The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of two barangay officials for falsifying a public document, emphasizing that the crime undermines public trust. Even if the falsified document wasn’t used to obtain funds or cause direct harm, the act of making it appear genuine is enough to constitute the offense. This ruling reinforces the importance of truthfulness and integrity in public office, highlighting that officials can’t escape liability by claiming a falsified document was merely a draft. It sets a clear standard: public officials must act with utmost honesty, and the appearance of legitimacy in official documents is paramount.

Unmasking the Untruth: When a Barangay Resolution Becomes a Crime

This case revolves around Laurinio Goma and Natalio Umale, the barangay chairperson and secretary, respectively, of Brgy. Cabanbanan, Pagsanjan, Laguna. They were charged with falsifying a barangay resolution that allocated PhP 18,000 for a seminar. The heart of the matter lies in whether Resolution No. T-95 (Res. T-95), dated September 24, 1995, could be deemed a public document and if Goma and Umale violated Article 171(2) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). The respondents contended that no sanggunian session took place on the specified date due to a lack of quorum, making the resolution a fabrication. This sparked a legal battle questioning the integrity of official records and the duties of public officials.

Under Section 19(a) of Rule 132, Revised Rules on Evidence, public documents include official written acts or records of official acts by government bodies or public officers. Resolutions and ordinances passed by sanggunians at all levels—panlalawigan, panlungsod, bayan, or barangay—fall squarely under this definition. The importance of this classification cannot be overstated, because these issuances are the written expression of legislative authority. A public document, according to Black’s Law Dictionary, is a document of public interest issued by a political body or connected with public business. Furthermore, it’s a document in which a person in authority or notary public takes part.

Here, Res. T-95 had the appearance of being genuine and claimed to disburse public funds. Both Goma and Umale, in their official capacities, played a role in its creation. It’s critical to understand that falsification under Article 171(2) doesn’t require a truly genuine document. The appearance of authenticity and legal effect is sufficient for a conviction. As stated in Article 171(2) of the RPC:

ART. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee; or notary or ecclesiastical minister.–The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed 5,000 pesos 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:

x x x x

(2) Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate.

The elements for the crime of falsification of public documents are as follows: (1) the offender is a public officer, employee, or notary public; (2) the offender takes advantage of their official position; (3) the offender falsifies a document by making it seem that people participated in an act or proceeding; (4) those people did not, in reality, participate. Here, as local government officials, Goma and Umale certified the resolution in their roles, falsely attesting to a barangay session and its validity. The Court referred to its long held principle:

The rule is that the findings of fact of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings, are accorded high respect if not conclusive effect. This is more true if such findings were affirmed by the appellate court. When the trial court’s findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally binding upon this Court.

The CA highlighted that the barangay resolution gave the false impression that all members had deliberated upon and unanimously approved the questioned resolution. However, this never actually happened. Further evidence came in the form of another resolution, dated October 15, 1995, where seven out of eight sanggunian members denied the passage and approval of the challenged resolution. Consequently, Goma and Umale’s claim that the original resolution was merely a draft fell flat.

The RTC astutely pointed out that the contents of Resolution No. T-95 didn’t resemble a proposed resolution in any way. The contents declared that they came from the minutes of a session; it named all attendees; it carried a resolution number, not a proposed number; its title specified an approved allocation; it cited the Kagawads who made and seconded the motion for passage; and, of note, both Umale and Goma signed in their official capacities, attesting to the resolution’s truth. Moreover, a draft would typically lack certificatory signatures and a dry seal.

It’s critical to stress that consummation occurs upon executing the false document. Criminal intent is then presumed. The officials’ failure to achieve their goals doesn’t affect guilt. Therefore, a simulated document, designed to appear genuine, meets the crime’s criteria. Goma and Umale’s claim that there was no public prejudice or personal gain carries no weight. In cases of falsification, the Court focuses on maintaining public faith and upholding the integrity of documents. The presence of actual damage to third parties is immaterial, as falsification’s core issue lies in undermining the public faith.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the barangay officials falsified a public document by making it appear that a resolution was passed when no actual meeting took place.
What is a public document according to the Revised Rules on Evidence?	Under Sec. 19(a) of Rule 132, a public document includes official written acts or records of official acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies, and public officers.
What are the elements of falsification of public documents?	The elements are: the offender is a public officer, taking advantage of official position, falsifying a document to appear that people participated in an act, when they did not.
Is it necessary for the falsified document to cause damage to be considered a crime?	No, it is not necessary. The act of falsification itself, undermining public trust and destroying the truth, constitutes the crime, regardless of actual damage.
What was the punishment given to the barangay officials in this case?	Each official was sentenced to four years and two months of prision correccional, as a minimum, to eight years and two months of prision mayor, as a maximum.
Why was the defense that the resolution was a mere draft rejected?	The court rejected this defense because the resolution was numbered, signed by officials in their official capacities, bore the barangay seal, and contained details suggesting it had already been approved.
Does this ruling establish a precedent regarding falsification?	Yes, this reiterates public documents are protected and those who falsify them in their roles face punishments to reinforce trust in governance.
What does this ruling emphasize about public office?	It emphasizes the critical need for honesty, transparency, and faithful adherence to ethical standards in public office.

The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a stark warning to public officials: any act of falsification, no matter how seemingly minor, can have serious consequences. The commitment to truth and the preservation of public trust are the cornerstones of good governance.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: LAURINIO GOMA AND NATALIO UMALE v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 168437, January 08, 2009