Random law notes

uary 07, 2018

2005 by the Sandiganbayan convicting petitioners Paulino S. Ong

under Article 171, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code, as

He was elected Mayor of the same municipality in 1988 and served

the positions of Construction and Maintenance Man and Plumber

d Rivera were casual employees of the municipal government.
ered "No" to the question: "To the best of your knowledge, are you
le Rivera indicated "n/a" on the space for the list of the names of
by Galeos in his 1994 and 1995 SALN.5 Rivera in his 1995 SALN
also did not fill up the boxes indicating their answers to the same
when Galeos and Rivera executed the foregoing documents.

ervice Commission (CSC), Regional Office 7, Cebu City, it was

Code of 1991, all restrictions/requirements relative to creation of

e total/supplemental appropriation of a local government unit;
tern; Section 79 on nepotism; Section 80, posting of vacancy and
ce of this appointment.

dance with the requirements of the Civil Service Commission

ore the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB)-Visayas against Ong

of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
s.

dsman for the Visayas that criminal charges be filed against Ong,
amended, in connection with the Certification dated June 1, 1994
, 1995 and 1996 SALN of Galeos.10

es, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above-

or and Construction and Maintenance Man of the Office of the
o office, conniving and confederating together and mutually
and feloniously falsify a public document, consisting of a Sworn
ntification of Relatives In the Government Service, as of December
ng, wherein accused made it appear therein that they are not
ration of facts, when in truth and in fact, accused very well k[n]ew
Ong within the fourth degree of consanguinity, the mother of

es, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above-

or and Plumber I of the Office of the Municipal Engineer,
nd confederating together and mutually helping with each other,
public document, consisting of a Sworn Statement of Assets and
he Government Service as of December 31, 1993, filed by
sed Federico T. Rivera made it appear therein that he has no
untruthful statements in a narration of facts, when in truth and in
s related to accused Paulino S. Ong within the fourth degree of

s, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above-named

Construction and Maintenance Man of the Office of the Municipal
onniving and confederating together and mutually helping with
sly falsify a public document, consisting of a Sworn Statement of
elatives In the Government Service, as of December 31, 1995,
n accused made it appear therein that they are not related within
n in truth and in fact, as accused very well k[n]ew that they are
fourth degree of consanguinity, the mother of accused Rosalio S.

s, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above-named

Plumber I of the Office of the Municipal Engineer, Municipality of
g together and mutually helping with each other, with deliberate
nt, consisting of a Sworn Statement of Assets and Liabilities,
nment Service, [a]s of December 31, 1995, filed by accused
rico T. Rivera made it appear therein that he has no relatives
statements in a narration of facts, when in truth and in fact, as
d to accused Paulino S. Ong within the fourth degree of affinity, the

s, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above-named

Plumber I of the Office of the Municipal Engineer, Municipality of
g together and mutually helping with each other, with deliberate
nt, consisting of a Sworn Statement of Assets and Liabilities,
nment Service, [a]s of December 31, 1996, filed by accused
rico T. Rivera made it appear therein that he has no relatives
statements in a narration of facts, when in truth and in fact, as
d to accused Paulino S. Ong within the fourth degree of affinity, the
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above-named
Construction and Maintenance Man of the Office of the Municipal
onniving and confederating together and mutually helping with
sly falsify a public document, consisting of a Sworn Statement of
elatives In the Government Services, as of December 31, 1994,
n accused made it appear therein that they are not related within
when in truth and in fact, as accused very well k[n]ew that they
n the fourth degree of consanguinity, the mother of accused

and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above-named

Construction and Maintenance Man of the Office of the Municipal
onniving and confederating, together and mutually helping with
sly falsify a public document, consisting of a Sworn Statement of
elatives In the Government Service, as of December 31, 1996,
n accused made it appear therein that they are not related within
when in truth and in fact, as accused very well k[n]ew that they
n the fourth degree of consanguinity, the mother of accused

nd within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above-named

committing the offense in relation to office, with deliberate intent,
isting of a Certification in the form of a letter addressed to Mrs.
ated June 1, 1994, a requirement in the approval of an
d under the Civil Service Laws and Rules in the appointment of
Cebu, thereby making untruthful statements in a narration of
nepotic being made in violation of the Civil Service Rules and
since the mother of Rosalio S. Galeos is the sister of the mother
ment of public interest.

nd within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above-named

committing the offense in relation to office, with deliberate intent,
isting of a Certification in the form of a letter addressed to Mrs.
dated June 1, 1994, a requirement in the approval of an
d under the Civil Service Laws and Rules in the appointment of
ruthful statements in a narration of facts, when in truth and in fact
on of the Civil Service Rules and Laws on Nepotism, as Federico
’s wife is the sister of the mother of accused, which certification
 ions: (1) Ong was the Municipal Mayor of Cebu at all times
ther is the sister of Galeos’ mother, and to Rivera within the fourth
re employed as Construction and Maintenance Man and Plumber
wise admitted the genuineness and due execution of the
4) except for Exhibit "H" (Certification dated June 1, 1994 offered

dan, Naga, Cebu since 1930 and claimed to be friends with Ong,
prosecutor mentioned "Bining Suarez," Canoneo stated that Bining
s related to Galeos because Ong’s mother, Conchita Suarez, and
cedes Suarez who is also a sister of Conchita Suarez. He knew the
was still studying.15

ill up the forms as these were already filled up by "people in the

stood the question "To the best of your knowledge, are you related
in the negative. He claimed that the "X" mark corresponding to the
gned it. When shown his SALN for the years 1994, 1995 and 1996,
the municipal hall whom he only remembers by face. He also
e affixed his signature on the document. However, when asked
wered in the negative.17

when he asked her, the latter told him that Ong was a distant
s predecessor, Mayor Vicente Mendiola.18

now that he and Galeos are relatives, as in fact there are several
nted to him by Galeos at his office. There were many of them who
g them were Galeos and Rivera. He came to know of the defect in
he was elected Vice-Mayor in 1998. As to Rivera, Ong claimed
or, he had to re-appoint these casual employees and he delegated
ecause when he was not yet Mayor, he was doing business in
nsidering that in the provinces even relatives within the 6th and 7th
mpaigning was based only on his performance of duties and that
He could no longer recall those SALN of most of the employees
o their permanent positions and signed their official appointment
er the filing of the case that he came to know the wife of Rivera. As
onger submitted to the Selection Board. When the appointment
reto. Ong, however, admitted that before the permanent
nd the CSC have been complied with.19

Rivera, as follows:

S. Galeos GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of

nd, there being no modifying circumstances, are hereby sentenced
ONE (1) DAY OF Prision Correccional medium as the minimum
o each pay a FINE of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00).
 T. Rivera GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
nd, there being no modifying circumstances, are hereby sentenced
ONE (1) DAY OF Prision Correccional medium as the minimum
o each pay a FINE of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00).

S. Galeos GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of

nd, there being no modifying circumstances, are hereby sentenced
ONE (1) DAY OF Prision Correccional medium as the minimum
o each pay a FINE of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00). 1auuphil

T. Rivera GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of

nd, there being no modifying circumstances, are hereby sentenced
ONE (1) DAY OF Prision Correccional medium as the minimum
o each pay a FINE of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00).

T. Rivera GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of

nd, there being no modifying circumstances, are hereby sentenced
ONE (1) DAY OF Prision Correccional medium as the minimum
o each pay a FINE of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00).

S. Galeos GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of

nd, there being no modifying circumstances, are hereby sentenced
ONE (1) DAY OF Prision Correccional medium as the minimum
o each pay a FINE of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00).

S. Galeos GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of

nd, there being no modifying circumstances, are hereby sentenced
d ONE (1) DAY OF Prision Correccional medium as the minimum
o each pay a FINE of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00).

for Violation of Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code for failure of

nd reasonable doubt for Falsification of Public Document as

stances, is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of
dium as the minimum penalty to EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1)
(P5,000.00).

Ong and Galeos. However, in view of the death of Rivera on

nd 26185) against him were dismissed.

UTHFUL STATEMENTS IN A NARRATION OF FACTS.

D LACK OF INTENT TO COMMIT THE CRIMES IMPUTED.

R THE PROSECUTION.22
 s SALN since a "statement" requires a positive averment and thus
s contends that they were not made in a "narration of facts" and
adduce any evidence to support the finding that he was aware of
that the fourth element of the crime – the perversion of truth in the
the Sandiganbayan for its heavy reliance on the uncorroborated
o not inspire belief.

THFUL STATEMENTS IN A NARRATION OF FACTS.

NISTERING THE OATH IN A DOCUMENT IS GUILTY OF THE

ON OF FACTS.

SENCE OF ANY RELEVANT AND MATERIAL EVIDENCE, THAT

ORTS THE APPOINTMENT OF FEDERICO T. RIVERA. 23

on of facts and that there was no wrongful intent of injuring a third

cation for merely administering the oath in a document since it is
city of the contents of the document. Neither can he be made liable
as made to support Rivera’s appointment.

andiganbayan, it was pointed out that Galeos categorically

contents and the entries therein have been explained to him.
qualification at all that he became aware of his relationship with
of a particular fact in issue, being a state of mind and therefore
ons from the time the imputed act, to which the particular fact
d findings in the assailed decision do not show that such testimony

s, the Special Prosecutor argues that as a general rule, it is not

son for this is that the administering officer has no way of knowing
volves the administering officer, then he has an opportunity to
false contents of the document, which are known to him to be
ed in the falsification of a document.25

sed Penal Code, as amended, which states:

ion mayor and a fine not to exceed 5,000 pesos shall be imposed
document by committing any of the following acts:
y did not in fact so participate;

han those in fact made by them;

en advantage of his official position in making the falsification. In

n when (1) he has the duty to make or prepare or otherwise to
alsifies.27Likewise, in falsification of public or official documents, it
e falsification of a public document, what is punished is the

ed by the prosecution.

or affinity" and "that Section 79 of the Local Government Code has

aw, as both require the application of the rules on relationship
pressing an erroneous conclusion of law cannot be considered a
le for the position, she practically wrote a conclusion of law, which
e law violated pertains to narration of facts.

rticular case. It is opposed to a finding of fact, which interprets the

cription of the particulars of an event or occurrence.32 We have
ualifies as a narration of facts as contemplated under Article 171
therein giving an account of the status of the flood control

uinity or affinity" in the SALN involves merely a description of such

s 963 to 967 of the Civil Code simply explain the concept of
on. The question of whether or not persons are related to each
statements concerning relationship may be proved as to its truth
disclose his relatives in the government service, such information
l Code, as amended. Further, it bears to stress that the untruthful
 her to prohibition or restriction imposed by law on the appointing

ment service within the fourth degree of consanguinity, he made

in the fourth degree of consanguinity, he and Ong being first
for the answer to the similar query. In Dela Cruz v. Mudlong,34 it
et if he withholds material facts which would have affected the
s relative/s in the government service as required in the SALN,
Mayor Ong would have resulted in the disapproval of his
ns Implementing the Local Government Code of 1991 (R.A. No.

degree of consanguinity or affinity to the appointing power or

s the Administrative Code of 1987, provides that the CSC shall

Civil Service Law, rules and regulations." Among the prohibited
LGUs of persons who are related to the appointing or

series of 1998 dated December 14, 1998) contain a similar

mentality thereof, including government owned or controlled

authority, or of the chief of the bureau or office or of the person

e related within the third degree either of consanguinity or of

mending authority, within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity

ment regardless of status including casuals and contractuals

ure of the truth of the facts narrated.36 Permanent employees

lities and net worth (SALN); (b) lists of relatives within the fourth
) personal data sheets as required by law.37 A similar requirement
cal Standards for Public Officials and Employees, thus:

identify and disclose to the best of his knowledge and information,

mission.

e, and, in the discretion of the court of competent jurisdiction,

lso be sufficient cause for removal or dismissal of a public official
 false. During the trial, both Ong and Galeos admitted the fact that
s were executed. The Sandiganbayan correctly rejected their
no cultural trait of valuing strong kinship and extended family ties,
ve known of his close blood relation to Ong who was a prominent
or in the 1998 elections), after serving as OIC Mayor of the same

sin (Galeos) was working in the municipal government and

iganbayan. It was simply unthinkable that as a resident of Naga,
nent positions the son of his mother’s sister (Galeos) and the
ense of good faith (lack of knowledge of their relationship)
ed the oath to Galeos and Rivera who made the false statement
making it appear in their SALN that they have no relative within the

can be inferred from the acts of the accused which clearly

stered the oaths to Galeos and Rivera in the subject SALN not just
t therein concerning relatives in the government service.

commending to the CSC approval of Galeos’ appointment

observe the prohibition on nepotistic appointments, his
fact that the appointee is not related to him within the fourth civil
Rivera were related to each other within the fourth degree of
mother, Ong was guilty of falsification of public document by
appointing authority who, under the Civil Service rules, is required

overnment unit, regarding compliance with the prohibition against

Administrative Code of 1987, a head of office or appointing official
mmits fraud, deceit or intentional misrepresentation of material
ny of such provisions or rules, may be held criminally liable. In
within the third degree of consanguinity or affinity is sufficient to
alsification of public document, it becomes obvious that the
ms to ensure strict enforcement of the prohibition against

o, we stressed that "[T]the basic purpose or objective of the

sive one." "The Court was unwilling to restrict and limit the scope of
of corruption that must be nipped in the bud or abated whenever
the wrongdoers or reward the ‘outstanding’ civil servants, but also
egal procedures in order to abate any occasion for graft or
ocuments under Article 171 (4) of the Revised Penal Code, as

Criminal Case Nos. 26181-26187 and 26189 is AFFIRMED.

LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice

assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been

alta (now a Member of this Court) and concurred in by Associate

Dela Cruz.
antos v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 71523-25, December 8, 2000,

1998), BOOK TWO, ARTS. 114-367, p. 216, People v. Uy, 101

andiganbayan, G.R. No. 154886, July 28, 2005, 464 SCRA 460,

citing Lastrilla v. Granda, G.R. No. 160257, January 31, 2006, 481
33-34, further citing People v. Po Giok To, 96 Phil. 913, 918

RA 387, 394.

of 1991.

e within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, including

ce of the local government if he is related within the fourth civil

 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

THIRD DIVISION

DECISION

2005 by the Sandiganbayan convicting petitioners Paulino S. Ong (Ong) of eight counts and Rosalio S. Galeos (Galeos) of four coun

He was elected Mayor of the same municipality in 1988 and served as such until 1998.2

the positions of Construction and Maintenance Man and Plumber I, respectively, in the Office of the Municipal Engineer.3 Prior to thei

ered "No" to the question: "To the best of your knowledge, are you related within the fourth degree of consanguinity or of affinity to an
by Galeos in his 1994 and 1995 SALN.5 Rivera in his 1995 SALN answered "No" to the question on relatives in government.6 In their 1
when Galeos and Rivera executed the foregoing documents.

ervice Commission (CSC), Regional Office 7, Cebu City, it was attested that:

Code of 1991, all restrictions/requirements relative to creation of positions, hiring and issuance of appointments, Section 325 on the l
ection 79 on nepotism; Section 80, posting of vacancy and personnel selection board; Section 81 on compensation, etc. have been d

dance with the requirements of the Civil Service Commission before the appointment was submitted for review and action.8(Emphasis
ore the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB)-Visayas against Ong (then incumbent Vice-Mayor of Naga), Galeos and Rivera for dishones
s.

dsman for the Visayas that criminal charges be filed against Ong, Galeos and Rivera for falsification of public documents under Articl
, 1995 and 1996 SALN of Galeos.10

es, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above-named [Paulino S. Ong and Rosalio S. Galeos] accused, public officers
o office, conniving and confederating together and mutually helping with each other, with deliberate intent, with intent to falsify, did th
tification of Relatives In the Government Service, as of December 31, 1993, filed by accused Rosalio S. Galeos and subscribed and
ration of facts, when in truth and in fact, accused very well k[n]ew that they are related with each other, since accused Rosalio S. Gale

es, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above-named [Paulino S. Ong and Federico T. Rivera] accused, public officers,
g together and mutually helping with each other, with deliberate intent, with intent to falsify, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
ment Service as of December 31, 1993, filed by accused Federico T. Rivera and subscribed and sworn to before accused Paulino S.
ts in a narration of facts, when in truth and in fact, as accused very well knew that they are related with each other, since accused Fe

s, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above-named [Paulino S. Ong and Rosalio S. Galeos] accused, public officers, b
onniving and confederating together and mutually helping with each other, with deliberate intent, with intent to falsify, did then and the
elatives In the Government Service, as of December 31, 1995, filed by accused Rosalio S. Galeos and subscribed and sworn to befo
truth and in fact, as accused very well k[n]ew that they are related with each other, since accused Rosalio S. Galeos is related to acc

, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above-named [Paulino S. Ong and Federico T. Rivera] accused, public officers, b
g together and mutually helping with each other, with deliberate intent, with intent to falsify, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
nment Service, [a]s of December 31, 1995, filed by accused Federico T. Rivera and subscribed and sworn to before accused Paulino
ts in a narration of facts, when in truth and in fact, as accused very well knew that they are related with each other, since accused Fed
s, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above-named [Paulino S. Ong and Federico T. Rivera] accused, public officers, b
g together and mutually helping with each other, with deliberate intent, with intent to falsify, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
nment Service, [a]s of December 31, 1996, filed by accused Federico T. Rivera and subscribed and sworn to before accused Paulino
ts in a narration of facts, when in truth and in fact, as accused very well knew that they are related with each other, since accused Fed

and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above-named [Paulino S. Ong and Rosalio S. Galeos] accused, public officers, bei
onniving and confederating together and mutually helping with each other, with deliberate intent, with intent to falsify, did then and the
elatives In the Government Services, as of December 31, 1994, filed by accused Rosalio S. Galeos and subscribed and sworn to bef
when in truth and in fact, as accused very well k[n]ew that they are related with each other, since accused Rosalio S. Galeos is relate

and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above-named [Paulino S. Ong and Rosalio S. Galeos] accused, public officers, be
onniving and confederating, together and mutually helping with each other, with deliberate intent, with intent to falsify, did then and th
elatives In the Government Service, as of December 31, 1996, filed by accused Rosalio S. Galeos and subscribed and sworn to befo
en in truth and in fact, as accused very well k[n]ew that they are related with each other, since accused Rosalio S. Galeos is related to

nd within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above-named accused, a public officer, being the former Mayor of the Municipality o
isting of a Certification in the form of a letter addressed to Mrs. Benita O. Santos, then Regional Director of the Civil Service Commis
vil Service Laws and Rules in the appointment of Rosalio S. Galeos, as Construction and Maintenance Man of the Office of the Muni
e in violation of the Civil Service Rules and Laws on Nepotism, as Rosalio S. Galeos is related to accused within the fourth degree of
est.

nd within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above-named accused, a public officer, being the former Mayor of the Municipality o
isting of a Certification in the form of a letter addressed to Mrs. Benita O. Santos, then Regional Director of the Civil Service Commis
d under the Civil Service Laws and Rules in the appointment of Federico T. Rivera, a Plumber I of the Office of the Municipal Enginee
of the Civil Service Rules and Laws on Nepotism, as Federico T. Rivera is related to accused within the fourth degree of affinity, since
sions: (1) Ong was the Municipal Mayor of Cebu at all times relevant to these cases; (2) Ong is related to Galeos, within the fourth de
re employed as Construction and Maintenance Man and Plumber I, respectively, in the Municipal Government of Naga, Cebu at all tim
4) except for Exhibit "H" (Certification dated June 1, 1994 offered by the prosecution as "allegedly supporting the appointment of Ros

dan, Naga, Cebu since 1930 and claimed to be friends with Ong, Galeos and Rivera. He knows the mother of Galeos, Pining Suarez
s related to Galeos because Ong’s mother, Conchita Suarez, and Galeos’ mother, Bernardita Suarez, are sisters. As to Rivera, his w
n he was still studying.15

ill up the forms as these were already filled up by "people in the municipal hall" when they signed them.

stood the question "To the best of your knowledge, are you related within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity to anyone wor
e signed it. When shown his SALN for the years 1994, 1995 and 1996, Galeos reiterated that they were already filled up and he was o
e affixed his signature on the document. However, when asked whether he understands the term "fourth degree of consanguinity or a

when he asked her, the latter told him that Ong was a distant relative of hers. Rivera added that it was not Ong who first appointed him

now that he and Galeos are relatives, as in fact there are several persons with the surname "Galeos" in the municipality. He signed G
g them were Galeos and Rivera. He came to know of the defect in the employment of Galeos when the case was filed by his "politica
or, he had to re-appoint these casual employees and he delegated this matter to his subordinates. He maintained that his family was
nsidering that in the provinces even relatives within the 6th and 7th degree are still regarded as close relatives especially among polit
He could no longer recall those SALN of most of the employees whose oaths he had administered. He admitted that he was the one
er the filing of the case that he came to know the wife of Rivera. As to the qualifications of these appointees, he no longer inquired ab
reto. Ong, however, admitted that before the permanent appointment is approved by the CSC, he issues a certification to the effect th

Rivera, as follows:

S. Galeos GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Falsification of Public Document as defined in and penalized by Article 17
NE (1) DAY OF Prision Correccional medium as the minimum penalty to EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of Prision Mayor medi

T. Rivera GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Falsification of Public Document as defined in and penalized by Article 17
NE (1) DAY OF Prision Correccional medium as the minimum penalty to EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of Prision Mayor medi

S. Galeos GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Falsification of Public Document as defined in and penalized by Article 17
NE (1) DAY OF Prision Correccional medium as the minimum penalty to EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of Prision Mayor medi

T. Rivera GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Falsification of Public Document as defined in and penalized by Article 17
NE (1) DAY OF Prision Correccional medium as the minimum penalty to EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of Prision Mayor medi

T. Rivera GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Falsification of Public Document as defined in and penalized by Article 17
NE (1) DAY OF Prision Correccional medium as the minimum penalty to EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of Prision Mayor medi

S. Galeos GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Falsification of Public Document as defined in and penalized by Article 17
NE (1) DAY OF Prision Correccional medium as the minimum penalty to EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of Prision Mayor medi

S. Galeos GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Falsification of Public Document as defined in and penalized by Article 17
ONE (1) DAY OF Prision Correccional medium as the minimum penalty to EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of Prision Mayor med

for Violation of Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code for failure of the Prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt; and
ond reasonable doubt for Falsification of Public Document as defined in and penalized by Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code and
dium as the minimum penalty to EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of Prision Mayor medium as the maximum penalty and to pay a

Ong and Galeos. However, in view of the death of Rivera on August 22, 2003 before the promulgation of the decision, the cases (Crim

UTHFUL STATEMENTS IN A NARRATION OF FACTS.

D LACK OF INTENT TO COMMIT THE CRIMES IMPUTED.

R THE PROSECUTION. 22

s SALN since a "statement" requires a positive averment and thus silence or non-disclosure cannot be considered one. And even if th
adduce any evidence to support the finding that he was aware of their relationship at the time of the execution of the SALN. With the
the Sandiganbayan for its heavy reliance on the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecution’s sole witness despite the fact that ther

(a)

THFUL STATEMENTS IN A NARRATION OF FACTS.

(b)

NISTERING THE OATH IN A DOCUMENT IS GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF FALSIFICATION BY MAKING UNTRUTHFUL STATEME

(c)

SENCE OF ANY RELEVANT AND MATERIAL EVIDENCE, THAT RESPONDENT’S EXHIBIT "I" (OR PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT "8") R

on of facts and that there was no wrongful intent of injuring a third person at the time of the execution of the documents. He contends
city of the contents of the document. Neither can he be made liable for falsification regarding the letter-certification he issued since th

andiganbayan, it was pointed out that Galeos categorically admitted during his testimony that before affixing his signature on the subj
on at all that he became aware of his relationship with Galeos and Rivera only after the execution of the subject documents. The defe
me the imputed act, to which the particular fact relates, was committed. As to mistaken reliance on the testimony of prosecution witnes

s, the Special Prosecutor argues that as a general rule, it is not the duty of the administering officer to ascertain the truth of the state
olves the administering officer, then he has an opportunity to know of their truth or falsity. When an administering officer nevertheless
alsification of a document.25

sed Penal Code, as amended, which states:

 ion mayor and a fine not to exceed 5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer, employee, or notary who, taking advantag

y did not in fact so participate;

han those in fact made by them;

en advantage of his official position in making the falsification. In falsification of public document, the offender is considered to have ta
alsifies.27Likewise, in falsification of public or official documents, it is not necessary that there be present the idea of gain or the intent

ed by the prosecution.

or affinity" and "that Section 79 of the Local Government Code has been complied with in the issuance of the appointments" are not a
pressing an erroneous conclusion of law cannot be considered a falsification." Likewise, in People v. Yanza,30 it was held that when d
e law violated pertains to narration of facts.

rticular case. It is opposed to a finding of fact, which interprets the factual circumstances to which the law is to be applied.31A narratio
ualifies as a narration of facts as contemplated under Article 171 (4) of the Revised Penal Code, as it consisted not only of figures and

uinity or affinity" in the SALN involves merely a description of such relationship; it does not call for an application of law in a particular
on. The question of whether or not persons are related to each other by consanguinity or affinity within the fourth degree is one of fac
close his relatives in the government service, such information elicited therefore qualifies as a narration of facts contemplated under
her to prohibition or restriction imposed by law on the appointing power.

ment service within the fourth degree of consanguinity, he made an untruthful statement therein as in fact he was related to Ong, who
for the answer to the similar query. In Dela Cruz v. Mudlong,34 it was held that one is guilty of falsification in the accomplishment of his
s relative/s in the government service as required in the SALN, Galeos was guilty of falsification considering that the disclosure of suc
nting the Local Government Code of 1991 (R.A. No. 7160), which provides:
 degree of consanguinity or affinity to the appointing power or recommending authority.

s the Administrative Code of 1987, provides that the CSC shall disapprove the appointment of a person who "has been issued such a
LGUs of persons who are related to the appointing or recommending authority within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity.35

series of 1998 dated December 14, 1998) contain a similar prohibition under Rule XIII, Section 9:

mentality thereof, including government owned or controlled corporations with original charters shall be made in favor of a relative of

e related within the third degree either of consanguinity or of affinity.

mending authority, within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity.

ment regardless of status including casuals and contractuals except consultants. (Emphasis supplied.)

ure of the truth of the facts narrated.36 Permanent employees employed by local government units are required to file the following: (a
rsonal data sheets as required by law.37 A similar requirement is imposed by Section 8 (B) of Republic Act No. 6713 otherwise known

identify and disclose to the best of his knowledge and information, his relatives in the Government in the form, manner and frequency

e, and, in the discretion of the court of competent jurisdiction, disqualification to hold public office. Such violation if proven in a proper

false. During the trial, both Ong and Galeos admitted the fact that they are first cousins but denied having knowledge of such relation
no cultural trait of valuing strong kinship and extended family ties, it was unlikely for Galeos who had been working for several years i
or in the 1998 elections), after serving as OIC Mayor of the same municipality in 1986 until 1988.

sin (Galeos) was working in the municipal government and appointed by him to a permanent position during his incumbency, was cor
ositions the son of his mother’s sister (Galeos) and the husband of his first cousin (Rivera). Indeed, the reality of local politics and Fili
to Galeos and Rivera who made the false statement under oath. The Sandiganbayan thus did not err in finding that Ong connived w

can be inferred from the acts of the accused which clearly manifest a concurrence of wills, a common intent or design to commit a cr
in concerning relatives in the government service.

commending to the CSC approval of Galeos’ appointment although he admitted only the authenticity and due execution of Exhibit "I".
appointee is not related to him within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity. Having executed the certification despite his
guilty of falsification of public document by making untruthful statement in a narration of facts. He also took advantage of his official p

overnment unit, regarding compliance with the prohibition against nepotism under R.A. No. 7160 cannot be overemphasized. Under S
mmits fraud, deceit or intentional misrepresentation of material facts concerning other civil service matters, or anyone who violates, re
hin the third degree of consanguinity or affinity is sufficient to constitute a violation of the law. Although herein petitioners were prosec
strict enforcement of the prohibition against nepotism. 1avvphil

o, we stressed that "[T]the basic purpose or objective of the prohibition against nepotism also strongly indicates that the prohibition w
orruption that must be nipped in the bud or abated whenever or wherever it raises its ugly head. As we said in an earlier case "what w
al procedures in order to abate any occasion for graft or circumvention of the law."43 (Emphasis supplied.)

ocuments under Article 171 (4) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, we find no legal ground to reverse petitioners’ conviction.

Criminal Case Nos. 26181-26187 and 26189 is AFFIRMED.

CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES

Associate Justice
Chairperson

ARTURO D. BRION LUCAS P. BERSAMIN

Associate Justice Associate Justice

JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA*

Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

CERTIFICATION

certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
alta (now a Member of this Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro (also now a Member of this
 ntos v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 71523-25, December 8, 2000, 347 SCRA 386, 424.

1998), BOOK TWO, ARTS. 114-367, p. 216, People v. Uy, 101 Phil. 159, 163 (1957) and United States v. Inosanto, 20 Phil. 376, 37

citing Lastrilla v. Granda, G.R. No. 160257, January 31, 2006, 481 SCRA 324, 345, Lumancas v. Intas, G.R. No. 133472, December

RA 387, 394.

of 1991.

xxxx

e within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, including bilas, inso and balae.

ce of the local government if he is related within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity to the appointing or recommending