G.R. Nos. 217064-65 - NAOMI LOURDES A. HERRERA, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN OF THE PHILIPPINES.R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the Court resolves as follows: 1. PARTLY GRANT the Urgent Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration dated March 16, 2020 of petitioner Naomi Lourdes A. Herrera; 2. REINSTATE the Petition for Review on Certiorari dated April 7, 2015 of Petitioner Naomi Lourdes A. Herrera and DIRECT Office of the Special Prosecutor to file its Comment on the Petition for Review on Certiorari within ten (10) days from notice hereof; 3. RECALL the Entry of Judgment dated February 26, 2020; 4. GRANT the Urgent Additional Supplemental Manifestation and Motion with Leave of Court dated July 28, 2020 of petitioner Naomi Lourdes A. Herrera which seeks to hold in abeyance the finality of the Minute Resolution dated February 26, 2020; 5. NOTE the Urgent Supplemental Manifestation and Motion with Leave of Court dated July 20, 2020; 6. GRANT the Motion with Leave of Court to Refer Matter to the Court En Banc dated August 26, 2020; x x x x [46] The Issue The issue to be resolved is whether the Sandiganbayan erred in finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Falsification of Public Documents under Article 171 of the RPC in Criminal Case No. 24338. The Court's Ruling The Court finds the petition meritorious. At the outset, the Court underscores that among all the accused convicted of Falsification of Public Documents under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code in Criminal Case No 24338, petitioner is the only one who filed the instant petition to assail the judgment of conviction. Petitioner imputes error on the part of the Sandiganbayan in holding that all the elements of the crime of Falsification of Public Documents are present at bar. Petitioner contends that she could not have committed the crime charged as she was in good faith and did not take advantage of her official position in signing Resolution No. 007, the public document subject of the criminal charge for falsification. [47] Notably, the errors that petitioner impute against the Sandiganbayan are personal and pertinent to her and do not apply to the rest of the accused. She specifically prays that the Court consider her situation during the BAC meeting held on February 22, 1994, which led her to sign Resolution No. 007. Petitioner points out the peculiarity of her participation during the BAC meeting, as opposed to that of her co-accused, in view of the following circumstances: (1) it was her first and only attendance at a BAC meeting; (2) she was only a substitute of Coleto, the regular member of the BAC and the Acting Provincial Accountant; (3) it was unclear whether she had authority to attend the BAC meeting and consequently sign Resolution No. 007, considering that the Office Order that allegedly authorized her to attend meetings and sign documents on behalf of Coleto was not offered in evidence. [48] Based on the attendant circumstances, the Court is convinced that there was a failure to establish petitioner's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Falsification of Pub