Case 9-10.docx

G.R. No. 144026 FERNANDO S. DIZON vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES FACTS: Petitioner was charged with falsification of a private document. Under arraignment on 17 May 1991, accused petitioner pleaded not guilty to the offense charged. This criminal case against petitioner originated from a civil action[4] for prohibition, damages with petition for the issuance of temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction filed by Titan Construction Corporation and Fernando M. Sopot on 25 January 1991 against the members of the Pre-Post Qualification Bids and Awards Committee (PBAC) and the Public Estates Authority (PEA). In said civil case, plaintiffs maintained that the members of the PBAC and the PEA erroneously awarded to First United Construction Corporation, in a bidding held on 30 October 1990, the contract for the construction of the Bahay Pangarap Project of the PEA. A witness for the prosecution, Atty. Jaime Linsangan, counsel for Titan Construction Corporation, presented certain documents submitted by First United Construction Corporation during the bidding conducted on the Bahay Pangarap Project. According to Atty. Linsangan, he had presented a copy of said certification to the officers of Titan Construction Corporation, and upon verification learned that the projects mentioned in said certification were never undertaken by First United Construction Corporation. He was likewise informed by the same officers that the signature on the said certification was not the signature of the former President of Titan Construction Corporation, Vicente Liwag. After trial and a perusal of the evidence presented, the trial court concluded that petitioner, then the Executive Vice President of First United Construction Corporation, in his desire to join public biddings, requested his father to secure a certification that would show that he had participated in some of the projects of Titan Construction Corporation, knowing fully well that he in fact had not participated in any of Titan Construction Corporation’s projects. His father, in turn gave the petitioner a certification allegedly from Titan Construction Corporation declaring that First United Construction Corporation had participated in the construction of the three projects mentioned therein. The said certification was material to enable First United Construction Corporation to qualify for the prequalification bid for the Bahay Pangarap Project of the PEA. As a result of the submission of said certification, First United Construction Corporation pre-qualified and was thereafter awarded the project, causing the other bidders, including Titan Construction Corporation, to lose and thus, sustain loss. Consequently, the trial court rendered a judgment of conviction on 22 April 1993. Aggrieved, petitioner appealed the conviction before the Court of Appeals. On 29 November 1999, the appellate court rendered the assailed Decision affirming the judgment of the trial court with modification of the penalty, the dispositive part of which states: ISSUE Whether or not accused is guilty of falsification of private document? RULING: Petitioner Fernando S. Dizon is no guilty of the crime of Falsification of Private Document as defined and penalized under Art. 172, par. 2, in relation to Art. 171, par. 4, of the Revised Penal Code, on reasonable doubt. In order to properly address the issues presented by petitioner, it is necessary that we discuss the elements of the crime of Falsification of Private Document under the Revised Penal Code which the petitioner has been accused of perpetrating. The elements of Falsification under Paragraph 2 of Article 172 are as follows: 1. That the offender committed any of the acts of falsification, except those in par. 7, enumerated in Art. 171; 2. That the falsification was committed in any private document; 3. That the falsification caused damage to a third party or at least the falsification was committed with intent to cause such damage. Under Article 171, par. 2, a person may commit falsification of a private document by causing it to appear in a document that a person or persons participated in an act or proceeding, when such person or persons did not in fact so participate in the act or proceeding. On the other hand, falsification under par. 4 of Article 171 is perpetrated by a person who, having a legal obligation to disclose the truth, makes in a document statements in a narration of facts which are absolutely false with the wrongful intent of injuring a third person.

In order that petitioner may be convicted of falsification under par. 2 of Article 171, it is essential that it be proved beyond reasonable doubt that he had caused it to appear that Mr. VicenteLiwag had authorized the issuance of said certification, when in truth, Mr. Liwag did not partake in said issuance of the certificate. Stated differently, for petitioner to be convicted of falsification under par. 2, the allegation in the Information that he “willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously prepare a document, to wit: a certification dated July 10, 1986, by stating and making it appear in said document x x x that the same was executed and signed by the President of Titan Construction Corporation, when in truth and in fact, as said accused well knew that said certification was not issued nor authorized to be issued by Titan Construction Corporation x x x and that the signature appearing in said certification as being that of Titan Construction Corporation’s President, x x x” must be clearly established. The threshold issue then is whether the signature of Mr. Vicente Liwag was forged. Contrary to the findings of the trial court, as affirmed by the appellate court, this Court deems that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, Atty. Jaime Linsangan and Jose Caneo, failed to prove with moral certainty that Mr. Liwag did not authorize the issuance of the certification. BERNARDINO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES NESTOR A. BERNARDINO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. NOS. 170453 & 170518 October 30, 2006 FACTS: The Sandiganbayan found Nestor Bernardino, a former Mayor of Guimba, Nueva Ecija, and other Prequalification Bid and Awards Committee (PBAC), guilty of falsification of public document. On December 8, 1997, the PBAC members convened as alleged. PBAC, assisted by COA representative Rolando Ronquillo, assessed the qualifications of four bidders who participated and thereafter awarded the construction project to MASCOM. Prior to construction, Jose Dizon was elected Mayor of Guimba and conducted a public bidding for the same construction project and awarded it to KYRO. Consequently, MASCOM filed before the Ombudsman a criminal compliant against Mayor Dizon for violation of Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019, otherwise known as the AntiGraft and Corrupt Practices Act. Mayor Dizon’s contention was manifested in an affidavit stating that no public bidding was held in connection with the construction project nor was the PBAC convened on December 8, 1997. On the basis of the admission of the affiants, the Ombudsman dismissed the case against Mayor Dizon and instead filed the case for falsification of public documents under Article 171(2) of the RPC against all PBAC members. The Information charged Bernardino and the PBAC members of falsification by making it appear in the "Minutes of the opening of bids," "Prequalification Bid and Award Committee," "Abstract of Proposal," and "Abstract of Bidding," that they and COA representative conducted a public bidding on December 8, 1997, when no such bidding was in fact conducted. At the trial, Ronquillo declared that he did not attend any public bidding regarding the construction project on December 8, 1997. He admitted, however, that he has no personal knowledge whether a bidding was conducted or not. The same was made by Mayor Dizon who admitted that he does not know whether the PBAC conducted a public bidding. The prosecution also offered in evidence the affidavits of some PBAC members in support of its theory that no public bidding was held. Motion for reconsideration as well as a motion for new trial on the basis of the alleged newly discovered evidence in form of affidavits stating that the falsification was caused by fear and intimidation of Mayor Dizon to bolster his defense in the charges against him, was denied. Thus the petition for review. ISSUE: Whether the guilt of Bernardino was proven beyond reasonable doubt. HELD: No. In the instant case, Bernardino was charged with falsification under Article 171(2) of the RPC, by causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact participate. Its elements are: (1) that the offender is a public officer, employee or notary public; (2) that he takes advantage of his official position; (3) that he falsifies a document by causing it to appear that a person or persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate. The evidence presented by the prosecution to establish that no bidding was conducted on December 8, 1997 were the affidavits of PBAC members and the testimonies of Ronquillo and Mayor Dizon could not be considered for purposes of determining whether a public bidding was indeed held on that day because of their admission that they do not have personal knowledge whether or not said bidding was indeed conducted. The affidavit and testimonies were merely an expression of an opinion and not a fact since the affiants were not in the place where the alleged bidding was held and are not in the position to declare with moral certainty that no such bidding in fact occurred.