Galeos v. People

THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. Nos. 174730-37. February 9, 2011.]
ROSALIO S. GALEOS , petitioner, vs . PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES ,

respondent.
[G.R. Nos. 174845-52. February 9, 2011.]
PAULINO S. ONG , petitioner, vs . PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES ,

respondent.
DECISION
VILLARAMA, JR. , J : p
The consolidated petitions at bar seek to reverse and set aside the Decision 1
promulgated on August 18, 2005 by the Sandiganbayan convicting petitioners Paulino
S. Ong (Ong) of eight counts and Rosalio S. Galeos (Galeos) of four counts of
falsi cation of public documents under Article 171, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended.
The facts are as follows:
Ong was appointed Of cer-in-Charge (OIC)-Mayor of the Municipality of Naga,
Cebu on April 16, 1986. He was elected Mayor of the same municipality in 1988 and
served as such until 1998. 2
On June 1, 1994, Ong extended permanent appointments to Galeos and Federico
T. Rivera (Rivera) for the positions of Construction and Maintenance Man and Plumber I,
respectively, in the Of ce of the Municipal Engineer. 3 Prior to their permanent
appointment, Galeos and Rivera were casual employees of the municipal government.
In their individual Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) for the
year 1993, Galeos answered "No" to the question: "To the best of your knowledge, are
you related within the fourth degree of consanguinity or of af nity to anyone working in
the government?" while Rivera indicated "n/a" on the space for the list of the names of
relatives referred to in the said query. 4 The boxes for "Yes" and "No" to the said query
were left in blank by Galeos in his 1994 and 1995 SALN. 5 Rivera in his 1995 SALN
answered "No" to the question on relatives in government. 6 In their 1996 SALN, both
Galeos and Rivera also did not ll up the boxes indicating their answers to the same
query. 7 Ong's signature appears in all the foregoing documents as the person who
administered the oath when Galeos and Rivera executed the foregoing documents.
In a letter-certi cation dated June 1, 1994 addressed to Ms. Benita O. Santos,
Regional Director, Civil Service Commission (CSC), Regional Of ce 7, Cebu City, it was
attested that: TAIDHa
This is to certify that pursuant to the provisions of R.A. 7160, otherwise known as
the Local Government Code of 1991, all restrictions/requirements relative to
creation of positions, hiring and issuance of appointments, Section 325 on the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
limitations for personal services in the total/supplemental appropriation of a local
government unit; salary rates; abolition and creation of positions, etc.; Section 76,
organizational structure and staf ng pattern; Section 79 on nepotism ; Section
80, posting of vacancy and personnel selection board; Section 81 on
compensation, etc. have been duly complied with in the issuance of this
appointment.
This is to certify further that the faithful observance of these

restrictions/requirements was made in accordance with the
requirements of the Civil Service Commission before the appointment was
submitted for review and action. 8 (Emphasis supplied.)
The above certi cation was signed by Ong and HR Of cer-Designate Editha C.
Garcia.
On October 1, 1998, the members of the Sangguniang Bayan of Naga, Cebu led
a letter-complaint 9 before the Of ce of the Ombudsman (OMB)-Visayas against Ong
(then incumbent Vice-Mayor of Naga), Galeos and Rivera for dishonesty, nepotism,
violation of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Of cials and
Employees and Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and for the crime of falsi cation
of public documents.
On August 11, 2000, Ombudsman Aniano Desierto approved the
recommendation of OIC-Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas that criminal charges be
led against Ong, Galeos and Rivera for falsi cation of public documents under Article
171 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, in connection with the Certi cation dated
June 1, 1994 issued by Ong and the false statements in the 1993, 1995 and 1996 SALN
of Rivera and the 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996 SALN of Galeos. 1 0
On August 16, 2000, the following Informations 1 1 were led against the
petitioners:
Criminal Case No. 26181
That on or about the 14th day of February, 1994, in the Municipality of Naga,
Province of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
above-named [Paulino S. Ong and Rosalio S. Galeos] accused, public of cers,
being the former Municipal Mayor and Construction and Maintenance Man of the
Of ce of the Municipal Engineer, Municipality of Naga, Cebu, in such capacity
and committing the offense in relation to of ce, conniving and confederating
together and mutually helping with each other, with deliberate intent, with intent to
falsify, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously falsify a public
document, consisting of a Sworn Statement of Assets and Liabilities,
Disclosure of Business Interests and Financial Connections and
Identi cation of Relatives in the Government Service, as of December
3 1 , 1993 , led by accused Rosalio S. Galeos and subscribed and sworn to
before accused Paulino S. Ong , wherein accused made it appear therein
that they are not related within the fourth degree of consanguinity or
af nity thereby making untruthful statements in a narration of facts ,
when in truth and in fact, accused very well k[n]ew that they are related with each
other, since accused Rosalio S. Galeos is related to accused Paulino S. Ong within
the fourth degree of consanguinity, the mother of accused Rosalio S. Galeos
[being] the sister of the mother of accused Paulino S. Ong .
CONTRARY TO LAW. (Emphasis supplied.) CSaITD

That on or about the 15th day of February 1994, in the Municipality of Naga,
above-named [Paulino S. Ong and Federico T. Rivera] accused, public of cers,
being the former Municipal Mayor and Plumber I of the Of ce of the Municipal
Engineer, Municipality of Naga, Cebu, in such capacity and committing the
offense in relation to of ce, conniving and confederating together and mutually
helping with each other, with deliberate intent, with intent to falsify, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously falsify a public document, consisting of
a Sworn Statement of Assets and Liabilities, Disclosure of Business
Interests and Financial Connections and Identi cation of Relatives In
the Government Service as of December 31, 1993 , led by accused
Federico T. Rivera and subscribed and sworn to before accused Paulino S.
Ong , wherein accused Federico T. Rivera made it appear therein that he has
no relatives within the fourth degree of consanguinity or af nity
working in the government, thereby making untruthful statements in a
narration of facts , when in truth and in fact, as accused very well knew that
they are related with each other, since accused Federico T. Rivera is related to
accused Paulino S. Ong within the fourth degree of af nity, the mother of
Federico T. Rivera's wife being the sister of the mother of Paulino S.
Ong .
CONTRARY TO LAW. (Emphasis supplied.)

That on or about the 1st day of February, 1996, in the Municipality of Naga,
af nity thereby making false statements in a narration of facts , when in
truth and in fact, as accused very well k[n]ew that they are related with each other,
since accused Rosalio S. Galeos is related to accused Paulino S. Ong within the
fourth degree of consanguinity, the mother of accused Rosalio S. Galeos
being the sister of the mother of accused Paulino S. Ong .
CONTRARY TO LAW. (Emphasis supplied.) TaEIcS

That on or about the 1st day of February 1996, in the Municipality of Naga,
Interests and Financial Connections and Identi cation of Relatives in
the Government Service, [a]s of December 31, 1995 , led by accused
Ong , wherein accused Federico T. Rivera made it appear therein that he
has no relatives within the fourth degree of consanguinity or af nity
Ong .

That on or about the 5th day of February 1997, in the Municipality of Naga,
Interests and Financial Connections and Identi cation of Relatives in
the Government Service, [a]s of December 31, 1996 , led by accused
Ong , wherein accused Federico T. Rivera made it appear therein that he
has no relatives within the fourth degree of consanguinity or af nity
Ong .
CONTRARY TO LAW. (Emphasis supplied.) HDIaST

That on or about the 3rd day of March, 1995, in the Municipality of Naga,
Identi cation of Relatives In the Government Services, as of December
when in truth and in fact, as accused very well k[n]ew that they are related with
each other, since accused Rosalio S. Galeos is related to accused Paulino S. Ong,
within the fourth degree of consanguinity, the mother of accused Rosalio S.
Galeos being the sister of the mother of accused Paulino S. Ong .

That on or about the 11th day of March, 1997, in the Municipality of Naga,
and committing the offense in relation to of ce, conniving and confederating,
when in truth and in fact, as accused very well k[n]ew that they are related with
each other, since accused Rosalio S. Galeos is related to accused Paulino S. Ong
within the fourth degree of consanguinity, the mother of accused Rosalio S.
Galeos being the sister of the mother of accused Paulino S. Ong .
CONTRARY TO LAW. (Emphasis supplied.) HTCaAD

That on or about the 1st day of June, 1994, at the Municipality of Naga, Province
of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above-
named accused, a public of cer, being the former Mayor of the Municipality of
Naga, Cebu, in such capacity and committing the offense in relation to of ce,
with deliberate intent, with intent to falsify, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously falsify a public document, consisting of a Certification in the
form of a letter addressed to Mrs. Benita O. Santos, then Regional Director of the
Civil Service Commission (CSC)-Region VII, Cebu City dated June 1, 1994 , a
requirement in the approval of an appointment, certifying therein that
there was a faithful compliance of the requirement/restriction provided
under the Civil Service Laws and Rules in the appointment of Rosalio S.
Galeos , as Construction and Maintenance Man of the Of ce of the Municipal
Engineer, Naga, Cebu, thereby making untruthful statements in a narration
of facts , when in truth and in fact as accused very well knew that the
appointment of Rosalio S. Galeos was nepotic being made in violation
of the Civil Service Rules and Laws on Nepotism , as Rosalio S. Galeos is
related to accused within the fourth degree of consanguinity, since the mother
of Rosalio S. Galeos is the sister of the mother of accused , which
Certi cation caused the approval of the appointment of Rosalio S. Galeos, to the
detriment of public interest.

That on or about the 1st day of June, 1994, at the Municipality of Naga, Province
of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above-
named accused, a public of cer, being the former Mayor of the Municipality of
Naga, Cebu, in such capacity and committing the offense in relation to of ce,
with deliberate intent, with intent to falsify, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously falsify a public document, consisting of a Certification in the
form of a letter addressed to Mrs. Benita O. Santos, then Regional Director of the
Civil Service Commission (CSC), Region VII, Cebu City, dated June 1, 1994 , a
requirement in the approval of an appointment, certifying therein that
there was a faithful compliance of the requirement/restriction provided
under the Civil Service Laws and Rules in the appointment of Federico
T . Rivera , a Plumber I of the Of ce of the Municipal Engineer, Naga, Cebu,
thereby making untruthful statements in a narration of facts , when in
truth and in fact as accused very well knew that the appointment of Federico
T. Rivera was nepotic being made in violation of the Civil Service Rules
and Laws on Nepotism , as Federico T. Rivera is related to accused within the
fourth degree of affinity, since the mother of Federico T. Rivera's wife is the
sister of the mother of accused, which certi cation caused the approval
of the appointment of Federico T. Rivera , to the detriment of public interest.
CONTRARY TO LAW. (Emphasis supplied.) THaDEA
Under the Joint Stipulation of Facts submitted to the court a quo, the accused
made the following admissions: (1) Ong was the Municipal Mayor of Cebu at all times
relevant to these cases; (2) Ong is related to Galeos, within the fourth degree of
consanguinity as his mother is the sister of Galeos' mother, and to Rivera within the
fourth degree of af nity as his mother is the sister of the mother of Rivera's wife; and
(3) Galeos and Rivera were employed as Construction and Maintenance Man and
Plumber I, respectively, in the Municipal Government of Naga, Cebu at all times relevant
to these cases. Ong likewise admitted the genuineness and due execution of the
documentary exhibits presented by the prosecutor (copies of SALNs and Certi cation
dated June 1, 1994) except for Exhibit "H" (Certi cation dated June 1, 1994 offered by
the prosecution as "allegedly supporting the appointment of Rosalio S. Galeos" 1 2 ). 1 3
As lone witness for the prosecution, Esperidion R. Canoneo testi ed that he has
been a resident of Pangdan, Naga, Cebu since 1930 and claimed to be friends with Ong,
Galeos and Rivera. He knows the mother of Galeos, Pining Suarez or Peñaranda Suarez.
But when the prosecutor mentioned "Bining Suarez," Canoneo stated that Bining Suarez
is the mother of Galeos and that Bining Suarez is the same person as "Bernardita
Suarez." Ong is related to Galeos because Ong's mother, Conchita Suarez, and Galeos'
mother, Bernardita Suarez, are sisters. As to Rivera, his wife Kensiana, 1 4 is the daughter
of Mercedes Suarez who is also a sister of Conchita Suarez. He knew the Suarez sisters
because they were the neighbors of his grandmother whom he frequently visited when
he was still studying. 1 5
Both Galeos and Rivera testi ed that they only provided the entries in their SALN
but did not personally ll up the forms as these were already lled up by "people in the
municipal hall" when they signed them.
Galeos, when shown his 1993 SALN, 1 6 con rmed his signature thereon. When he
was asked if he understood the question "To the best of your knowledge, are you
related within the fourth degree of consanguinity or af nity to anyone working in the
government?" he answered in the negative. He claimed that the "X" mark corresponding
to the answer "No" to said question, as well as the other entries in his SALN, were
already lled up when he signed it. When shown his SALN for the years 1994, 1995 and
1996, Galeos reiterated that they were already lled up and he was only made to sign
them by an employee of the municipal hall whom he only remembers by face. He also
admitted that he carefully read the documents and all the entries therein were explained
to him before he af xed his signature on the document. However, when asked whether
he understands the term "fourth degree of consanguinity or af nity" stated in the
SALNs, he answered in the negative. 1 7
Rivera testi ed that he was not aware that his wife was a close relative of the
Municipal Mayor because when he asked her, the latter told him that Ong was a distant
relative of hers. Rivera added that it was not Ong who rst appointed him as a casual
employee but Ong's predecessor, Mayor Vicente Mendiola. 1 8
On the part of Ong, he testi ed that at the time he was serving as Municipal
Mayor of Naga, he did not know that he and Galeos are relatives, as in fact there are
several persons with the surname "Galeos" in the municipality. He signed Galeos' 1993
SALN when it was presented to him by Galeos at his of ce. There were many of them
who brought such documents and he would administer their oaths on what were
written on their SALN, among them were Galeos and Rivera. He came to know of the
defect in the employment of Galeos when the case was led by his "political enemy" in
the Ombudsman just after he was elected Vice-Mayor in 1998. As to Rivera, Ong
claimed that he knows him as a casual employee of the previous administration. As
successor of the former mayor, he had to re-appoint these casual employees and he
delegated this matter to his subordinates. He maintained that his family was not very
close to their other relatives because when he was not yet Mayor, he was doing
business in Cebu and Manila. When queried by the court if he had known his relatives
while he was campaigning considering that in the provinces even relatives within the
6th and 7th degree are still regarded as close relatives especially among politicians,
Ong insisted that his style of campaigning was based only on his performance of duties
and that he did not go from house to house. Ong admitted that he had been a resident
of Naga, Cebu since birth. He could no longer recall those SALN of most of the
employees whose oaths he had administered. He admitted that he was the one who
appointed Galeos and Rivera to their permanent positions and signed their of cial
appointment (Civil Service Form No. 33) but he was not aware at that time that he was
related to them. It was only after the ling of the case that he came to know the wife of
Rivera. As to the quali cations of these appointees, he no longer inquired about it and
their appointments were no longer submitted to the Selection Board. When the
appointment forms for Galeos and Rivera were brought to his of ce, the accompanying
documents were attached thereto. Ong, however, admitted that before the permanent
appointment is approved by the CSC, he issues a certi cation to the effect that all
requirements of law and the CSC have been complied with. 1 9
On August 18, 2005, the Sandiganbayan promulgated the assailed Decision
convicting Ong, Galeos and Rivera, as follows: HcSDIE
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered on the following:

In Criminal Case No. 26181, judgment is hereby rendered nding accused Paulino
S. Ong and Rosalio S. Galeos GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Falsi cation of Public Document as de ned in and penalized by Article 171 of the
Revised Penal Code and, there being no modifying circumstances, are hereby
sentenced to each suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from TWO (2)
YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY OF Prision Correccional medium as
the minimum penalty to EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of Prision Mayor
medium as the maximum penalty and to each pay a FINE of FIVE THOUSAND
PESOS (P5,000.00).
S. Ong and Federico T. Rivera GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
PESOS (P5,000.00).
PESOS (P5,000.00).
PESOS (P5,000.00).
PESOS (P5,000.00).
PESOS (P5,000.00).
YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS, and ONE (1) DAY OF Prision Correccional medium as
PESOS (P5,000.00).
S. Ong NOT GUILTY for Violation of Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code for
failure of the Prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt; and
caIEAD
S. Ong GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for Falsi cation of Public Document as
de ned in and penalized by Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code and, there
being no modifying circumstances, is hereby sentenced to suffer an
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from TWO (2) YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS
and ONE (1) DAY of Prision Correccional medium as the minimum penalty to
EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of Prision Mayor medium as the maximum
penalty and to pay a FINE of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00).
SO ORDERED. 2 0
In its Resolution 2 1 dated August 28, 2006, the Sandiganbayan denied the
motions for reconsideration of Ong and Galeos. However, in view of the death of Rivera
on August 22, 2003 before the promulgation of the decision, the cases (Criminal Case
Nos. 26182, 26184 and 26185) against him were dismissed.
In G.R. Nos. 174730-37, Galeos contends that the Sandiganbayan erred when:
1). . . IT HELD THAT THE SUBJECT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE CONTAINED
UNTRUTHFUL STATEMENTS IN A NARRATION OF FACTS.
2). . . IT DID NOT CONSIDER PETITIONER'S VALID DEFENSE OF GOOD FAITH
AND LACK OF INTENT TO COMMIT THE CRIMES IMPUTED.
3). . . IT GAVE FULL CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE SOLE WITNESS
FOR THE PROSECUTION. 2 2
In support of his assigned errors, Galeos argues that he did not make untruthful
or false statements in his SALN since a "statement" requires a positive averment and
thus silence or non-disclosure cannot be considered one. And even if they are
considered statements, Galeos contends that they were not made in a "narration of
facts" and the least they could be considered are "conclusions of law." He also argues
that the prosecution failed to adduce any evidence to support the nding that he was
aware of their relationship at the time of the execution of the SALN. With the presence
of good faith, Galeos avers that the fourth element of the crime — the perversion of
truth in the narration of facts was made with the wrongful intent of injuring a third
person — is missing. He also faults the Sandiganbayan for its heavy reliance on the
uncorroborated testimony of the prosecution's sole witness despite the fact that there
are aspects in his testimony that do not inspire belief.
On the other hand, in G.R. Nos. 174845-52, Ong argues that the Sandiganbayan erred when:
(a)
. . . IT HELD THAT THE SUBJECT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE CONTAINED
UNTRUTHFUL STATEMENTS IN A NARRATION OF FACTS.
(b)
IN CRIMINAL CASES NOS. 26181-26187, [IT HELD] THAT A PERSON MERELY
ADMINISTERING THE OATH IN A DOCUMENT IS GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF
FALSIFICATION BY MAKING UNTRUTHFUL STATEMENTS IN A NARRATION OF
FACTS. ICAcaH
(c)
. . . IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 26189, . . . IT INFER[R]ED, DESPITE THE COMPLETE
ABSENCE OF ANY RELEVANT AND MATERIAL EVIDENCE, THAT RESPONDENT'S
EXHIBIT "I" (OR PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT "8") REFERS TO OR SUPPORTS THE
APPOINTMENT OF FEDERICO T. RIVERA. 2 3
Ong similarly argues that the subject SALN do not contain any untruthful
statements containing a narration of facts and that there was no wrongful intent of
injuring a third person at the time of the execution of the documents. He contends that
he cannot be held liable for falsi cation for merely administering the oath in a
document since it is not among the legal obligations of an of cer administering the
oath to certify the truthfulness and/or veracity of the contents of the document. Neither
can he be made liable for falsi cation regarding the letter-certi cation he issued since
there was no evidence adduced that it was made to support Rivera's appointment.
In the Joint Memorandum led by the Ombudsman through the Of ce of the
Special Prosecutor of the Sandiganbayan, it was pointed out that Galeos categorically
admitted during his testimony that before af xing his signature on the subject SALN, he
carefully read its contents and the entries therein have been explained to him. Moreover,
the admission made by Ong during the pre-trial under the joint stipulation of facts
indicated no quali cation at all that he became aware of his relationship with Galeos
and Rivera only after the execution of the subject documents. The defense of lack of
knowledge of a particular fact in issue, being a state of mind and therefore self-serving,
it can be legally assumed that the admission of that particular fact without quali cation
reckons from the time the imputed act, to which the particular fact relates, was
committed. As to mistaken reliance on the testimony of prosecution witness, the
analysis and ndings in the assailed decision do not show that such testimony was
even taken into consideration in arriving at the conviction of petitioners. 2 4
With respect to Ong's liability as conspirator in the execution of the SALN
containing untruthful statements, the Special Prosecutor argues that as a general rule, it
is not the duty of the administering of cer to ascertain the truth of the statements
found in a document. The reason for this is that the administering of cer has no way of
knowing if the facts stated therein are indeed truthful. However, when the facts laid out
in the document directly involves the administering of cer , then he has an opportunity
to know of their truth or falsity. When an administering of cer nevertheless administers
the oath despite the false contents of the document, which are known to him to be
false, he is liable, not because he violated his duty as an administering of cer, but
because he participated in the falsification of a document. 2 5
After a thorough review, we find the petitions unmeritorious.
Petitioners were charged with falsi cation of public document under Article 171,
paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, which states:
Art. 171. Falsi cation by public of cer, employee or notary or ecclesiastic
minister. — The penalty of prision mayor and a ne not to exceed 5,000 pesos
shall be imposed upon any public of cer, employee, or notary who, taking
advantage of his of cial position, shall falsify a document by committing any of
the following acts:
1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric;

2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or
proceeding when they did not in fact so participate;
3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding

statements other than those in fact made by them;
4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts ;

xxx xxx xxx (Emphasis and italics supplied.)
The elements of falsification in the above provision are as follows:

(a) the offender makes in a public document untruthful statements in a
narration of facts;
(b) he has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by
him; and cHaADC
(c) the facts narrated by him are absolutely false. 2 6

In addition to the afore-cited elements, it must also be proven that the public
of cer or employee had taken advantage of his of cial position in making the
falsi cation. In falsi cation of public document, the offender is considered to have
taken advantage of his of cial position when (1) he has the duty to make or prepare or
otherwise to intervene in the preparation of a document; or (2) he has the of cial
custody of the document which he falsi es. 2 7 Likewise, in falsi cation of public or
of cial documents, it is not necessary that there be present the idea of gain or the
intent to injure a third person because in the falsi cation of a public document, what is
punished is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of the truth as therein
solemnly proclaimed. 2 8
Falsification of Public Document
by making untruthful statements
concerning relatives in the
government service
All the elements of falsi cation of public documents by making untruthful
statements have been established by the prosecution.
Petitioners argue that the statements "they are not related within the fourth civil
degree of consanguinity or af nity" and "that Section 79 of the Local Government Code
has been complied with in the issuance of the appointments" are not a narration of
facts but a conclusion of law, as both require the application of the rules on relationship
under the law of succession. Thus, they cite People v. Tugbang 2 9 where it was held that
"a statement expressing an erroneous conclusion of law cannot be considered a
falsi cation." Likewise, in People v. Yanza , 3 0 it was held that when defendant certi ed
that she was eligible for the position, she practically wrote a conclusion of law, which
turned out to be incorrect or erroneous; hence, she may not be declared guilty of
falsification because the law violated pertains to narration of facts.
We disagree.
A conclusion of law is a determination by a judge or ruling authority regarding the
law that applies in a particular case. It is opposed to a nding of fact, which interprets
the factual circumstances to which the law is to be applied. 3 1 A narration of facts is
merely an account or description of the particulars of an event or occurrence. 3 2 We
have held that a certi cation by accused of cials in the Statement of Time Elapsed and
Work Accomplished quali es as a narration of facts as contemplated under Article 171
(4) of the Revised Penal Code, as it consisted not only of gures and numbers but also
words were used therein giving an account of the status of the flood control project. 3 3
In this case, the required disclosure or identi cation of relatives "within the fourth
civil degree of consanguinity or af nity" in the SALN involves merely a description of
such relationship; it does not call for an application of law in a particular set of facts. On
the other hand, Articles 963 to 967 of the Civil Code simply explain the concept of
proximity of relationship and what constitute direct and collateral lines in relation to the
rules on succession. The question of whether or not persons are related to each other
by consanguinity or af nity within the fourth degree is one of fact. Contrary to
petitioners' assertion, statements concerning relationship may be proved as to its truth
or falsity, and thus do not amount to expression of opinion. When a government
employee is required to disclose his relatives in the government service, such
information elicited therefore quali es as a narration of facts contemplated under
Article 171 (4) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. Further, it bears to stress that
the untruthful statements on relationship have no relevance to the employee's eligibility
for the position but pertains rather to prohibition or restriction imposed by law on the
appointing power.
Since petitioner Galeos answered "No" to the question in his 1993 SALN if he has
relatives in the government service within the fourth degree of consanguinity, he made
an untruthful statement therein as in fact he was related to Ong, who was then the
municipal mayor, within the fourth degree of consanguinity, he and Ong being rst
cousins (their mothers are sisters). As to his 1994, 1995 and 1996 SALN, Galeos left in
blank the boxes for the answer to the similar query. In Dela Cruz v. Mudlong , 3 4 it was
held that one is guilty of falsi cation in the accomplishment of his information and
personal data sheet if he withholds material facts which would have affected the
approval of his appointment and/or promotion to a government position. By
withholding information on his relative/s in the government service as required in the
SALN, Galeos was guilty of falsi cation considering that the disclosure of such
relationship with then Municipal Mayor Ong would have resulted in the disapproval of
his permanent appointment pursuant to Article 168 (j) (Appointments), Rule XXII of the
Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code of 1991 (R.A. No.
7160), which provides: IAETSC
No person shall be appointed in the local government career service if he is

related within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or af nity to the appointing
power or recommending authority.
Section 7 (e), Rule V of the Implementing Rules of Book V, Executive Order No.
292 otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987, provides that the CSC shall
disapprove the appointment of a person who "has been issued such appointment in
violation of existing Civil Service Law, rules and regulations." Among the prohibited
appointments enumerated in CSC Memorandum Circular No. 38, series of 1993 are
appointments in the LGUs of persons who are related to the appointing or
recommending authority within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity. 3 5
The Omnibus Rules on Appointments and Other Personnel Actions (CSC
Memorandum Circular No. 40, series of 1998 dated December 14, 1998) contain a
similar prohibition under Rule XIII, Section 9:
SEC. 9. No appointment in the national, provincial, city or municipal
governments or any branch or instrumentality thereof, including government
owned or controlled corporations with original charters shall be made in favor of
a relative of the appointing or recommending authority, or of the chief of the
bureau or of ce or of the person exercising immediate supervision over the
appointee.
Unless otherwise provided by law, the word "relative" and the members of the
family referred to are those related within the third degree either of consanguinity
or of affinity.
In the local government career service, the prohibition extends to the

relatives of the appointing or recommending authority, within the fourth
civil degree of consanguinity or affinity.
xxx xxx xxx

The nepotism rule covers all kinds of appointments whether original, promotional,
transfer and reemployment regardless of status including casuals and
contractuals except consultants. (Emphasis supplied.)
The second element is likewise present. "Legal obligation" means that there is a
law requiring the disclosure of the truth of the facts narrated. 3 6 Permanent employees
employed by local government units are required to le the following: (a) sworn
statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN); (b) lists of relatives within the
fourth civil degree of consanguinity or af nity in government service; (c) nancial and
business interests; and (d) personal data sheets as required by law. 3 7 A similar
requirement is imposed by Section 8 (B) of Republic Act No. 6713 otherwise known as
the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, thus:
(B) Identi cation and disclosure of relatives. 3 8 — It shall be the duty of every
public of cial or employee to identify and disclose to the best of his knowledge
and information, his relatives in the Government in the form, manner and
frequency prescribed by the Civil Service Commission.
Section 11 of the same law penalizes the violation of the above provision, either
with imprisonment or ne, and, in the discretion of the court of competent jurisdiction,
disquali cation to hold public of ce. Such violation if proven in a proper administrative
proceeding shall also be suf cient cause for removal or dismissal of a public of cial or
employee, even if no criminal prosecution is instituted against him.
The evidence on record clearly showed that Galeos' negative answer re ected in
his SALN is absolutely false. During the trial, both Ong and Galeos admitted the fact
that they are rst cousins but denied having knowledge of such relationship at the time
the subject documents were executed. The Sandiganbayan correctly rejected their
defense of being unaware that they are related within the fourth degree of
consanguinity. Given the Filipino cultural trait of valuing strong kinship and extended
family ties, it was unlikely for Galeos who had been working for several years in the
municipal government, not to have known of his close blood relation to Ong who was a
prominent public gure having ran and won in the local elections four times (three
terms as Mayor and as Vice-Mayor in the 1998 elections), after serving as OIC Mayor of
the same municipality in 1986 until 1988. ACSaHc
The same thing can be said of Ong, whose unbelievable claim that he had no
knowledge that a rst cousin (Galeos) was working in the municipal government and
appointed by him to a permanent position during his incumbency, was correctly
disregarded by the Sandiganbayan. It was simply unthinkable that as a resident of
Naga, Cebu since birth and a politician at that, he was all the time unaware that he
himself appointed to permanent positions the son of his mother's sister (Galeos) and
the husband of his rst cousin (Rivera). Indeed, the reality of local politics and Filipino
culture renders his defense of good faith (lack of knowledge of their relationship)
unavailing. Despite his knowledge of the falsity of the statement in the subject SALN,
Ong still administered the oath to Galeos and Rivera who made the false statement
under oath. The Sandiganbayan thus did not err in nding that Ong connived with
Galeos and Rivera in making it appear in their SALN that they have no relative within the
fourth degree of consanguinity/affinity in the government service.
Conspiracy need not be shown by direct proof of an agreement of the parties to
commit the crime, 3 9 as it can be inferred from the acts of the accused which clearly
manifest a concurrence of wills, a common intent or design to commit a crime. 4 0 In
this case, Ong administered the oaths to Galeos and Rivera in the subject SALN not just
once, but three times, a clear manifestation that he concurred with the making of the
untruthful statement therein concerning relatives in the government service.
Falsification by making
untruthful statements
in the Certification re:
compliance with the
prohibition on nepotism
As chief executive and the proper appointing authority, Ong is deemed to have
issued the certi cation recommending to the CSC approval of Galeos' appointment
although he admitted only the authenticity and due execution of Exhibit "I". Since Ong
was duty bound to observe the prohibition on nepotistic appointments, his certi cation
stating compliance with Section 79 4 1 of R.A. No. 7160 constitutes a solemn
af rmation of the fact that the appointee is not related to hi m within the fourth civil
degree of consanguinity or af nity. Having executed the certi cation despite his
knowledge that he and Rivera were related to each other within the fourth degree of
affinity, as in fact Rivera was his cousin-in-law because the mother of Rivera's wife is the
sister of Ong's mother, Ong was guilty of falsi cation of public document by making
untruthful statement in a narration of facts. He also took advantage of his of cial
position as the appointing authority who, under the Civil Service rules, is required to
issue such certification.
The importance of the certi cation submitted to the CSC by the proper
appointing authority in the local government unit, regarding compliance with the
prohibition against nepotism under R.A. No. 7160 cannot be overemphasized. Under
Section 67, Book V, Chapter 10 of the Administrative Code of 1987, a head of of ce or
appointing of cial who issues an appointment or employs any person in violation of
Civil Service Law and Rules or who commits fraud, deceit or intentional
misrepresentation of material facts concerning other civil service matters, or anyone
who violates, refuses or neglects to comply with any of such provisions or rules, may be
held criminally liable. In Civil Service Commission v. Dacoycoy , 4 2 we held that mere
issuance of appointment in favor of a relative within the third degree of consanguinity
or af nity is suf cient to constitute a violation of the law. Although herein petitioners
were prosecuted for the criminal offense of falsi cation of public document, it
becomes obvious that the requirement of disclosure of relationship to the appointing
power in the local government units simply aims to ensure strict enforcement of the
prohibition against nepotism.
Relevant then is our pronouncement in Dacoycoy:
Nepotism is one pernicious evil impeding the civil service and the ef ciency of its
personnel. In Debulgado, we stressed that "[T]the basic purpose or objective of the
prohibition against nepotism also strongly indicates that the prohibition was
intended to be a comprehensive one." "The Court was unwilling to restrict and
limit the scope of the prohibition which is textually very broad and
comprehensive." If not within the exceptions, it is a form of corruption that must
be nipped in the bud or abated whenever or wherever it raises its ugly head. As we
said in an earlier case "what we need now is not only to punish the wrongdoers or
reward the 'outstanding' civil servants, but also to plug the hidden gaps and
potholes of corruption as well as to insist on strict compliance with existing
legal procedures in order to abate any occasion for graft or
circumvention of the law ." 4 3 (Emphasis supplied.)
The prosecution having established with moral certainty the guilt of petitioners
for falsi cation of public documents under Article 171 (4) of the Revised Penal Code,
as amended, we find no legal ground to reverse petitioners' conviction. cISDHE
WHEREFORE , the petitions are DENIED . The Decision dated August 18, 2005 of
the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case Nos. 26181-26187 and 26189 is AFFIRMED .
With costs against the petitioners.
SO ORDERED .
Carpio Morales, Brion, Bersamin and Mendoza, * JJ., concur.
Footnotes
*Designated additional member per Special Order No. 944-A dated February 9, 2011.
1.Rollo (G.R. Nos. 174730-35), pp. 51-73. Penned by Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta
(now a Member of this Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Teresita J.
Leonardo-De Castro (also now a Member of this Court) and Efren N. Dela Cruz.
2.TSN, May 9, 2002, pp. 41-42, 62.
3.Exhibits "J" and "K", folder of exhibits.

4.Exhibits "A" and "B", id.
5.Exhibits "C" and "F", id.

6.Exhibit "D", id.
7.Exhibits "E" and "G", id.
8.Exhibit "I", id.
9.Records, Vol. I, pp. 13-16.

10.Id. at 5-12.
11.Separate folders.
12.Records, Vol. 1, p. 181.
13.Id. at 202-204.
14."Quinciana" in some parts of the TSN.

15.TSN, May 3, 2001, pp. 11-18.
16.Exhibit "A," folder of exhibits.

17.TSN, May 9, 2002, pp. 22-32.
18.Id. at 12-19.
19.Id. at 33, 42-47, 50-59, 64-72.

20.Rollo (G.R. Nos. 174730-37), pp. 69-72.
21.Id. at 94-98.
22.Id. at 25.
23.Rollo (G.R. Nos. 174845-52), p. 18.
24.Rollo (G.R. Nos. 174730-37), pp. 192-193, 203-207.

25.Id. at 199-201.
26.Fullero v. People, G.R. No. 170583, September 12, 2007, 533 SCRA 97, 114, citing Santos v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 71523-25, December 8, 2000, 347 SCRA 386, 424.
27.Id., citing Luis B. Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Criminal Law (14th Edition, Revised 1998),
BOOK TWO, ARTS. 114-367, p. 216, People v. Uy , 101 Phil. 159, 163 (1957) and United
States v. Inosanto, 20 Phil. 376, 378 (1911); Adaza v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 154886,
July 28, 2005, 464 SCRA 460, 478-479.
28.Regidor, Jr. v. People, G.R. Nos. 166086-92, February 13, 2009, 579 SCRA 244, 263, citing
Lastrilla v. Granda, G.R. No. 160257, January 31, 2006, 481 SCRA 324, 345, Lumancas v.
Intas, G.R. No. 133472, December 5, 2000, 347 SCRA 22, 33-34, further citing People v.
Po Giok To, 96 Phil. 913, 918 (1955).
29.G.R. No. 76212, April 26, 1991, 196 SCRA 341, 350.
30.107 Phil. 888, 890-891 (1960).
31.http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/conclusion-of-law/.
32.Bartolo v. Sandiganbayan, Second Division, G.R. No. 172123, April 16, 2009, 585 SCRA 387,
394.
33.Id.
34.Adm. Matter No. P-985, July 31, 1978, 84 SCRA 280.

35.VII (Prohibitions on Appointments), 2 (b).
36.Luis B. Reyes, THE REVISED PENAL CODE, BOOK TWO, (17th Edition, Rev. 2008), p. 223.
37.Art. 175, Rule XXII, Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code of
1991.
38.Sec. 3. . . .
xxx xxx xxx

(k) "Relatives" refers to any and all persons related to a public official or employee within the
fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, including bilas, inso and balae.
39.People v. Herida, G.R. No. 127158, March 5, 2001, 353 SCRA 650, 659.
40.People v. Lenantud, G.R. No. 128629, February 22, 2001, 352 SCRA 549, 563.
41.Sec. 79. Limitation on Appointments. — No person shall be appointed in the career service of
the local government if he is related within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or
affinity to the appointing or recommending authority.
42.G.R. No. 135805, April 29, 1999, 306 SCRA 425, 435.
43.Id. at 438-439.

Galeos v. People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Galeos v. People

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Galeos v. People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What were the charges filed against the petitioners?

What were the charges filed against the petitioners?

What did the petitioners claim in their defense?

What did the petitioners claim in their defense?

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. Nos. 174730-37. February 9, 2011.]

ROSALIO S. GALEOS , petitioner, vs . PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES ,

[G.R. Nos. 174845-52. February 9, 2011.]

PAULINO S. ONG , petitioner, vs . PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES ,

This is to certify further that the faithful observance of these

CONTRARY TO LAW. (Emphasis supplied.) CSaITD

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com

CONTRARY TO LAW. (Emphasis supplied.)

Criminal Case No. 26183

CONTRARY TO LAW. (Emphasis supplied.) TaEIcS

Criminal Case No. 26184

CONTRARY TO LAW. (Emphasis supplied.)

Criminal Case No. 26186

CONTRARY TO LAW. (Emphasis supplied.)

CONTRARY TO LAW. (Emphasis supplied.) HTCaAD

Criminal Case No. 26188

Criminal Case No. 26189

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered on the following:

1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric;

3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding

4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts ;

The elements of falsification in the above provision are as follows:

(c) the facts narrated by him are absolutely false. 2 6

No person shall be appointed in the local government career service if he is

In the local government career service, the prohibition extends to the

xxx xxx xxx

2.TSN, May 9, 2002, pp. 41-42, 62.

3.Exhibits "J" and "K", folder of exhibits.

5.Exhibits "C" and "F", id.

8.Exhibit "I", id.

9.Records, Vol. I, pp. 13-16.

14."Quinciana" in some parts of the TSN.

16.Exhibit "A," folder of exhibits.

19.Id. at 33, 42-47, 50-59, 64-72.

23.Rollo (G.R. Nos. 174845-52), p. 18.

24.Rollo (G.R. Nos. 174730-37), pp. 192-193, 203-207.

34.Adm. Matter No. P-985, July 31, 1978, 84 SCRA 280.

xxx xxx xxx

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com

You might also like