FACTS:

The case involves accused-petitioner Floro T. Tadena, who was the Municipal Mayor of Sto. Domingo, Ilocos Sur at the time of the incident. Tadena requested for the creation of the position of a Municipal Administrator, which was addressed through a municipal ordinance. Tadena made changes to the ordinance and these changes were noted by the Sangguniang Bayan. Tadena was charged with falsification of public document and pleaded not guilty. He was found guilty by the Sandiganbayan. Tadena filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied, and then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the SB erred in ruling that Tadena's right to speedy disposition of his case was not violated; Whether the SB erred in finding Tadena guilty beyond reasonable doubt of falsification under Article 171, Paragraph 6 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC); Whether the SB imposed the proper penalty.

2. Whether there was inordinate delay in the prosecution of the case.

3. Whether Tagorda's desistance is a ground for dismissal of the case.

4. Whether the elements of falsification under Article 171, Paragraph 6 of the RPC are present in this case.

5. Whether the alteration or intercalation on the municipal ordinance was made on a genuine document.

6. Whether the alteration or intercalation changed the meaning of the document.

7. Whether the alteration or intercalation made the document speak something false.

RULING:

1. The petition was denied. The Court held that the issue of inordinate delay raised a question of fact, not proper for a petition for review on certiorari. The Court found that Tadena's claim of Tagorda's desistance as a ground for dismissal was not enough as the State has the sovereign right to prosecute criminal offenses. The Court upheld the SB's findings of guilt and the imposition of the penalty.

2. The issue of inordinate delay raises a question of fact, which is not a proper subject of a petition for review on certiorari. Exceptions to this rule were not alleged or substantiated. Thus, the Court will not entertain a factual issue.

3. Tagorda's desistance is not a ground for dismissal of the case. An affidavit of desistance is merely an additional ground to support the accused's defenses, not the sole consideration for acquittal. Other circumstances must be present to create doubts regarding the truthfulness of the testimonies accepted by the judge. In this case, Tagorda's desistance did not repudiate the material points in the Information and the charges remained intact.

4. The elements of falsification under Article 171, Paragraph 6 of the RPC are present. The offender is a public officer; the offender took advantage of their official position; and the offender falsified a document by making alterations or intercalations that change its meaning. The accused, who was the municipal mayor, intervened in the enactment of the ordinance by making changes to the wording of a clause. The accused also had custody of the document and admitted receiving it in his office for appropriate action.

5. The alteration or intercalation was made on a genuine document. The prosecution presented evidence, including the original second version of the municipal ordinance, the altered second version, and a resolution from the Sangguniang Bayan acknowledging the alteration. The defense admitted the existence and authenticity of these documents.

6. The alteration or intercalation changed the meaning of the document. The second version of the municipal ordinance originally stated that the position of Municipal Administrator shall not be created unless the 2% of the Mandatory 5% Salary Increase for 2002 is implemented. However, the alteration changed it to state that the position shall be created and the salary increase implemented. This alteration departed from the original intention of the sanggunian and conveyed an untruthful idea.

7. The alteration or intercalation made the document speak something false. The altered second version of the municipal ordinance contradicted the original intention of the Sangguniang Bayan, removing the condition imposed and presenting a false representation of the intention of the local legislative body.

PRINCIPLES:

• Inordinate delay in the prosecution of a case is not a proper subject of a petition for review on certiorari unless exceptions are alleged and substantiated.

• Tagorda's desistance is not a sole consideration for acquittal and must be accompanied by other circumstances that create doubts regarding the truthfulness of testimonies.

• The elements of falsification under Article 171, Paragraph 6 of the RPC require the offender to be a public officer, to take advantage of their official position, and to falsify a document by making alterations or intercalations that change its meaning.

• The alteration or intercalation on a document must meet certain requirements to be considered forgery, including being made on a genuine document, changing the meaning of the document, and making the document speak something false.

• The party producing a document as genuine which has been altered must account for the alteration, failing which the document may not be admissible in evidence. This is provided under Section 31, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence.

• Public documents, which include written official acts of public officers, are admissible as evidence. Altered public documents may still be valid as long as their alterations are accounted for and do not change their meaning or language.

• A public officer who alters a public document and passes it off as genuine commits the crime of falsification by a public officer of a public document.

• Voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance requires spontaneity and the intent of the accused to give oneself up and submit to the authorities, either because of an acknowledgment of guilt or to save the authorities the trouble and expense of searching and capturing them.