38 - Faelga v. Escareal

[Rabena, Louis Jeremy B.
TOPIC TITLE
FELIPE FAJELGA , petitioner, vs. HON ROMEO M. ESCAREAL, HON. CONRADO M. MOLINA AND
HON. RAMON V. JABSON, MEMBERS, SECOND DIVISION SANDIGANBAYAN, respondents
November 14, 1988 G.R. Nos. 61017-18 PADILLA, J.
Relevant RPC Provisions / Concepts / Doctrines
● In the falsification of public or official document under Art. 171 of the Revised Penal Code, it is not
enough that the falsification be committed by a public officer; it is also necessary that it should be
committed by a public officer with abuse of his office, that is, in deeds, instrument, indentures,
certificates, etc., in the execution of which he participates by reason of his office.
Art. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastic minister. — The penalty of
prision mayor and a fine not to exceed One million pesos (P1,000,000) shall be imposed upon any public
officer, employee, or notary who, taking advantage of his official position, shall falsify a document by
committing any of the following acts:
1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric;
2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so
participate;
3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements other than those in fact
made by them;
4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts;
5. Altering true dates;
6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning;
7. Issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an original document when no
such original exists, or including in such a copy a statement contrary to, or different from, that of the
genuine original; or
8. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry, or official
The same penalty shall be imposed upon any ecclesiastical minister who shall commit any of the offenses
enumerated in the preceding paragraphs of this article, with respect to any record or document of such
character that its falsification may affect the civil status of persons.
●
Elements of the Offense/Crime
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 committing any of the following acts:
a. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric.
b. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they
did not so participate.
c. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements other
than those in fact made by them.
d. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts.
e. Altering true dates.
f. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning
g. Issuing in authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an original document
when no such original exists, or including in such copy a statement contrary to, or different
from, that of the genuine original.
h. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry
or official book.
4. In case the offender is an ecclesiastical minister, the act of falsification is committed with respect
to any record or document of such character that its falsification may affect the civil status of
persons.
ISSUE/S:
Whether or not petitioner violated Par. 2 and 4 of Art. 171? - NO
FACTS OF THE CASE
Ablat signed and executed a Deed of Absolute Sale of a used motorcycle in favor of provincial government
of Batanes, represented by Provincial Engr. Castillejos. The said motorcycle would be used by Provincial
Auditor Balisi. However, the motorcycle was still registered in name of Fajelga (driver in the Office of the
Provincial Engineer) instead of Ablat’s. The sale of the motorcycle was not consummated since Balisi
resigned, and Mrs. Alcantara (the new Provincial Auditor) did not need to use the motorcycle. Mrs.
Alcantara then gave the cancelled vouchers and other supporting documents related to the sale to Fajelga,
who in turn, kept it in the cabinet in the Provincial Auditor’s Office. Unfortunately, the said papers were
burned when a fire occurred in the office. Now, Prov. Castillejos, Ablat and Fajelga were indicted for Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act but were acquitted since the prohibited act was not consummated. In
separate cases, petitioner and co-accused were convicted of Falsification of Public Document under Par. 2
and 4, Art 171 and Infidelity in the Custody of Public Documents under Par. 2, Art. 226 of the RPC.
RULING
After careful consideration of the facts of the case and the law, we find that petitioner is entitled to an
acquittal from the charges against him.
In the case of People v. Quasha, the Court said that wrongful intent to injure a third person and obligation
on the part of the narrator to disclose the truth are thus essential to a conviction for the crime of
falsification under the above articles of the Revised Penal Code.
It should be noted, however, that the statement that Ablat was the owner of the motorcycle in question is
not altogether untruthful since the petitioner Fajelga had previously sold the motorcycle to him. While the
deed of sale may not have been registered with the Bureau of Land Transportation, Ablat nevertheless
became the owner thereof before its aborted sale to the provincial government of Batanes. Besides,
malicious intent to injure a third person is absent. In fact, neither the government nor any third person
incurred any loss by reason of the "untruthful" narration.
In the instant case, however, the information filed against the petitioner and his co-accused alleged that
the petitioner, although a public officer, acted in his private and personal capacity. Hence, there was no
abuse of official position. Besides, the petitioner Fajelga could not have abused his position, as driver, in
falsifying the document adverted to. In view thereof, the petitioner cannot be convicted of falsification
under Art. 171 of the Revised Penal Code.
As for petitioner's conviction for infidelity in the custody of documents, he alleges that his acts did not
constitute said crime of infidelity as he was not officially entrusted with the documents allegedly lost, and
that the documents even if entrusted to him, were mere scraps of paper, the transaction they reflect having
been cancelled.

38 - Faelga v. Escareal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

38 - Faelga v. Escareal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

[Rabena, Louis Jeremy B.

November 14, 1988 G.R. Nos. 61017-18 PADILLA, J.

Relevant RPC Provisions / Concepts / Doctrines

Elements of the Offense/Crime

1. That the offender is a public officer, employee, or notary public.

Whether or not petitioner violated Par. 2 and 4 of Art. 171? - NO

FACTS OF THE CASE

You might also like