Tadena v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Floro T. Tadena, then Municipal Mayor of Sto. Domingo, Ilocos Sur, requested the creation of a Municipal Administrator position. The Sangguniang Bayan (SB) adopted the First Version of the municipal ordinance for fiscal year 2002, which included a condition for the creation of the position. Tadena vetoed this version, citing unrealistic conditions and proposing substitution based on a previous agreement. The SB then passed the Second Version, which stated the position "shall not be created unless 2% of the Mandatory 5% Salary Increase for 2002 be implemented." This Second Version was transmitted to Tadena for his approval. Tadena returned the Second Version with his signature, but the first page was substituted, altering paragraph (a) of the 4th "Whereas Clause" to read: "The position 'MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATOR' shall be created and the 2% of the Mandatory 5% Salary Increase for 2002 be implemented." The SB later issued Resolution No. 007, deleting the altered provision and noting the observed changes. Procedural History: Sangguniang Bayan Secretary Rodel M. Tagorda filed a complaint for Falsification of Public Document against Tadena. The Ombudsman initially dismissed the case but later reversed its resolution and directed the filing of an Information. An Information was filed charging Tadena with falsification under Article 171, paragraph 6 of the Revised Penal Code. Tadena pleaded not guilty. The Sandiganbayan (SB) found Tadena guilty beyond reasonable doubt, holding that all elements of the offense were present. The SB denied Tadena's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Tadena filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, raising issues including inordinate delay, the complainant's desistance, the nature of the document falsified, the alleged concurrence of the Sangguniang Bayan members, good faith, authorization to make changes, and failure to appreciate mitigating circumstances.
Issue(s)
Whether or not the Sandiganbayan erred in ruling that Tadena's right to speedy disposition of his case was not violated. Whether or not the Sandiganbayan erred in finding Tadena guilty beyond reasonable doubt of falsification under Article 171, Paragraph 6 of the Revised Penal Code. Whether or not the Sandiganbayan imposed the proper penalty.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision dated September 15, 2016, and the December 7, 2016 Resolution of the Sandiganbayan in SB-14-CRM-0327 are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of speedy disposition of the case: The Court held that the issue of inordinate delay raises a question of fact, which is generally not a proper subject for a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, and Tadena failed to allege and substantiate exceptions. Regarding the complainant's desistance, the Court reiterated that the State has the sovereign right to prosecute criminal offenses, and an affidavit of desistance is not the sole consideration for dismissal. The complainant's desistance in this case was to maintain peace in the municipality and did not repudiate the material points of the Information. Therefore, the charges remained intact, and the Sandiganbayan correctly did not dismiss the case on these grounds. On the issue of guilt for falsification of public document: The Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan's finding that all elements of falsification by a public officer under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code were present. First, Tadena was a public officer (Municipal Mayor). Second, he took advantage of his official position, both by having the duty to approve or veto ordinances and by having official custody of the ordinance after it was transmitted to his office. Third, he falsified the document by making an alteration in a genuine document which changed its meaning. The alteration from "shall not be created unless" to "shall be created and" fundamentally changed the import of the ordinance, making it appear that the creation of the Municipal Administrator's office was unconditional when it was originally conditional. The Court found no proof of concurrence from the Sangguniang Bayan members and rejected Tadena's claims of good faith, noting his inconsistent defenses and the clear act of altering a public document. On the issue of penalty and mitigating circumstances: The Court found no merit in Tadena's claim for the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. The records showed that a warrant of arrest had been issued before Tadena posted bail, and his surrender was not spontaneous but rather a consequence of the inevitability of his arrest. The essence of voluntary surrender requires spontaneity and an intent to submit to authorities, which was absent in this case. Therefore, the penalty imposed by the Sandiganbayan was deemed proper.
Main Doctrine
A municipal mayor who alters the wording of a municipal ordinance, changing its meaning, commits falsification of public document by a public officer under Article 171, paragraph 6 of the Revised Penal Code, especially when such alteration is made after the ordinance has been transmitted for approval and without authority to modify its content.