View full case

ATTY. RODOLFO D. PACTOLIN v. FOURTH DIVISION OF SANDIGANBAYAN

FACTS:

Atty. Rodolfo P. Pactolin, a former member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Misamis Occidental, filed a complaint against Mario R. Ferraren, the Officer-in-Charge (OIC)-Mayor of Ozamis City, alleging that Ferraren illegally disbursed public funds worth PHP 10,000 in connivance with the City Accountant. Pactolin claimed that Ferraren falsified a document dated May 3, 1998, intercalating Ferraren's name and imitating his signature to make it appear that Ferraren approved the request for financial assistance. A criminal complaint for falsification of a public document was filed against Pactolin.

During the trial, the Sandiganbayan found Pactolin guilty of falsification under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and sentenced him to imprisonment and a fine. Pactolin filed a petition arguing that the Sandiganbayan does not have jurisdiction over the crime of falsification and that there was no evidence showing that he committed the falsification while in the performance of his official duties.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the case

  2. Whether the petitioner's conviction is valid

  3. Whether or not there was sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the accused for falsification.

  4. Whether or not the Sandiganbayan grave abused its discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.

  5. Whether or not the conviction of the accused violated his right to due process.

RULING:

  1. The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the case. Falsification of public documents falls within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan under Section 4 of RA 8249. The said provision enumerates the cases in which the Sandiganbayan has exclusive jurisdiction, including violations of the Revised Penal Code, where one or more of the accused are officials occupying certain positions in the government.

  2. The petitioner's conviction is valid. Although the information did not specifically designate the crime he is charged with, it contained averments that constitute falsification under both Article 171 and Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code. The last paragraph of Article 172 does not specify that the offending person must be a public individual, therefore a public officer may be convicted under this provision. The character of the crime is determined by the recital of ultimate facts and circumstances in the complaint or information, and not by the title or designation of the offense.

  3. The Sandiganbayan's conviction of the accused was based on its factual findings after the prosecution presented both documentary and testimonial pieces of evidence. The Supreme Court defers to the factual findings of the lower court, which had more opportunities and facilities to examine the evidence presented. The Sandiganbayan established undisputed facts that clearly pointed to the accused's possession and use of a falsified document. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the accused for falsification.

  4. The Supreme Court held that the Sandiganbayan did not gravely abuse its discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. Any disposition of a case, whether it be dismissal, conviction, or acquittal of the accused, rests on the sound discretion of the court. As long as the substantial rights of the accused are not impaired and the right to due process is not violated, the court's exercise of discretion is valid. In this case, no substantial rights of the accused were impaired, and there was no violation of his right to due process.

  5. The Supreme Court found that the accused's right to due process was not violated. He was adequately informed of the charges against him, had the opportunity to confront witnesses against him, and had the chance to question documents presented by the prosecution. Therefore, his conviction did not violate his right to due process.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Falsification of public document is within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan under Section 4 of RA 8249.

  • The designation or title of the offense does not determine the character of the crime charged, but rather the recital of ultimate facts and circumstances in the complaint or information.

  • The last paragraph of Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code does not specify that the offender must be a public individual, therefore a public officer may be convicted under this provision.

  • The Supreme Court defers to the factual findings of the lower court that had more opportunities and facilities to examine the evidence (deference to factual findings).

  • In the absence of a satisfactory explanation, one found in possession and using a forged document is deemed the forger and guilty of falsification.

  • Disposition of a case rests on the sound discretion of the court, as long as the substantial rights of the accused are not impaired and the right to due process is not violated.

  • Conviction of a lawyer for a criminal offense can be treated as an administrative complaint under Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court and referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for appropriate action.