Sevilla v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Venancio M. Sevilla, a former councilor of Malabon City, was charged with falsification of public document under Article 171(4) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). The Information alleged that on July 2, 2001, Sevilla, in his Personal Data Sheet (PDS) submitted to the Malabon City Council, falsely stated that no criminal case was pending against him, when in fact, he was an accused in Criminal Case No. 6718-97 for Assault Upon An Agent Of A Person In Authority. Sevilla admitted marking the "no" box but claimed his staff member, Editha Mendoza, prepared the PDS and he signed it without checking the veracity of the entries, as he did not yet have an office and instructed Mendoza to copy from his previous PDS. Procedural History: The Office of the Ombudsman found Sevilla administratively liable for dishonesty and falsification of official document and dismissed him from service. This was affirmed by the Court in G.R. No. 157207. The Sandiganbayan, in Criminal Case No. 27925, found Sevilla guilty of falsification of public document through reckless imprudence under Article 365 of the RPC, imposing a penalty of four (4) months of arresto mayor as minimum to two (2) years ten (10) months and twenty-one (21) days of prision correccional as maximum. The Sandiganbayan ruled that while Sevilla did not act with malicious intent, his PDS was haphazardly and recklessly done, making him liable for reckless imprudence. Sevilla's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Sevilla filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari, asserting that the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting him of falsification of public documents through reckless imprudence when the Information specifically charged him with the intentional felony of falsification under Article 171(4) of the RPC, thereby violating his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner Venancio M. Sevilla can be convicted of reckless imprudence resulting to falsification of public document, despite being charged with intentional falsification under Article 171(4) of the RPC, and whether this violates his right to be informed of the accusation. Whether the Sandiganbayan correctly designated the offense, and whether the elements of reckless imprudence resulting to falsification of public documents were sufficiently proven to warrant conviction, and whether the imposed penalty was correct.
Ruling
The appeal is dismissed for lack of merit. The Decision dated February 26, 2009 and the Resolution dated October 22, 2010 of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 27925 are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the variance between allegation and proof, and right to be informed: The Court held that Sevilla could be convicted of reckless imprudence resulting to falsification of public documents even though the Information charged intentional falsification. This is because reckless imprudence resulting to falsification of public documents is an offense necessarily included in the willful act of falsification of public documents, with the latter being the greater offense. The Court cited Samson v. Court of Appeals and Sarep v. Sandiganbayan, which established that a conviction for a quasi-offense can be had under an information exclusively charging a willful offense, on the theory that the greater includes the lesser offense. Therefore, Sevilla's constitutional right to be informed of the accusation was not violated. On the designation of the offense, elements, and penalty: The Court clarified that the Sandiganbayan's designation of the felony as "falsification of public document through reckless imprudence" was inaccurate, and the technically correct designation is "reckless imprudence resulting to falsification of public documents." The Sandiganbayan correctly found that Sevilla made an untruthful statement in his PDS, a public document, and that he took advantage of his official position. Although he did not act with malicious intent to falsify, his PDS was prepared haphazardly and recklessly, leading to the false entry. The Court affirmed the penalty imposed by the Sandiganbayan, which was four (4) months of arresto mayor as minimum to two (2) years ten (10) months and twenty-one (21) days of prision correccional as maximum, consistent with Article 365 of the RPC for reckless imprudence resulting in a grave felony.
Main Doctrine
Reckless imprudence resulting in falsification of public documents is an offense necessarily included in the willful act of falsification of public documents, the latter being the greater offense. Therefore, an accused charged with willful falsification may be convicted of reckless imprudence resulting in falsification of public documents.