RULE 120 – JUDGMENT THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LICERIO P. SENDAYDIEGO, SENDAYDIEGO, JUAN SAMSON and ANASTACIO ANASTACIO QUIRIMIT, QUIRIMI T, defendants. JUAN SAMSON, defendant-appellant. G.R. No. L!!2"# & G.R. No. L!!2"! Jan$a%& 20, 1'(), AQUINO, J.
It is settled that if the falsification falsification was resorted resorted to for the purpose of hiding the malversation, the falsification and malversation are separate offenses. FACTS* In these three cases of malversation through falsification, the prosecution's theory is that in 1969 Licerio P. endaydiego, the provincial treasurer of Pangasinan, in conspiracy !ith "uan amson y #alvan, an employee of a lum$er and hard!are store in %agupan ity, and !ith nastacio (uirimit, the provincial auditor, as an accomplice, used si) *6+ forged provincial vouchers in order to em$ele from the road and $ridge fund for P,/0.23.
4he provincial voucher in these cases has several parts5 upper part, to $e signed $y t!o officials of the provincial engineer's office and $y the governor's representative middle part Paragraph 1, $y the creditor Paragraph 2, $y the provincial engineer Paragraph 3, $y the provincial treasurer Paragraph 0, $y the auditor Paragraph , $y the provincial treasurer. In the instant cases paragraph 1 !as not signed presuma$ly $ecause it is not relevant to the purchase of materials for pu$lic !or7s pro8ects. nd follo!ing paragraph , is the receipt of the signed $y the creditor. ccording to the prosecution, amson also signed on the left margin of the si) vouchers $elo! the stamped !ords5 Presented to Prov. 4reasurer. 4reasurer. :y Juan :y Juan Samson. Samson. 4he lo!er court ac;uitted the auditor, (uirimit and found endaydiego and amson guilty of malversation through falsification of pu$lic or official documents. 4hus, endaydiego and amson appealed to this ourt. ule 111 of the >ules of court+. 4he civil action for the civil lia$ility is separate and distinct from the criminal action. In vie! of the foregoing, not!ithstanding the dismissal of the appeal of the deceased endayd endaydieg iego o insofa insofarr as his crimi criminal nal lia$il lia$ility ity is concer concerned ned,, the ourt ourt resolv resolved ed to contin continue ue e)ercising appellate 8urisdiction over his possi$le civil lia$ility for the money claims of the Province of Pangasinan arising from the alleged criminal acts complained of, as if no criminal case had $een instituted against him, thus ma7ing applica$le, in determining his civil lia$ility, rticle 3/ of the ivil ode and, for that purpose, his counsel is directed to inform this ourt !ithin ten *1/+ days of the names and addresses of the decedent's heirs or !hether or not his estate is under administration and has a duly appointed 8udicial administrator. aid heirs or administrator !ill $e su$stituted for the deceased insofar as the civil action for the civil lia$ility is concerned *ecs. 16 and 1, >ule 3, >ules of ourt+. ISSUE* ?hether or not several falsification and malversation are separate offenses and thus constitute si) separate or distinct d istinct offenses. HELD*
Penalties. Penalties. @ 4he 4he crim crimes es commi committ tted ed in thes thesee thre threee case casess are are not not comple comple). ). epar eparat atee crim crimes es of falsification and malversation !ere committed. 4hese are not cases !here the e)ecution of a single act constitutes t!o grave or less grave felonies or !here the falsification !as used as a means to commit malversation. In the si) vouchers the falsification !as used to conceal the malversation. It is settled that if the falsification !as resorted to for the purpose of hiding the malversation, the falsification and malversation are separate offenses
In the instant cases, the provincial, as the custodian than of the money forming part of the road and $ridge could have malversed or misappropriated it !ithout falsifiying any voucher. 4he falsification !as used as a device to prevent detection of the malversation. 4he falsifications cannot $e regarded as constituting one continuing offense impelled $y a single criminal impulse. 4he falsification of si) vouchers constitutes si) separate or distinct offenses. nd each misappropriation as evidenced $y a provincial voucher constitutes a separate crimes of malversation !ere committed. ppellant amson is a co-principal in each of the said t!elve offenses. s already stated, he is presumed to $e the author of the falsification $ecause he !as in possession of the forged vouchers and he used them in order to receive pu$lic monies from the provincial treasurer. 4he trial court correctly ruled that a private person conspiring !ith an accounta$le pu$lic officer in committing malversation is also guilty of malversation. Sendaydiego's appeal; civil liability of his estate. @ everal lances indicate that endaydiego conspired !ith amson. %onato A. >osete, the assistant provincial treasurer, testified that, contrary to the usual procedure, he affi)ed his initial to paragraph 3 of the vouchers after endaydiego had signed it. >osete adhered to that unusual procedure $ecause the interested party, amson !ho hand-carried the vouchers, approached >osete after he *amson+ had conferred !ith the provincial treasurer and amson told >osete to initial the voucher $ecause it !as already settled since the treasurer had already signed the voucher. >osete's testimony and affidavit confute appellant endaydiego's contention that the trial court erred in finding that he signed the ;uestioned vouchers $efore >osete had placed his initial in them. fter the treasurer had signed the voucher, >osete's duty to initial it !as only ministerial. 4he $oo77eeper in the treasurer's office testified that he indicated in the vouchers that the amounts covered there$y should $e paid in cash. 4he $oo77eeper !as instructed $y amson to place that sym$ol amson told him that he *amson+ had an understanding !ith 4reausrer endaydiego that the payment should $e made in cash. 4here !ere instances !hen the treasurer insisted on payment $y chec7 to creditors other than "uan amson. 4he cash payments !ere made to amson in the inner office of the provincial treasurer !here the cashier !as summoned to ma7e the cash payments. s noted $y the trial court, it !as unusual that the payments should $e made in the treasurer's office !hen that !as a ministerial chore of the cashier. 4he cash payments !ere made to amson even if amson had no po!er of attorney from the arried onstruction upply o. authoriing him to receive the payments. 4he space in the vouchers for the signature of the !itness, !ho should $e present !hen the payments !ere received, !as $lan7. 4he trial court said that the cash payments prove endaydiego's collusion !ith amson. 4he cashier, Aapoleon Blanday, !ould have $een the $est !itness on ho! and !here the payments !ere made.
Cur searching study of the record fails to sustain amson's insinuation that he !as pre8udiced $y the fact that "udge, !ho conducted the preliminary investigation, !as the one !ho tried the case and convicted him. "udge :ello tried the case fairly. ule 112, in allo!ing a =I to conduct a preliminary investigation, does not dis;ualify it from trying the case after it had found pro$a$le cause and after the fiscal, as directed $y the ourt, had filed the corresponding information. 4he rule assumes that the "udge, !ho conducted the preliminary investigation, could impartially try the case on the merits. ?e cannot assume that 8udges as a rule are opinionated and narro!-minded insomuch that they !ould invaria$ly $e iron-$ound $y their findings at the preliminary investigation. 4he inferior court after terminating the preliminary investigation is not o$ligated * por delicadeza+ to remand the case to the ourt of =irst Instance for trial. 4he inferior court has the option to try the case on the merits. 4he assumption is that the inferior court can try the case !ithout any ingrained $ias or undue pre8udice. 4he ourt found that the e)pert is correct in declaring that *as admitted $y the trial court+ there are radical differences $et!een the ;uestioned and authentic signatures. :ut the e)pert is in error in concluding that amson did not forge the ;uestioned signatures or in implying that amson had no hand in the !riting thereof. 4he truth is that amson used two forms of signature.
