TO THE BEST INTEREST OF
THE SERVICE
3. Respondent was able to draw her salaries by
submitting fraudulent certificates of service
to the effect that she had no undecided
cases.
o Falsification of one’s certificate
renders a public officer liable for
serious misconduct under Sec. 1, Rule
140 of the Rules of Court but also
criminally liable under Articles 174
and 175 of the RPC
o SERIOUS MISCONDUCT and
FALSIFICATION OF CERTIFICATES OF
SERVICE
4. With regard to cases which remain
undecided even beyond the reglementary
period, it appears that in most of these, 30
days have elapsed from the date of
submission of the case for decision.
o Respondent contended that the
reckoning period should be 90 days
as provided in the Constitution
o Her arguments have exposed her
gross ignorance of the law and mires
her even more into a deeper hole
from which there was neither reprieve
nor escape.
o GROSS INEFFICIENCY
5. Respondent failed to refute the findings of
the OCA that the court records in her sala
were in disarray which compromises their
confidentiality and integrity.
6. In the Court’s decision in the present case,
respondent still continued with the practice
of issuing documents denominated as
“Detention Pending Investigation of the
Case” even after her attention has been
called. Even worse, she remained insistent in
her erroneous belief that such document was
an implied waiver of the rights of the
accused under Art. 125 of the RPC.
7. Respondent insists that the report of OCA did
not reflect the true and factual
circumstances which were pending and
decided by the MTC of Dasmariñas, Cavite.
SC: Gross ignorance of the Law, with suspension of
salaries and other benefits
PEOPLE v FRANCISCO HILVANO
FACTS:
 Mayor Fidencio Latorre of Villareal, Samar,
departed for Manila on official business.
o he designated the herein Defendant
Francisco Hilvano, councilor, to
discharge the duties of his office.
o 
 Later, during office hours on that same day,
Vice-Mayor Juan Latorre went to the
municipal building; and having found
Hilvano acting in the place of the Mayor, he
served written notices to the corresponding
municipal officers, including Hilvano, that he
as Vice-Mayor was assuming the duties of the
absent mayor.
o However, Hilvano refused to yield,
arguing that he had been
designated by the Mayor.
o departments of government (legislative,
 Vice-Mayor sent a telegram to the Executive
Secretary informing the latter of the
controversy.
o Secretary replied by letter, that under
sec. 2195 of the Revised
Administrative Code it was the Vice-
Mayor who should discharge the
duties of the Mayor during the latter’s
temporary absence.
o Shown this official pronouncement,
Hilvano still refused to surrender the
position.
o the provincial fiscal, he had no right
 Again the Vice-Mayor sought the opinion of
the Provincial Fiscal, who by letter, replied
that the Vice-Mayor had the right to the
office.
o Notwithstanding such opinion which
was exhibited to him — Hilvano
declined to vacate the post, which
he held for about a month,
appointing some policemen,
solemnizing marriages and collecting
the corresponding salary for mayor.
Solicitor-General and Appellant’s counsel:
 agree that the penal provision applicable to
the case is Republic Act No. 379 which
amended Art. 177 of the Revised Penal Code
APPELLANT’S CONTENTION:
 he committed no usurpation of authority
because he was a councilor, an official of
the Government, and that such crime may
only be committed by private individuals.
SC:
There is actually no reason to restrict the
operation of Article 177 to private individuals.
For one thing it applies to “any person”;
where the law does not distinguish, we should
not distinguish.
 Furthermore, contrary to Appellant’s
assumption that Articles 238-241 of the
Revised Penal Code penalize all kinds of
usurpation of official functions by public
officers, said articles merely punish
interference by officers of one of the three
executive and judicial) with the functions of
officials of another department. Said articles
do not cover usurpation of one officer or
employee of a given department of the
powers of another officer in the same
department.
 There is no excuse for Defendant-Appellant.
In the beginning he might have pleaded
good faith, invoking the designation by the
Mayor; after he had been shown the letter of
the Executive Secretary and the opinion of
thereafter stubbornly to stick to the position.
DECISION:
 Usurpation of Public Authority under Article
177 as amended by RA 379
JOSE MIRANDA v SANDIGANBAYAN
FACTS:
 The Ombudsman placed petitioner under
preventive suspension for 6 months
o Allegedly violating RA 6713 or the
Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and
Employees
 Vice Mayor Amelita Navarro filed a
complaint with the Ombudsman against
Mayor Miranda for committing the following
acts in spite of the suspension:
o Issued memorandum addressed to
Vice Mayor advising her that he was
already assuming his post as the
mayor
o Gave directives to the heads of
offices and other employees
o Issued orders which authorized
certain persons to work
o Insisted on performing the functions
and duties of a mayor despite
Navarro advising him to desist from
doing without a valid court order and
in spite of the DILG directing him to
cease from reassuming the post
 Navarro said Miranda violated Article 177 of
the RPC
CONTENTION OF THE PETITIONER:
 He reassumed the office in good faith and on
the advice of his lawyer
 Contended that under the Local
Government Code, local elective officials
cannot be preventively suspended for more
than 60 days
 On the day he reassumed the office, he
received a memo from the DILG Secretary
instructing him to vacate his office, and he
immediately complied with the same after
he has been coerced by the PNP
SANDIGANBAYAN:
 Preventively suspended Miranda for 90 days
 It held that violation of Article 177 involves
fraud
o FRAUD is deemed to comprise
anything calculated to deceive,
including all acts, omissions, or
concealment involving a breach of
legal or equitable duty, trust, or
confidence justly reposed, resulting to
damage to another or by which an
undue and unconscious advantage
is taken of another
PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS:
 Violation of Article 177 does not involve fraud
upon government funds or property, hence it
is not a ground of suspension
SC:
 Section 13 of RA 3019 or the Anti Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act, which talks about
Suspension and Loss of benefits,
contemplates 2 types of offenses
o Any offense involving fraud on the
government
o Any offense involving public funds or
property
- Nothing in the provision limits it
to acts involving public funds
or property only
 Apparently, “fraud upon the government”
was committed by the petitioner when he
assumed the duties and performed the acts
pertaining to the Office of the Mayor under
the pretense of official position
o FRAUD UPON THE GOV’T: any
instance or act of trickery or deceit
against the government
o Sandiganbayan: Petitioner’s acts
resulted to a clear disruption of office,
and worst, a chaotic situation in the
affairs of the government as the
employees, as well as the public,
suffered confusion as to who is the
head of the office
 OFFENSE INVOLVING PUBLIC FUNDS OR
PROPERTY
o When petitioner appointed persons in
various posts, he indirectly dealt with
public funds as those persons
appointed will be given their
respective salaries and benefits.
o When he performed acts pertaining
to the Office of the Mayor, he likewise
indirectly dealt w/public funds
(approval of vouchers, etc)
  On petitioner’s defense of good faith:
o by his own admission he said he
refused to leave the position despite
the memo of the DILG Secretary. Only
a few days after his receipt thereof
due to PNP’s coercion did he vacate
the post

 On petitioner’s defense that he cannot be

preventively suspended by the Ombudsman
for more than 60 days under Sec. 63 of the
Local Government Code
o Said provision does not govern the
Ombudsman’s power of preventive
suspension
o Ombudsman’s power of preventive
suspension is governed by RA 6770 or
the Ombudsman’s Act of 1989
- Under this, the Ombudsman is
allowed to suspend for a
period not exceeding 6
months

DECISION:
 Petition dismissed
 Mayor Miranda guilty of violating Article 177
of the RPC for usurping official authority and
functions
LEOVEGILDO RUZOL v SANDIGANBAYAN
CHARGE: Violation of Article 177, Usurpation of
Official Functions
FACTS:
 Ruzol was the Mayor of General Nakar,
Quezon from 2001-2004.
 He organized a Multi-Sectoral Consultative
Assembly composed of civil society groups,
public officials, and concerned stakeholders
o It has the end view of regulating and
monitoring the transportation of
salvaged forest products within the
vicinity of General Nakar
 During the said assembly, participants
agreed that to regulate the salvaged forest
products, the Office of the Mayor, through
Ruzol, shall issue a permit to transport after the
payment of corresponding fees to the
municipal treasurer.
o All in all, the Office of the Mayor was
able to issue 221 permits
- 43 was signed by Ruzol
- 178 were signed by his co-
accused Sabiduria, the
municipal administrator of
General Nakar
 With these, 221 Informations for violations of
Article 177 or for Usurpation of Authority or
Official Functions were filed
o They allege that the accused issued
permits under the pretense of official
position and without being lawfully
authorized to do so
o The duty of issuing such permits
belongs to the DENR, and with the
accused issuing such, the
government had been prejudiced
DEFENSES OF RUZOL
 As Chief Executive of General Nakar, he is
authorized to issue permits to transport forest
products pursuant to RA 7160 which gives the
LGU nit only express powers but also those
powers that are necessarily implied from the
powers expressly granted as well as those
that are necessary, appropriate, or
incidental to the LGU’s efficient and effective
governance
 RA 7160 has also devolved certain functions
and responsibilities of the DENR to the LGU.
The permits to transport wee issued pursuant
to the devolved function to manage and
control communal forests with an area not
exceeding 50 km.
 The only kind of document being issued by
the DENR relating to log, timber or lumber is
denominated as “Certificate of
Timber/Lumber Origin” (CTO or CLO).
o Even if accused issued the Transport
Permits, a person wanting to transport
said forest products would have to
apply for CTO or CLO from the DENR
o Permits issued by the accused are not
intended to substitute the CTO or
CLO. This is the reason why the
permits contain the note “subject to
DENR rules, laws, and regulations”
 DENR directly sanctioned and expressly
authorized the issuance of the 221 Permits
through the Provincial Environment and
Natural Resources Officer in the Multi-
Sectoral Consultative Assembly
 He cannot be convicted of Usurpation of
Official Authority since he did not act under
the pretense of official position. There was no
pretense or misrepresentation on his part that
he was an officer of DENR as he issued the
permits in his capacity as the Mayor
SANDIGANBAYAN:
 Ruzol’s issuance of the permits constitutes
Usurpation of the Official Functions of the
DENR under Article 177 of the RPC
 Sabiduria acquitted on the ground of
reasonable doubt
 The authority to issue Transport Permits with
respect to salvaged forest products lies with
the DENR, and such authority had not been
devolved to the local government of
General Nakar.
o PD 705 or the Revised Forestry Code
of the Philippines in relation with EO
192 or the Reorganization Act of the
DENR
 “Monitoring and regulating salvaged forest
products” is not one of the DENR’s functions
which had been devolved upon LGUs
o Section 17 of RA 7160 or the Local
Government Code of 1991
  Ruzol did not act in good faith, for if he did resources within the LGU’s territorial
so, why did he have to secure the approval jurisdiction
of various NGOs and other organizations if he
truly believed he was legally empowered to  Nevertheless, Permits to Transport issued by
do so? Ruzol were invalid for failing to comply with
SC: the procedural requirements set forth by law
 Disagrees with the ruling of the for its enforcement.
Sandiganbayan o An enabling ordinance is necessary
 Under the LGC of 1991, LGUs also have to confer the subject permits with
ample authority to promulgate rules, validity
regulations, and ordinances to monitor and o In the absence of an ordinance for
regulate salvaged forest products, provided the regulation and transportation of
that it complies with the parameters set forth salvaged products, the permits to
by law transport issued by Ruzol are infirm
o The DENR has the “primary” but not
the “sole” authority to exercise such  As to violation of Article 177:
function o Failed to prove according to the
o Neither PD 705 nor EO 192 suggests surrounding circumstances that Ruzol
that DENR has the exclusive authority is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
to do such function usurping the official functions of the
 Municipal governments are clothed with DENR.
authority to enact such ordinances and issue o Prosecution rests principally on the
such regulations as may be necessary to assertion that DENR is the sole
carry out and discharge the responsibilities government instrumentality that can
conferred upon them by law to ensure and issue permits to transport salvaged
protect the general welfare in the forest products.
municipality - As discussed, this has been
 Oposa v Factoran: proven to be erroneous
o Right of the people to a balanced o Also, Ruzol acted in good faith.
and healthful ecology carries with it Contrary to what the Sandiganbayan
the correlative duty to refrain from said, there is no doctrine or law which
impairing the environment provides that bad faith is present
o An LGU may, if necessary, when one seeks the opinion or
promulgate ordinances aimed at affirmation of others.
enhancing the right of the people to - It is actually a sign of Ruzol’s
a balanced and healthful ecology, good intention to regulate
and accordingly provide adequate and monitor the movement of
measures in the proper utility and salvaged forest products to
conservation of natural resources prevent abuse and
within its territorial jurisdiction occurrence of unknown
 LGUs share with the national government, illegal logging
particularly the DENR, the responsibility in the - Actus non facit reum nisi mens
sustainable management and development sit rea (there can be no crime
of the environment and natural resources when the criminal mind is
within their territorial jurisdiction wanting)
 Requirement of permits to transport salvaged - Prosecution failed to prove
forest products is not a manifestation of beyond reasonable doubt
usurpation of DENR’s authority but rather an that Ruzol possessed such
additional measure meant to complement “criminal mind”
DENR’s duty to regulate and monitor forest
DECISION: Ruzol ACQUITTED of the crime charged
ESTRADA v SANDIGANBAYAN
CHARGE:
 Information for plunder was filed, and
separate from this is an information for illegal
use of alias
FACTS:
 Estrada, in order to conceal the ill-gotten
wealth he acquired during his tenure and his
true identity as the President of the
Philippines, unlawfully represented himself as
“JOSE VELARDE” in several transactions
 Jose Velarde, which is neither his registered
name at birth nor his baptismal name, was
used in signing documents with Equitable PCI
Bank and/or other corporate entities
o Estrada opened a numbered trust
account under Philippine
Commercial and Industrial Bank
(PCIB) and signed as Jose Velarde in
the account opening documents
o A certain Baby Ortaliza deposited
several checks under such account
ESTRADA’S CONTENTIONS:
 Use of numbered accounts and the like was
legal and was prohibited only in late 2001
 There is no proof of public and habitual use
of alias as the documents offered by the
prosecution are banking documents which
are confidential in nature and cannot be
revealed without following proper
procedures.
 Use of alias is absorbed in plunder
SANDIGANBAYAN:
 Due to the nature of the transactions, it could
be deemed that Estrada did NOT publicly
use the alias “Jose Velarde”
 It rejected the application of the law on libel
stating that mere communication to a third
party is publicity. Estrada’s use of the alias in
front of the banking officers is one such
privileged communication under RA 1405 as
amended
o Confidentiality and secrecy negates
publicity
 The intention not to be publicly known as
Jose Velarde is shown by the nature of a
numbered account
 The absolute prohibition in RA 9160 against
the use of anonymous or accounts under
fictitious names and the like , is a legislative
acknowledgement that a gaping hole in the
previously existing laws allowed depositors to
hide their true identities
o Hence, it must proves that the use of
numbered accounts is valid
SC:
 Affirmed Sandiganbayan’s ruling
 The Ursua ruling defines alias as:
o Name or names used by a person or
intended to be used by him publicly
and habitually usually in business
transactions in addition to his real
name by which he is registered at
birth or baptized the first time or
substitute name authorized by a
competent authority
o There must be a “sign or indication
that the user intends to be known by
this name in addition to his real name
from that day forth for the use of alias
to fall within the prohibition
contained in CA 142 as amended
 Applying the doctrine of stare decisis, Ursua
ruling must be upheld
 HABITUALITY ISSUE
o All transactions presented in the case
refers to February 4, 2000.
o Use of the phrase “prior or subsequent
thereto” erroneous
 PUBLICITY ISSUE
o Mere communication to a third party
is not publicity
o There must be intention by the user to
be culpable
o Use of alias must be made openly or
in an open manner or place, or to
cause it to become generally known
o To be held liable under CA 142, user
of the alias must have held himself out
as a person who shall publicly be
known under that other name.
o INTENT TO PUBLICLY USE SUCH ALIAS
MUST BE MANIFEST
o The presence of two other person
when Estrada signed as Jose Velarde
 and opened a trust account does not
necessarily indicate his intention to
be known publicly as Jose Velarde
o Banking transactions are in nature
private and confidential
o RA 1405 or the Bank Secrecy Law
proves that the transaction is not
intended to be exposed to publicity

DECISION:
 Petition denied. Sandiganbayan ruling
affirmed.
 Accused not guilty of violating Article 178 of
the RPC
ANTONIO MONFORT III and ILDEFONSO MONFORT v
MA. ANTONIA SALVATIERRA, et. Al.
FACTS:
 Petitioners are children of the late Antonio
Monfort Jr, one if the original stakeholders
of/incorporators of the Monfort Hermanos
Agricultural Development Corporation
(MHADC)
 Petitioners filed a letter-complaint for perjury
under Article 183 of the RPC against private
respondents
o Allegedly, they made false
statements in their counter-affidavits
which they submitted to the City
Prosecutor of Cadiz in connection
with another complaint for perjury
earlier filed by petitioners against
them
o false statements referred to the
declarations of the private
respondents that the 1996 annual
stockholders’ meeting of the MHADC
was held on October 16, 1996, and
that they were elected as board
directors of the MHADC during the
same meeting.
o Petitioners insisted that the 1996
annual stockholders’ meeting of the
MHADC was held on November 27,
1996. Further, there is nothing in the
1996 GIS of the MHADC which states
that an election of the board of
directors of the MHADC took place
on 16 October 1996.
o the LDA had rectified the same by
submitting a letter to the SEC
informing the latter that the annual
stockholders’ meeting of the MHADC
for the year 1996 was held on 16
October 1996 and not on 27
November 1996;
o that what transpired on 27 November
1996 was not the annual
stockholders’ meeting of the MHADC
but merely a special meeting of the
board of directors thereof; and, that,
the private respondents were
elected as board directors of the
MHADC during the annual
stockholders’ meeting on 16 October
1996.
 Private respondents thus argue that they
cannot be held liable for perjury since one of
the elements of perjury under Article 183 of
the Revised Penal Code is that the assertion
of falsehood must be willful and deliberate;
that the terms willful and deliberate imply
malice and evil intent in asserting falsehood;
and that this element is lacking in the case at
bar.

CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED:

 the MHADC’s corporate accountant,
Litonjua, Desabelle and Associates (LDA),
was responsible for the preparation of the
MHADC’s GIS
o the LDA made erroneous statements
in the 1996 GIS of MHADC; that the
erroneous statements refer to the
date of the MHADC’s annual
stockholders’ meeting and the
persons composing the MHADC’s
board of directors;
o the LDA had admitted having
committed such honest error;