The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Normallah A. Pacasum for falsification of public documents. Pacasum, a high-ranking public official, was found guilty of imitating a signature on her employee clearance to claim her salary. The Court emphasized that falsification of public documents undermines public faith and that intent to injure is not required for conviction. This case highlights the serious consequences public officials face for dishonesty, regardless of their motivations or whether they directly benefited from the falsification.

Clearance Conundrum: Can a Public Official Be Held Liable for a Forged Signature?

Normallah A. Pacasum, then Regional Secretary of the Department of Tourism in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), found herself in legal trouble over a seemingly routine document: her employee clearance. This case revolves around whether Pacasum falsified her employee clearance by imitating the signature of Laura Y. Pangilan, the Supply Officer I of DOT-ARMM, to claim her salary. The central legal question is whether Pacasum, as a public official, can be held liable for falsification of public documents, even if there is no direct evidence that she personally forged the signature, and whether the falsification was a necessary element for her to get her salary.

The prosecution presented Subaida K. Pangilan, former Human Resource Management Officer V of ARMM, who testified that she noticed the signature of her daughter-in-law, Laura, on Pacasum’s clearance was not genuine. Laura Y. Pangilan herself testified that she refused to sign Pacasum’s clearance because Pacasum had not yet turned over all the office properties issued to her. Rebecca A. Agatep, a telegraph operator, testified regarding telegrams sent to Pacasum and her assistant, requesting the original clearance. In contrast, Pacasum claimed she did not know if the signature was forged and that she was told by ARMM Executive Secretary Randolph C. Parcasio that she did not need a clearance to get her salary because she was re-appointed. This claim was disputed by the prosecution, arguing that the memorandum from Governor Misuari required all officers and employees to clear themselves of accountabilities before receiving their salaries.

The Sandiganbayan, a special court in the Philippines that handles cases involving public officials, found Pacasum guilty. It reasoned that although there was no direct evidence of Pacasum forging the signature herself, circumstances indicated that she either committed the falsification or asked someone else to do so. The court also relied on the presumption that someone who benefits from a falsified document is presumed to be its author. Pacasum argued that the photocopy of her employee clearance had no probative value because the original was not presented. The Sandiganbayan disagreed, finding that the prosecution had made reasonable attempts to obtain the original, but Pacasum and her assistant failed to produce it.

The Supreme Court, in affirming the Sandiganbayan’s decision, delved into the elements of falsification under Article 171, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code. These elements include: (1) that the offender is a public officer, employee, or notary public; (2) that he takes advantage of his official position; and (3) that he falsifies a document by counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature, or rubric. The Court found that all these elements were present in Pacasum’s case. There was no dispute that Pacasum was a public officer, and the Court held that she took advantage of her position by preparing her employee clearance, which is a public document, for the release of her salary. The Court emphasized that it is inconsequential whether the contents were false, but the main fact that there was a counterfeited signature, constitutes the crime.

The Court addressed Pacasum’s argument that she did not need the employee clearance to draw her salary, stating that this did not negate the issue of whether Laura Pangilan’s signature was imitated. While the memorandum from Gov. Misuari required a Credit Notice from the COA for those with unliquidated cash advances, the Court noted that this requirement was effective only starting September 1, 2000. The charge against Pacasum was for falsifying the clearance in August 2000, making the Credit Notice requirement irrelevant. According to the court, Pacasum needed to file an Employees Clearance not only for compliance with the Misuari memorandum but, more importantly, because her term of office was about to end, since her position was coterminous with the term of Gov. Misuari, the appointing authority. The court pointed to the testimony that before she received her salary for August, 2000, an Employees Clearance was necessary.

The Supreme Court also addressed the presumption that if a person has a falsified document and uses it to their advantage, they are presumed to be the author of the falsification. The court clarified that the “use” of a falsified document is separate from the “falsification” itself. The act of “using” falsified documents is punished under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code. “In the falsification of a public document, it is immaterial whether or not the contents set forth therein were false. What is important is the fact that the signature of another was counterfeited.”

The Court highlighted that the intent to gain or injure a third person is not necessary for falsification of a public document.

Thus, the purpose for which the falsification was made and whether the offender profited or hoped to profit from such falsification are no longer material.

The court found that Pacasum did “use” the falsified document when it was circulated to the different division heads for their signatures and submitted to the Office of the Regional Governor. The court dismissed Pacasum’s claim that she had no knowledge of the falsification, as her denial was unsubstantiated. Her failure to present Marie Cris Batuampar, her assistant who worked on the clearance, as a witness was detrimental to her defense. The Court also upheld the Sandiganbayan’s admission of the photocopy of the employee clearance, as the prosecution had made reasonable attempts to obtain the original.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court concluded that the circumstances of the case, weighed against Pacasum’s denials, justified applying the rule that someone found in possession of and who used a forged document is the forger and, therefore, guilty of falsification. The effect of a presumption upon the burden of proof is to create the need of presenting evidence to overcome the prima facie case created, which, if no contrary proof is offered, will thereby prevail. Therefore, the High Court found no reason to overturn the ruling, sentencing Pacasum with the appropriate penalty for the crime of falsification.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Normallah A. Pacasum, a public official, was guilty of falsification of public documents for allegedly imitating a signature on her employee clearance, even without direct evidence of her involvement in the forgery.
What is an employee clearance in the context of this case?	An employee clearance is a document required by the ARMM government to ensure that employees have cleared themselves of any property or money accountabilities before receiving their salaries.
What is the legal basis for the charge of falsification?	The charge was based on Article 171, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, which penalizes public officials who falsify documents by counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature, or rubric, taking advantage of their official position.
What did the prosecution argue in this case?	The prosecution argued that Pacasum either falsified the signature herself or caused someone else to do so and that she benefited from the falsified document by receiving her salary.
What did the defense argue in this case?	The defense argued that Pacasum did not falsify the signature, that she did not need the clearance to get her salary, and that the prosecution’s evidence was insufficient to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
What was the significance of the Misuari memorandum?	The Misuari memorandum required ARMM officials and employees to liquidate outstanding cash advances before receiving their salaries, but it was not directly related to the charge of falsification.
Why was the photocopy of the employee clearance admitted as evidence?	The photocopy was admitted because the prosecution demonstrated reasonable efforts to obtain the original, but Pacasum and her assistant failed to produce it.
What is the significance of the presumption regarding possession of a falsified document?	The presumption is that if a person has possession of a falsified document and uses it to their advantage, they are presumed to be the author of the falsification, unless they can provide a satisfactory explanation.
What was the penalty imposed on Pacasum?	Pacasum was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of two years, four months, and one day of prision correccional as minimum to eight years and one day of prision mayor as maximum, with the accessories thereof, and to pay a fine of two thousand pesos (P2,000.00) with costs against the accused.

This case serves as a potent reminder that public officials are held to a higher standard of conduct. Falsification of documents, even seemingly minor ones like an employee clearance, can lead to severe legal consequences. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of upholding public trust and ensuring accountability in government service.

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: Normallah A. Pacasum v. People, G.R. No. 180314, April 16, 2009