Bernardinoooo

7/26/2019 Bernardinoooo

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bernardinoooo 1/5

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

ManilaFIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 170453 October 30, 2006NESTOR A. BERNARDNO !"# CE$EDONA N.TOMAS, petitioners,vs.PEOP$E O% T&E P&$PPNES, respondent. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! G.R. No. 17051' October 30, 2006EUGE$O G. BARA(D, petitioner,vs.PEOP$E O% T&E P&$PPNES, respondent.

D " # I S I O N

)NARES*SANTAGO, J.:

$ssailed in these consolidated petitions for revie% arethe Septe&ber '(, )**+ Decision' of the Sandianba-an%hich found petitioners uilt- of falsification of public

docu&ent in #ri&inal #ase No. )+/0 and its Nove&ber '0, )**+ Resolution) den-in petitioners1 &otion for ne%trial.

The facts sho% that petitioner Ne+tor A. Be"!r#"o-Ber"!r#"o %as the for&er Municipal Ma-or of2ui&ba, Nueva "ci3a and #hair&an of thePre4ualification 5id and $%ards #o&&ittee 6P5$#7 forthe construction of the etension of the public &ar8et of2ui&ba9 %hile petitioner E/eo G. B!r!#-B!r!# , a Municipal Treasurer %as a &e&ber of theP5$#. Petitioner Cee#o"! N. To!+ -To!+ %as theP5$#1s actin Secretar-. The other &e&bers of the

P5$# %ere Municipal #ouncilors, "rnesto T. Mateo and5enito $. Rillo9 Municipal Plannin and Develop&ent#oordinator "fren N. Fronda9 Municipal 5udet Officer

$braha& P. #olo&a9 Municipal "nineer :ose F. Mateo9Municipal $ccountant Renato ;. "s<uivel9 and non!overn&ent orani=ation representatives Paulino 2.4uindara and ;uis F. Rendon, :r.

The > M"/te+ o te oe"" o b#+>? sho% that onDece&ber 0, '((, the P5$# &e&bers convened at theMunicipal ;ibrar- of 2ui&ba, Nueva "ci3a. The $ctin#hair&an, assisted b- #o&&ission on $udit 6#O$7representative Rolando ". Ron<uillo 6Ron<uillo7,assessed the <ualifications of the four bidders %hoparticipated and thereafter a%arded the pro3ect toMasco& Desin and "nineerin International6M$S#OM7 %hose bid %as deter&ined to be the lo%estand &ost advantaeous to the overn&ent of 2ui&ba.The Minutes %as sined b- petitioner To&as in hercapacit- as the actin Secretar- of the P5$#.

On the sa&e date, petitioners 5ernardino and 5ara%idand the other P5$# &e&bers sined a> Pre/!c!to" B# !"# A!r# Cottee>/ statinthat >after due deli@bAeration, the co&&ittee resolved asit is hereb- resolved, to reco&&end @theA $%ard @of theA

#ontract @to M$S#OMA for offerin the lo%est @bidA.>Their sinatures also appear in an >Ab+tr!ct oB##">+ and > Ab+tr!ct o Proo+! >B both reflectinthe na&es of the four bidders and their respective bids.

Mean%hile, prior to the construction of the public &ar8etetension, prosecution %itness :ose ;ucius PocholoDi=on 6Ma-or Di=on7 %as elected Municipal Ma-or of2ui&ba, Nueva "ci3a in the Ma- '((0 local elections. Ce

thereafter conducted a public biddin for the constructionof the sa&e etension of the public &ar8et and a%ardedthe pro3ect to ERO 5uilder as the lo%est bidder.#onse<uentl-, M$S#OM filed before the Office of theO&buds&an a cri&inal co&pliant aainst Ma-or Di=onand petitioner 5ara%id for violation of Section ?6e7 ofRepublic $ct No. ?*'(, other%ise 8no%n as the $nti!2raft and #orrupt Practices $ct.

In his Re3oinder!$ffidavit, Ma-or Di=on contended thatthe a%ard to ERO is proper because the pro3ect couldnot be validl- iven to M$S#OM as there %as in fact noco&petitive public biddin held on Dece&ber 0, '((. In

support thereof, he attached the si&ilarl- dated :une ),)*** affidavits0 of for&er P5$# &e&bers, na&el-, ;uisF. Rendon, :r., Paulino 2. 4uindara, Renato ;. "s<uivel,:ose F. Mateo, "rnesto T. Mateo, "fren N. Fronda and

$braha& P. #olo&a, :r., statin that no public biddin%as held in connection %ith the construction of the2ui&ba public &ar8et etension nor %as the local P5$#convened on Dece&ber 0, '((. $ffiants also declaredthat the docu&ents in connection %ith the alleedbiddin %ere delivered to their residenceoffice9 and thatthe- sined the sa&e upon the representation ofM$S#OM1s representative that the docu&ents %erenecessar- for the Philippine National 5an8 loanapplication of the &unicipalit- in connection %ith the

construction of the public &ar8et.(

On the basis of the ad&ission of the said affiants, theOffice of the O&buds&an dis&issed the case aainstMa-or Di=on and petitioner 5ara%id and instead filed theinstant case for falsification of public docu&ents under

$rticle '', pararaph ) of the Revised Penal #odeaainst all the &e&bers of the P5$# &e&bers includinthe herein petitioners.

The Infor&ation chared petitioners and the P5$#&e&bers of falsification b- &a8in it appear in the>Minutes of the openin of bids,> >Pre<ualification 5idand $%ard #o&&ittee,> >$bstract of Proposal,> and>$bstract of 5iddin,> that the- and #O$ representativeconducted a public biddin on Dece&ber 0, '((,participated in b- four bidders, %hen no such biddin%as in fact conducted, to %itG

That so&eti&e on Dece&ber 0, '((, ori&&ediatel- prior or subse<uent thereto, in2ui&ba, Nueva "ci3a, Philippines, and %ithin the

3urisdiction of this Conorable #ourt, accused#eledonia N. To&as, $ctin Secretar- of thePre<ualification, 5ids and $%ard #o&&ittee

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_170453_2006.html#fnt1


























6P5$#7 of the Municipal 2overn&ent of2ui&ba, Nueva "ci3a9 Nestor $. 5ernardino,then Ma-or and P5$# #hair&an9 and the P5$#&e&bers, na&el-G 5enito $. Rillo and "rnesto T.Mateo, both &e&bers of the Sanunian5a-an9 "uelio 2. 5ara%id, Municipal Treasurer9"fren N. Fronda, Municipal Plannin andDevelop&ent #oordinator9 $braha& P. #olo&a,Municipal 5udet Officer9 :ose F. Mateo,Municipal "nineer9 Renato ;. "s<uivel,Municipal $ccountant9 and Paulino 2. 4uindaraand ;uis @F.A Rendon, :r., N2O representative,%hile in the perfor&ance of and ta8inadvantae of their official positions, conspirinand confederatin %ith one another, did thenand there, %illfull-, unla%full- and feloniousl-prepare and &a8e it appear in the 1$5STR$#TOF 5IDDIN21, the 1$5STR$#T OFPROPOS$;1, the MINHT"S OF TC" OP"NIN2OF 5IDS1 and the 1P5$# R"#OMM"ND$TION1,that a public biddin for the construction of theNe% 2ui&ba Public Mar8et "tension 6%et&ar8et7 %as concluded, that four 6/7 fir&s, to

%itG

'. 5ount- 5uilders). M.O.M "nterprise?. F.;. Reu-al #onstruction/. M$S#OM Desin and "nineerinInternational

purportedl- participated therein and sub&ittedtheir bids, that a #O$ representative %assupposedl- present durin the openin of thebids, and that the P5$# supposedl- convenedand deliberated on the purported bids %hen, in

truth and in fact, the aforesaid fir&s and the#O$ representative did not so participate andthe P5$# did not actuall- convene anddeliberate on the purported bids, as in fact, nosuch public biddin %as conducted and saiddocu&ents %ere eecuted to 3ustif- the a%ard of the contract to build the aforesaid public &ar8etetension to M$S#OM Desin and "nineerinInternational to the da&ae and pre3udice of theovern&ent.

#ONTR$RE TO ;$.'*

Hpon arrain&ent, petitioners and the other P5$#&e&bers, ecept for 5enito $. Rillo %ho died onDece&ber +, )**', pleaded not uilt-.

$t the trial, prosecution %itness and #O$ representativeRon<uillo declared that he did not attend an- publicbiddin reardin the construction of the 2ui&ba public&ar8et on Dece&ber 0, '((. '' Ce ad&itted, ho%ever,that he has no personal 8no%lede %hether or not abiddin %as trul- conducted on said date.') The sa&edeclaration %as &ade b- prosecution %itness Ma-or

Di=on %ho ad&itted that he does not 8no% %hether theP5$# conducted a public biddin.'?

The prosecution also offered in evidence the affidavits ofP5$# &e&bers, ;uis F. Rendon, :r., Paulino 2.4uindara, Renato ;. "s<uivel, :ose F. Mateo, "rnesto T.Mateo, "fren N. Fronda and $braha& P. #olo&a, :r., insupport of its theor- that no public biddin %as held b-the P5$# on Dece&ber 0, '((. #ounsel for the said

affiants ad&itted the enuineness of the sinatureappearin in the affidavits.'/

Petitioners and the P5$# &e&bers filed their separate&otions for leave to file de&urrer to evidence but %eredenied. The- %ere, ho%ever, iven a '* da- period%ithin %hich to file their respective de&urrer to evidence%ithout prior leave of court, sub3ect to the lealconse<uences under Section )?, Rule ''( of the Rulesof #ourt. Nevertheless, petitioners and the P5$#&e&bers filed separate de&urrer to evidence.

On Septe&ber '(, )**+, the Sandianba-an rendered

the assailed 3ud&ent of conviction holdin that the $ffidavits of ;uis F. Rendon, :r., Paulino 2. 4uindara,Renato ;. "s<uivel, :ose F. Mateo, "rnesto T. Mateo,"fren N. Fronda and $braha& P. #olo&a, :r., ascorroborated b- the testi&onies of #O$ representativeRon<uillo and Ma-or Di=on ro8e# be9o"# re!+o"!be#o/bt t!t "o /bc b##" !+ co"#/cte# b9 tePBAC o" Deceber ', 1::7. The dispositive portionthereof, statesG

C"R"FOR", 3ud&ent is hereb- renderedfindin accused Nestor $. 5ernardino, "rnesto TMateo, "uelio 2. 5ara%id, "fren @N.A Fronda,

$braha& @P.A #olo&a, :r., :ose F. Mateo, Renato@;.A "s<uivel, Paulino @2.A 4uindara, ;uis @F.ARendon, :r. and #eledonia N. To&as uilt-be-ond reasonable doubt of the offense charedin the $&ended Infor&ation and, %ith theapplication of the Indeter&inate Sentence la%and %ithout an- &itiatin or aravatincircu&stance, hereb- sentencin each of the&to suffer the indeter&inate penalt- of TO 6)7Eears, FOHR 6/7 MONTCS and ON" 6'7 D$E ofprision correccional as &ini&u& to "I2CT 607E"$RS and ON" D$E of prision &a-or as&ai&u& %ith the accessories thereof and topa- a fine of TO TCOHS$ND P"SOS6P),***.**7 %ith costs aainst the accused.

SO ORD"R"D.'+

Petitioners 5ernardino and To&as filed a &otion for ne%trial 'B on the basis of the alleed ne%l- discoveredevidence consistin of the affidavits eecuted in )**? to)**+ b- Renato ;. "s<uivel, "rnesto T. Mateo, "fren N.Fronda, :ose F. Mateo, $braha& P. #olo&a, :r., "uelio2. 5ara%id, ' ;uis F. Rendon, :r.,'0 and Paulino 2.4uindara,'( in connection %ith a separate ad&inistrativecase filed aainst said affiants for dishonest- and rave
































&isconduct before the Office of the O&buds&an.A!"t+ +t!te# " te +!# !#!8t+ t!t tere !+ "!ct ! /bc b##" e# o" Deceber ', 1::7; !"#t!t te9 e<ec/te# ter =/"e 27, 2000 !#!8t+t!t" t!t "o b##" occ/rre#, bec!/+e o te e!r !"# "t#!to" eo9e# b9 M!9or D>o" %honeeded said affidavits to bolster his defense in the casefor violation of the $nti!2raft and #orrupt Practices $ctfiled aainst hi&. Petitioners 5ernardino and To&asclai&ed the- %ere not part- to the said ad&inistrativecase aainst the affiants and that it %as onl- after thepro&ulation of the decision in the falsification case thataffiants apoloi=ed and infor&ed the& of the eistenceof said )**? and )**+ affidavits.

Petitioner 5ara%id and the other P5$# &e&bers alsofiled their separate &otion for ne% trial )* on the round of alleed errors of la% and irreularities in the trial of theircase.

On Nove&ber '0, )**+, the Sandianba-an denied theseparate &otions for ne% trial. )' Renato "s<uivel, :oseMateo, "fren Fronda, ;uis Rendon, :r., and Paulino4uindara filed a petition before this #ourt doc8eted as2.R. No. '*/(( but %as denied in a Resolution dated:une )B, )**B. Their &otion for reconsideration %asdenied %ith finalit- on Septe&ber '0, )**B.

Petitioner 5ara%id filed a separate petition doc8eted as2.R. No. '*+'0 %hich %as consolidated %ith thepetition of 5ernardino and To&as in 2.R. No. '*/+?.))

The issue is %hether the uilt of petitioners %as provenbe-ond reasonable doubt.

In all cri&inal prosecutions, the accused shall bepresu&ed innocent until the contrar- is proved. To 3ustif-the conviction of the accused, the prosecution &ustadduce the <uantu& of evidence sufficient to overco&ethe constitutional presu&ption of innocence. Theprosecution &ust stand or fall on its evidence andcannot dra% strenth fro& the %ea8ness of the evidenceof the accused. $ccordinl-, %hen the uilt of theaccused!appellants have not been proven %ith &oralcertaint-, it is our polic- of lon standin that theirpresu&ption of innocence &ust be favored and theireoneration be ranted as a &atter of riht.)?

In the instant case, petitioners %ere chared %ithfalsification under pararaph ), $rticle '' of theRevised Penal #ode, b- causin it to appear thatpersons have participated in an- act or proceedin %henthe- did not in fact so participate. Its ele&ents areG 6'7that the offender is a public officer, e&plo-ee or notar-public9 6)7 that he ta8es advantae of his official position96?7 that he falsifies a docu&ent b- causin it to appearthat a person or persons have participated in an- act orproceedin %hen the- did not in fact so participate.)/

The evidence presented b- the prosecution to establishthat no biddin %as conducted on Dece&ber 0, '((

%ere the :une ), )*** affidavits of ;uis F. Rendon, :r.,Paulino 2. 4uindara, Renato ;. "s<uivel, :ose F. Mateo,"rnesto T. Mateo, "fren N. Fronda and $braha& P.#olo&a, :r. The testi&onies of #O$ representativeRon<uillo and Ma-or Di=on could not be considered forpurposes of deter&inin %hether a public biddin %asindeed held on that da- because of their ad&ission thatthe- do not have personal 8no%lede %hether or notsaid biddin %as indeed conducted.

Pertinent portions of the si&ilarl- %orded affidavit of ;uisF. Rendon, :r., and Paulino 2. 4uindara, readsG

+7 That the truth of the &atter is that no publicbiddin for the contract to construct the ne%public &ar8et @etensionA of theMunicipalit- of 2ui&ba, Nueva "ci3a %asactuall- held or conducted on *0 Dece&ber'(( nor %as the ;ocal P5$# convened inconnection there%ith, and that biddindocu&ents relative thereto purportin to sho%that a public biddin %as conducted inaccordance %ith the applicable la%s, rules andreulations on public biddin and a%ard ofcontracts %ere hand delivered to &e in &-residence b- a representative of Masco&, acertain #alo- Santos for &- sinature.

B7 That I have no 8no%lede of andorparticipation in the preparation of the sub3ectbiddin docu&ents, ecept &- sinaturethereon.)+

Renato ;. "s<uivel deposed thatG

?. That no actual public biddin %as held andorconducted on *0 Dece&ber '(( in connection%ith the contract for the construction of the ne%public &ar8et @etensionA of theMunicipalit- of 2ui&ba, Nueva "ci3a assupported b- the follo%inG

a. The Office of the Municipal $ccountant of the Municipalit- of2ui&ba, Nueva "ci3a, %as not furnishedan- co&&unicationlettersnotice statinthat such public biddin %ill beconducted %hich is nor&all- done

before an- public biddin is held.

b. The coverin public biddindocu&ents %ere personall- delivered to&e in &- residence b- a representativeof Masco& Desin J "nineerinInternational for &- sinature.

c. I have no 8no%lede of andorparticipation in the preparation of thecoverin public biddin docu&ents



















alleedl- held on *0 Dece&ber '((,ecept for &- sinature thereon.

d. The coverin public biddindocu&ents %ere not sined b- theassined #o&&ission on $uditrepresentative.)B

:ose F. Mateo, "fren N. Fronda and $braha& P.

#olo&a, :r., si&ilarl- averred thatG

?. That no actual public biddin %as held andorconducted on *0 Dece&ber '(( in connection%ith the contract for the construction of the ne%public &ar8et @etensionA of theMunicipalit- of 2ui&ba, Nueva "ci3a.

/. That the coverin biddin docu&ents for thepublic biddin alleedl- held on *0 Dece&ber'(( %ere hand delivered to &e b- arepresentative of Masco& Desin J "nineerinInternational 6Masco& for brevit-7 in &- office

for sinature.)

;i8e%ise the $ffidavit of "rnesto T. Mateo, readsG

?7 That no actual public biddin %asheldconducted on *0 Dece&ber '(( inconnection %ith the contract for the constructionof the ne% public &ar8et @etensionA of theMunicipalit- of 2ui&ba, Nueva "ci3a.

/7 That the coverin biddin docu&ents for thealleed public biddin conducted on *0Dece&ber '(( %ere sined b- &e in &-residence.)0

$s can be athered fro& the foreoin, the affiantsdeclared that no public biddin %as held on Dece&ber 0,'((. Co%ever, said declaration is &erel- an epressionof an opinion and not a fact considerin that li8eprosecution %itnesses Ron<uillo and Ma-or Di=on, the-also have no personal 8no%lede as to %hether or not abiddin %as indeed conducted at the Municipal ;ibrar- of 2ui&ba, Nueva "ci3a on Dece&ber 0, '((. Pursuant toSection /0, Rule '?* of the Rules of #ourt, the opinionof %itnesses, as in the instant case, is not ad&issible.Since affiants %ere not in the place %here the alleed

biddin %as held, the- are not in the position to declare%ith &oral certaint- that no such biddin in factoccurred. Their state&ents that the- sined thedocu&ents sho%in that the- participated in thedeter&ination of the lo%est bidder %ith 8no%lede thatthe- did not in fact so participate therein, bind onl- the&and not petitioners %hose %hereabouts on Dece&ber 0,'(( %ere not established to be 8no%n to said affiants.

$nd %hile the Infor&ation alleed conspirac- such thatthe acts of the affiants &a- be attributed as %ell topetitioners 5ernardino and To&as, the sa&e cannot beconsidered aainst said petitioners inas&uch as no

evidence %as presented b- the prosecution to establishconspirac-. #onspirac- &ust be established b- positiveand conclusive evidence. It cannot be based on &erecon3ectures but &ust be established as a fact.)(

Hnder Section ?B, Rule '?* of the sa&e Rules,%itnesses can testif- onl- to those facts %hich the- 8no%of their personal 8no%lede, that is, %hich is derivedfro& their o%n perception, ecept as other%ise provided

b- the rules. The- are not enerall- allo%ed to testif- ontheir opinions or conclusions but &ust state facts %ithintheir 8no%lede as it is the province of the court to &a8edeductions fro& pertinent facts placed in evidence andto decide &atters directl- in issue. Their testi&on- &ustbe confined to state&ents of concrete facts %ithin theiro%n observation, 8no%lede, and recollection K that is,facts perceived b- the use of their o%n senses K asdistinuished fro& their opinions, inferences,i&pressions and conclusions dra%n fro& such facts,%hich are inco&petent and inad&issible.?* hile thereare eceptions?' to the rule on inad&issibilit- of opinions,the sub3ect declarations in the instant case is not one ofthe&.

Moreover, the evidence sho%in that seven &e&bers ofthe P5$# did not attend the public biddin does notprove be-ond reasonable doubt that petitioner To&as asactin Secretar- and the other three &e&bers, that is,the deceased 5enito $. Rillo, and herein petitioners5ernardino and 5ara%id, did not convene on Dece&ber0, '((. Other%ise, stated, the absence of the sevenP5$# &e&bers did not eli&inate the possibilit- that therest of the &e&bers convened and carried out the publicbiddin %ith four participatin bidders. U"#er tee/o+e r/e, ere te e8#e"ce o" !" ++/e o!ct + " e/o+e or tere + #o/bt o" c +#e

te e8#e"ce reo"#er!te+, te !rt9 !8" teb/r#e" o roo, c " t+ c!+e + tero+ec/to", o+e+. Te e/o+e r/e "#+!c!to" , !+ " te re+e"t c!+e, te "c/!tor9!ct+ !"# crc/+t!"ce+ !re c!!be o to or oree<!"!to"+, o"e o c + co"++te"t t te""oce"ce o te !cc/+e# !"# te oter co"++te"tt + /t, or te" te e8#e"ce #oe+ "ot /te te+t o or! cert!"t9, !"# #oe+ "ot +/ce toro#/ce ! co"8cto". 32

In su&, the #ourt finds that petitioners 5ernardino and5ara%id &ust be ac<uitted considerin that the

prosecution failed to prove their uilt be-ond &oralcertaint-. The la%, to uard aainst in3ustice, re<uiresthat the offense be established b- evidence be-ondreasonable doubt. It is a serious &atter, not onl- to apart-, but to the state as %ell, to ta8e a person fro& theordinar- avocations of life, brand hi& a felon, anddeprive hi& of his libert-, appropriate his labor, and casta cloud upon his future life, and hu&iliate his relativesand friends. To authori=e the state in doin this, there&ust be no reasonable doubt on the accused1s uilt.??






















Co%ever, the sa&e cannot be said %ith respect topetitioner To&as. "ven if %e assu&e that all the P5$#&e&bers attended the biddin, includin those %hoeecuted an affidavit to the contrar-, petitioner To&as isstill liable for falsification. Note that she %as the onl- one%ho sined the >Minutes of the openin of bids> %hichstated, a&on others, that #O$ representative Ron<uilloattended the public biddin on Dece&ber 0, '((. $sactin Secretar- of the P5$# she has the dut- toprepare or intervene in the preparation of the Minutes ofthe &eetins of the P5$# %hich should be recordedpursuant to Section ??/ of the ;ocal 2overn&ent #ode.In &a8in it appear that #O$ representative Ron<uilloattended the biddin %hen the latter cateoricall-testified that he never attended a public biddin in theMunicipalit- of 2ui&ba, Nueva "ci3a on Dece&ber 0,'((, petitioner To&as too8 advantae of her officialposition,?+ renderin her liable for falsification under

$rticle '' pararaph ) of the Revised Penal #ode.Findin the testi&on- of #O$ representative Ron<uillo tobe convincin and there bein no ill &otive sho%n that%ould i&pel hi& to per3ure hi&self, the #ourt ivescredence to his declaration and sustains the 3ud&ent of

conviction aainst petitioner To&as.

In the sa&e vein, petitioner To&as1 &otion for ne% trial%as correctl- denied b- the Sandianba-an. Theevidence presented in support of said &otion %as that apublic biddin %as trul- conducted and that the P5$#&e&bers attended the sa&e. Co%ever, this has nobearin on the culpabilit- of petitioner To&as %hich ispredicated on her untruthful declaration that the #O$representative attended the biddin, reardless of thepresence or absence of the P5$# &e&bers.

Hnder $rticle '' of the of the Revised Penal #ode,

falsification is punishable %ith prision mayor and a finenot to eceed P+,***.**. There bein no &odif-incircu&stance in the instant case, the penalt- of petitioner To&as shall be i&posed in its &ediu& period, raninfro& 0 -ears and ' da- to '* -ears. $ppl-in theIndeter&inate Sentence ;a%, ?B she is entitled to anindeter&inate penalt- the &ini&u& of %hich &a- befied an-%here %ithin the rane of the penalt- net lo%er in deree to prision mayor, %hich is prisioncorreccional %ith a duration of B &onths and ' da- to B-ears. Petitioner To&as is therefore sentenced to sufferthe penalt- of B &onths and ' da- of prisioncorreccional to 0 -ears and ' da- of prision mayor.

(&ERE%ORE, the Septe&ber '(, )**+ Decision of theSandianba-an in #ri&inal #ase No. )+/0 isR"V"RS"D and S"T $SID" %ith respect to petitionersNestor $. 5ernardino and "uelio 2. 5ara%id %ho areAC?UTTED of the cri&e of falsification under $rticle'' pararaph ) of the Revised Penal #ode on theround of reasonable doubt.

Insofar as petitioner #eledonia N. To&as is concerned,the Septe&ber '(, )**+ Decision of the Sandianba-an

in #ri&inal #ase No. )+/0 findin her uilt- of thecri&e of falsification under $rticle '' pararaph ) of theRevised Penal #ode is A%%RMED tMOD%CATON as to the indeter&inate penalt- %hich isfied at B &onths and ' da- of prision correccional to 0-ears and ' da- of prision mayor .

SO ORDERED.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners are guilty offalsication of public documents under Article 171,

paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code

RULING: o! the evidence sho"ing that seven

members of the P#AC did not attend the public bidding

does not prove beyond reasonable doubt that

petitioner $omas as acting %ecretary and the other

three members, that is, the deceased #enito A! Rillo,

and herein petitioners #ernardino and #ara"id, did not

convene on &ecember ', 1((7! )ther"ise, stated, the

absence of the seven P#AC members did not eliminate

the possibility that the rest of the members convened

and carried out the public bidding "ith fourparticipating bidders!

*nder the e+uipoise rule, "here the evidence on an

issue of fact is in e+uipoise or there is doubt on "hich

side the evidence preponderates, the party having the

burden of proof, "hich in this case is the prosecution,

loses! $he e+uipoise rule nds application if, as in the

present case, the inculpatory facts and circumstances

are capable of t"o or more eplanations, one of "hich

is consistent "ith the innocence of the accused and the

other consistent "ith his guilt, for then the evidence

does not fulll the test of moral certainty, and does not

su-ce to produce a conviction

the Court nds that petitioners #ernardino and #ara"id

must be ac+uitted considering that the prosecution

failed to prove their guilt beyond moral certainty

.o"ever, the same cannot be said "ith respect to

petitioner $omas! /ven if "e assume that all the P#AC

members attended the bidding, including those "ho

eecuted an a-davit to the contrary, petitioner $omas

is still liable for falsication! ote that she "as the only

one "ho signed the 0inutes of the opening of bids0

"hich stated, among others, that C)A representative

Ron+uillo attended the public bidding on &ecember ',1((7

n ma3ing it appear that C)A representative Ron+uillo

attended the bidding "hen the latter categorically

testied that he never attended a public bidding in the

unicipality of 4uimba, ueva /ci5a on &ecember ',

1((7, petitioner $omas too3 advantage of her o-cial

position,6 rendering her liable for falsication under

Article 171 paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code!













Documents

Bernardinoooo