People v. Bustillo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Anuncio C. Bustillo, then Municipal Mayor of Bunawan, Agusan del Sur, and his daughter Rowena Bustillo were charged with Falsification of Official Documents under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) in Criminal Case No. 23076. The Information alleged that they willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously made it appear in official documents that municipal funds totaling P30,000.00 were expended for lumber purchased from Estigoy Lumber, when in truth and in fact, the lumber was actually purchased from Rowena Woodcraft, a single proprietorship owned by Rowena Bustillo. The accused allegedly falsified three vouchers by erasing the original payee and replacing it with "Estigoy Lumber," with Rowena Bustillo receiving the payments. Procedural History: The accused moved to quash the Information, alleging lack of jurisdiction and failure to charge an offense, which the Sandiganbayan denied. After arraignment and entry of "not guilty" pleas, trial commenced. After the prosecution rested its case, it moved for petitioner's suspension from office pendente lite under Section 13 of RA 3019. Petitioner failed to file a Comment despite an extension granted. The Sandiganbayan granted the motion and ordered petitioner's suspension for 90 days. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari, assailing the Sandiganbayan's Resolutions dated 28 August 2000 and 4 December 2000. He argued that the Sandiganbayan erred in finding the Information valid, in ordering his suspension as falsification of official documents does not fall under the offenses covered by Section 13 of RA 3019, and in ordering a 90-day suspension.
Issue(s)
Whether the Information filed against the accused is valid. Whether petitioner's suspension from office pendente lite finds basis in Section 13 of RA 3019.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Resolutions dated 28 August 2000 and 4 December 2000 of the Sandiganbayan are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Validity of the Information: The Court held that the issue of the Information's validity had already been settled by the Sandiganbayan's denial of the motion to quash, which ruling had become final. Petitioner could no longer resurrect this issue. Furthermore, the Court found that the Information sufficiently alleged facts constituting falsification of official documents under paragraph 2 of Article 171 of the RPC, which penalizes causing it to appear that persons participated in an act or proceeding when they did not. The allegation that the accused made it appear that Estigoy Lumber delivered lumber when it did not, falls under this mode of falsification. The Court also noted that the Ombudsman disapproved the recommendation to dismiss the complaint, paving the way for the filing of the case. On Petitioner's Suspension: The Court ruled that petitioner's suspension from office pendente lite finds basis in Section 13 of RA 3019. While the charge of falsification of official documents falls under Title 4, Book II of the RPC and not Title 7, Book II, it nevertheless involves "fraud upon government or public funds or property." The Court clarified that "fraud" in this context is understood in its generic sense, encompassing deceit and misrepresentation. The act of making it appear that municipal funds were expended for lumber from a specific supplier when it was actually purchased from another, and falsifying vouchers to reflect this misrepresentation, constitutes "fraud upon government" and "fraud upon public funds." The Court emphasized that suspension under RA 3019 is mandatory when a valid Information charges an incumbent public officer with any of the specified offenses, including those involving fraud upon government or public funds or property.
Main Doctrine
The mandatory suspension from office under Section 13 of RA 3019 applies to an incumbent public officer charged with falsification of official documents if the offense involves fraud upon government or public funds or property, even if the falsification is penalized under a different title of the Revised Penal Code than those explicitly enumerated.