De Jesus v. Sandiganbayan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Nine informations were filed charging petitioner Rodolfo S. de Jesus and Edelwina DG Parungao with falsification of public document under Article 171, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code. The charge stemmed from the alleged falsification of appointment papers of one Jesusito R. Toren, a confidential staff of the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA) Trustees. The prosecution alleged that the accused made it appear that Toren's appointment was prepared, approved, and issued on October 15, 2001, and that he assumed office on the same date, thereby allowing him to receive salaries and allowances from October 15, 2001, to December 31, 2001, when in truth and in fact, he was officially appointed only on December 12, 2001. Procedural History: Petitioner and Parungao filed a joint motion to quash, contending that the Sandiganbayan lacked jurisdiction as the offense was not committed in relation to their office and that the allegations did not constitute the offense charged. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion to quash and the subsequent motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari, arguing that the Sandiganbayan erred in assuming jurisdiction, in finding that the positions of petitioner and Parungao inherently included the approval of appointments, in amending provisions of law, in finding that the charged facts constituted an offense, and in finding petitioner responsible for the payment of back salaries.
Issue(s)
Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in assuming jurisdiction over the offense charged and in finding that the facts charged in the informations constitute an offense. Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in finding that the positions of petitioner and co-accused inherently included the approval of appointments. Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in finding that petitioner was directly responsible for the payment of back salaries, allowances, and other benefits.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Resolutions dated March 2, 2004, and June 11, 2004, of the Sandiganbayan are ANNULLED. For lack of reasonable ground to believe that petitioner violated Article 171, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code, or for absence of probable cause therefor, the Sandiganbayan is ORDERED to forthwith DISMISS Criminal Cases Nos. 27894-27902.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Sandiganbayan's Jurisdiction and the Nature of the Offense: The Court found that the Sandiganbayan erred in assuming jurisdiction and in finding that the facts charged constituted the offense of falsification. The elements of falsification require that the offender makes false statements in a narration of facts, has a legal obligation to disclose the truth, the facts narrated are absolutely false, and the perversion of truth is made with the wrongful intent of injuring a third person. In this case, there was no reasonable ground to believe that the requisite criminal intent (mens rea) was present. The existence of two sets of appointment papers, one with earlier dates and another with a later date to comply with CSC reporting requirements, did not inherently constitute an absolutely false narration of facts. The first set was prepared based on inter-office memoranda appointing personnel earlier than December 12, 2001, and the DBM clarified that hiring could be implemented retroactively. The second set was issued to comply with CSC rules, and the Administrator authorized the issuance of these papers. The Court emphasized that the effort to eradicate graft and corruption should not lead to the prosecution of the innocent, and agencies tasked with preliminary investigation are duty-bound to shield the innocent from precipitate prosecution. On the Petitioner's Role and Responsibility Regarding Appointments: The Court disagreed with the Ombudsman's finding of a prima facie case. Petitioner, authorized under delegated authority to sign appointment papers previously cleared/approved by the Administrator or Board of Trustees, signed two sets of appointment papers. The first set, bearing retroactive dates, was based on the appointing authority's memoranda and DBM approval. The second set was prepared to comply with CSC reporting requirements. The Court found no willful or felonious act by the petitioner warranting prosecution for falsification. The evidence was deemed insufficient to sustain a prima facie case, and no probable cause existed to form a sufficient belief as to the petitioner's guilt. The petitioner's admission of signing two sets of papers did not, in itself, constitute an absolutely false narration of facts. Furthermore, the Court noted that the Sandiganbayan had granted a motion for reinvestigation, indicating a willingness to re-assess the facts, but the Court found the innocence of the accused manifest from the evidence, thus obviating the need to remand the case. The provided text does not contain any information about the petitioner being directly responsible for the payment of back salaries, allowances, and other benefits. Therefore, I cannot provide a ratio for this issue.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 may be filed to assail resolutions of the Sandiganbayan denying a motion to quash if the finding of probable cause by the Ombudsman is tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The evidence must be insufficient to sustain a prima facie case or the existence of probable cause cannot be ascertained for the prosecution to desist from inflicting the trauma of trial upon an innocent person.