G.R. No. 197953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN (2ND DIVISION), QUINTIN SALUDAGA Y BORDEOS, ARTHUS ADRIATICO Y ERUDA AND ROMEO DE LUNA.

Ruling

WHEREFORE , the Joint Demurrer to Evidence filed by the accused, Saludaga, Adriatico and De Luna, is hereby GRANTED . Accordingly, Criminal Case No. 28261 is hereby ordered DISMISSED . The Petition The People impute grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the Sandiganbayan when it granted the demurrer. The People disagree that the prosecution failed to establish the respondents' guilt with moral certainty. Specifically, the People refute the Sandiganbayan's conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove certain elements of the falsification charged. With respect to the element that the offenders must have taken advantage of their official position , the People emphasized Adriatico's own admission [24] that he antedated the subject OR upon De Luna's request, a fact that the latter confirmed. [25] Such act, according to the People, already constitutes falsification of a public document and thereby untruthful. The People cite the case of Relucio v. Civil Service Commission , [26] which laid down the elements of falsification of public documents, to wit: (i) the offender makes in a document untruthful statements in a narration of facts; (ii) the offender has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated; (iii) the facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false; and (iv) the perversions of truth in the narration of facts was made with the wrongful intent to injure a third person. As regards the element that the offender must have falsified a document by making untruthful statements in a narration of facts , the People dispute the Sandiganbayan's reasoning that the narration of facts be absolutely false to constitute falsification. The People argue that the Sandiganbayan erred when it held that there can be no conviction of falsification of public document if the acts of the accused are consistent with good faith. [27] Good faith does not apply in this case because Adriatico was not confronted with a difficult question of law and he should have known better that it was illegal to issue an antedated receipt. Further, the People posit that Mayor Saludaga cannot invoke the Arias doctrine, maintaining that Mayor Saludaga may be deemed a knowing participant in the conspiracy when he affixed his signature despite the patent irregularities thereon. [28] In fine, the People insist that Mayor Saludaga and Adriatico took advantage of their positions in falsifying the subject OR and mayor's permit; that the falsifications were intended to evade their prosecution under the Anti-Corrupt and Practices Act; and that the respondents' acts were so concerted it may be inferred that Mayor Saludaga, together with his subordinate Adriatico and dummy De Luna, conspired to commit the crime. The Respondents' Case [29] The respondents reiterate their arguments to support the demurrer. In summary, they argue that the People failed to: (1) prove conspiracy, (2) show that Mayor Saludaga took advantage of his offi