RULE 119 – TRIAL

Suero v. People
31 January 2005 G.R. No. 156408 PANGANIBAN, J.:
Provisions/Concepts/Doctrines and How Applied to the Case
Section 5 of Rule 120 of the Rules of Court:

SECTION 5. When an offense includes or is included in another. -- An offense charged necessarily includes
that
which is proved, when some of the essential elements or ingredients of the former, as this is alleged in the
complaint or information, constitute the latter. And an offense charged is necessarily included in the offense
proved, when the essential ingredients of the former constitute or form a part of those constituting the latter.
FACTS
The petitioner was earlier accused, together with another accused, of the crime of Falsification of Public
Document, defined and penalized under Article 171 of the RPC, per Information dated November 7, 1996,
signed by Marco Anacleto P. Bueno, Graft Investigation Officer I, Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao,
Davao City and filed before the RTC where it was alleged that being the Administrative Officer of the
Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS), Region XI, Davao City, with salary grades below
grade 27, took advantage of his official position and falsified an undated Inspection Report affixing his
signatures thereto, making it appear that various furniture purchased from, and delivered by Business
International Wood Products in the total amount of ₱1,033,450.00, have all been delivered, thereby justifying
the release of the payment, when in fact, no such complete delivery was made and inspected, to the damage
and prejudice of the government.

After the petitioner was arraigned and during trial, the trial was suspended when the Court a Quo granted the
Joint Motion to Suspend further Proceedings, filed jointly by the Accused and Respondent Ombudsman. The
motion was filed on the ground that the two accused in the instant case before the RTC and are also charged
for an offense arising from the same transaction now before the Sandiganbayan for violation of Sec. 3(e) of RA
No. 3019, Anti Graft and Corruption; that the primordial issue under which these cases were filed before
different courts of separate jurisdiction are the same – validity (or falsification) of the questioned
documents. It was preferred that the Sandiganbayan takes precedence over all other cases including the
instant case involving the same accused similarly situated.

Subsequently, upon the motion of the accused the Case before the RTC was eventually dismissed without
Prejudice while the Case before the SB was decided, acquitting the petitioner.

Thereafter, the RESPONDENT OMBUDSMAN wrote a letter to the Clerk of Court of the RESPONDENT
JUDGE expressing their decision in ‘refiling the information of Falsification of Public Document. Consequently,
a new information was filed.

Petitioner filed before the RESPONDENT JUDGE, a Motion to Quash Information and/or Dismiss Case, but
was denied as well as its motion for reconsideration.
Petitioner contends that the charge of falsification of a public document before the RTC is necessarily inclusive
of or included in the earlier Information filed with the Sandiganbayan for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019.
He claims that his acquittal by the anti-graft court constitutes a bar to the present case under the doctrine of
double jeopardy.
ISSUE/S (relevant to the syllabus)
Whether or not the charge of falsification of a public document is necessarily inclusive of or included in the
earlier Information filed with the Sandiganbayan for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019. NO

Whether or not the prosecution of petitioner for falsification of a public document would place him twice in
jeopardy. NO

RULING (include how the law was applied)

Section 5 of Rule 120 of the Rules of Court provides:

SECTION 5. When an offense includes or is included in another. -- An offense charged necessarily includes
that which is proved, when some of the essential elements or ingredients of the former, as this is alleged in
the complaint or information, constitute the latter. And an offense charged is necessarily included in the
offense proved, when the essential ingredients of the former constitute or form a part of those constituting the
latter.

A comparison of the elements of the crime of falsification of a public document, provided for in Article 171 of
the Revised Penal Code, and those of violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 shows that there is neither
identity nor exclusive inclusion between the offenses.

For falsification of a public document to be established, the following elements must concur:
1. That the offender is a public officer, employee, or notary public;
2. That he takes advantage of his official position;
3. That he falsifies a document by committing any of the following acts:
a. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric;
b. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact
so participate;
c. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements other than those in
fact made by them;
d. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts;
e. Altering true dates;
f. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning;
g. Issuing in authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an original document when no
such original exists, or including in such copy a statement contrary to, or different from, that of the
genuine original;
h. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry or official
book x x x.

On the other hand, to hold a person criminally liable under Section 3(e) of RA 3019, the following elements
must be present:
(1) That the accused are public officers or private persons charged in conspiracy with them;
(2) That said public officers commit the prohibited acts during the performance of their official duties or in
relation to their public positions;
(3) That they cause undue injury to any party, whether the Government or a private party;
(4) That such injury is caused by giving unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference to such parties; and
(5) That the public officers have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable
negligence.

Indeed, the crime under Section 3(e) of RA 3019 shares two common elements with the felony under Article
171 of the Revised Penal Code -- that the offender is a public officer and that the act is related to the
officer’s public position. However, the latter offense is not necessarily inclusive of the former. The essential
elements of each are not included among or do not form part of those enumerated in the former . For there to
be double jeopardy, the elements of one offense should -- like the ribs of an umbrella -- ideally encompass
those of the other. The elements of a violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 fall outside the realm of those of
falsification of a public document and vice versa. At most, the two offenses may be considered as two
conjoined umbrellas with one or two common ribs. Clearly, one offense does not include the other.

The differences between the elements needed to establish the commission of the two charges imply that the
evidence required to prove the guilt or the innocence of the accused would likewise differ in each case. Since
both charges stemmed from the same transaction, the same documents may be relevant to both cases.
However, the degree of materiality of these documents in relation to proving the commission of the offenses
would necessarily vary.

It is undisputed that the two charges stem from the same transaction. However, it has been consistently held
that the same act may give rise to two or more separate and distinct offenses. No double jeopardy attaches,
as long as there is a variance between the elements of the offenses charged. The constitutional right
against double jeopardy protects from a second prosecution for the same offense, not for a different one.

DISPOSITIVE
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. Respondent judge is DIRECTED to proceed with all deliberate speed
in
Criminal Case No. 48167-01 and to conclude it in accordance with law. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED
ADDITIONAL NOTES