Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1998 > November 1998 Decisions > G.R. No. 124140 November 25, 1998 - BERNARDO B. RESOSO v. SANDIGANBAYAN:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 124140. November 25, 1999.]

BERNARDO B. RESOSO, Petitioner, v. SANDIGANBAYAN, Respondent.


D E C I S I O N


GONZAGA-REYES, J.:


In this petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with preliminary injunction, Bernardo Resoso seeks to set aside respondent’s Resolution dated February 2, 1996 denying his Demurrer to Evidence in Civil Cases Nos. 19773-19779 entitled "People v. Bernardo B. Resoso", and Resolution dated March 12, 1996, denying his Motion for Reconsideration of the earlier Resolution.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Under date of September 29, 1993, seven (7) informations for falsification of public document under Article 171, paragraph 6 of the Revised Penal Code were filed with respondent court against the petitioner, for allegedly making alterations/changes in the quality, quantity and country of origin of the items sought and approved to be imported under certain Veterinary Quarantine Clearances to Import, taking advantage of his public position as Executive Officer, National Meat Inspection Commission (NMIC), which alterations or intercalations in the documents changed their meaning and/or made the documents speak something false, to the damage and prejudice of public interest.

Petitioner entered a plea of not guilty upon arraignment. During the trial, the prosecution presented four (4) witnesses, namely, (1) Rosario Agustin, the Records Officer of the NMIC; (2) Dr. Romeo N. Alcasid, Director, Bureau of Animal Industry, Department of Agriculture; (3) Delia Ang, Public Relations Officer and Clerk, NMIC and (4) Senen C. Bacani, former Secretary, Department of Agriculture. The Special Prosecutor made a written offer of exhibits, which were admitted by the court. With leave of court, petitioner filed a Demurrer to Evidence alleging that by the evidence presented by the prosecution itself the guilt of the accused has not been established beyond reasonable doubt, and he is entitled to an acquittal.

The Demurrer to Evidence was denied in the assailed order of February 2, 1996, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The ‘DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE’ dated November 20, 1995 of the accused is Denied.

At this stage, the issue raised by the accused in his defense, i.e. good faith, is not yet apparent. There is no question of making the documents speak of the truth since this is not a narration of facts where errors are corrected or altered because they are incorrect. Rather the cases herein refer to alterations which authorize acts which were not theretofore authorized, i.e., importation of one quantity of meat instead of another, from countries of origin not originally authorized therein.

Among the other issues in falsification such as those charged herein is the integrity of public documents and the need for purposes of public order not to alter their tenor. In this case the documents appear to have been altered to authorize something distinct from what the person charged therewith had authorized and for which the officer who altered the same does not appear to have been authorized." 1

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration submitting that the evidence of the prosecution showed that (1) the alterations or changes in the Veterinary Quarantine Clearances in question were authorized and the good faith of the accused is already clear at this stage of the case in light of the testimony of Adelia P. Ang, Dr. Romeo Alcasid and former Secretary of Agriculture Senen C. Bacani.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Motion for Reconsideration was denied. The respondent court stated in its Resolution of March 5, 1996, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The ‘MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION’ dated February 12, 1996, of the accused, is Denied.

What are apparent from the testimony of prosecution’s evidence on record are that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. while the changes as to the meat that could be imported were not of concern to then Secretary Senen C. Bacani, Sec. Bacani categorically denied that he authorized the alterations;

2. while he stated how the changes could be made, Sec. Bacani was merely establishing a procedure, he was not saying that this had actually happened.

The basis for the Motion for Reconsideration does not exist in the record to justify an acquittal of the accused at this time." 2

The instant petition raises the following grounds for the issuance of the writs prayed for:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Respondent court gravely abused its discretion, amounting to lack of jurisdiction, when it denied petitioner’s ‘DEMURRER to EVIDENCE’ on the ground that ‘good faith, is not yet apparent’ and ‘the officer who altered the same does not appear to have been authorized’." 3

Petitioner claims that the prosecution evidence clearly shows the good faith of the petitioner, as the alterations/changes in the VOC’s in question were duly authorized by then Undersecretary Conrado Gozon, who had direct supervision over the National Meat Inspection Commission (NMIC) at that time, and were made in accordance with the then prevailing practice in the NMIC. The prosecution having failed to establish the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt, he is entitled to an acquittal.

Respondent People filed Comment. It disagreed with petitioner’s argument that the alterations and changes in the VOC’s were authorized and/or cleared through the Office of the Undersecretary of the Department of Agriculture. While respondent agrees that good faith is a valid defense to a charge of falsification of a public or official document, the fact that petitioner admitted that there were alterations/changes made in the VOCs and that he authorized the same (without authority to do so) is a clear indication of bad faith. Good faith must be clearly proven, and it is premature at this stage to conclude that petitioners acted in good faith.

Petitioner filed Reply to Comment, controverting the assertion that he acted in bad faith. He claims that he should be spared the ordeal and expense of going through the presentation of evidence on his part in the face of the prosecution’s failure to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Petitioner’s urgent motion reiterating his prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order was denied by this Court in the Resolution of June 17, 1998. Motion for reconsideration of said denial was likewise denied for lack of merit.

We find no merit in the instant petition.

Petitioner is charged with falsification of Veterinary Quarantine Clearances by allegedly making alterations/changes in the quality, quantity, and country of origin of the items sought and approved to be imported, taking advantage of his public position as Executive Officer, National Meat Inspection Commission (NMIC) which alterations or intercalations in the documents changed their meaning and/or made the documents speak something false, to the damage and prejudice of public interest.

The petitioner’s defense is good faith, i.e. that the alterations were made in good faith as they were duly authorized by the then Undersecretary of Agriculture who had direct supervision over the NMIC at that time. Moreover, no injury/prejudice was caused to the public.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

It is petitioner’s thesis that in view of (1) the testimony of former Secretary of Agriculture Senen Bacani, who concurrently acted as Chairman of the National Meat Inspection Commission, that the alterations made in the VOCs regarding importation of sheep casings, beef briskets, etc. would not be a cause for concern on the part of the government and would have probably been authorized anyway if originally incorporated in the VOCs, (2) the testimony of Director Romeo Alcasid, Bureau of Animal Industry, that the Executive Director was allowed to make alterations in the VOCs on condition that a monthly summary report is made on the said alterations; (3) the testimony of Delia Ang that the alterations were made after clearing the matter with the Office of the Undersecretary Gozon who was then the department undersecretary supervising the NMIC, the good faith of the accused was clearly established and that it was therefore an error for the respondent to conclude that the allegation of good faith has no factual basis. 4

For his part, respondent argues that it is premature at this time to conclude that petitioner acted in good faith in making the alterations considering the testimony of Secretary Bacani that he did not authorize the alterations, and the testimony of Delia Ang that the alleged authority given by Undersecretary Gozon was unwritten, and was not contained in any office Memorandum, and that the go-signal to make the changes came from the secretary of Undersecretary Gozon. Moreover, the alleged prevailing practice in the NMIC regarding the introduction of alterations in the VOCs was not proven. 5 It is argued that good faith must be clearly proven considering that the prosecution witnesses testified that the alterations or changes in the VOCs were not authorized by either Secretary Bacani or Undersecretary Gozon. 6

Petitioner would have this Court review the assessment made by the respondent Sandiganbayan on the sufficiency of the evidence against him at this time of the trial. Such a review cannot be secured in a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus which is not available to correct mistakes in the judge’s findings and conclusions or to cure erroneous conclusions of law and fact. Although there may be an error of judgment in denying the demurrer to evidence, this cannot be considered as grave abuse of discretion correctible by certiorari, 7 as certiorari does not include the correction of evaluation of evidence. 8 When such an adverse interlocutory order is rendered, the remedy is not to resort to certiorari or prohibition but to continue with the case in due course and when an unfavorable verdict is handed down, to take an appeal in the manner authorized by law. 9 Factual findings of the Sandiganbayan are conclusive upon the Supreme Court except where: (1) the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmise and conjectures; (2) the inference made is manifestly mistaken; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts and the findings of fact of the Sandiganbayan are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by evidence on record. 10

From an examination of the pleadings and the annexes, we are not convinced that any of the above exceptions are in point. There is no showing that the conclusions made by the respondent on the sufficiency of the evidence of the prosecution at the time the prosecution rested its case, is manifestly mistaken. Assuming that there is an error of judgment on the factual issue whether the petitioner had acted in good faith in altering the VOCs in question, considering the testimonial evidence adduced by the prosecution, there is to our mind, no capricious exercise of judgment that would warrant the issuance of the extraordinary writs of certiorari and prohibition. It is clear that the denial of the demurrer was made by respondent in the due exercise of its jurisdiction.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary:red

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is dismissed for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Melo, Vitug, Panganiban and Purisima, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Rollo, p. 1.

2. Rollo, p. 106.

3. Rollo, p. 116.

4. Demurrer to Evidence; Reply to Comment.

5. Rejoinder to petitioner’s Reply to Comment.

6. Comment of respondent People of the Philippines.

7. Santiago Land Dev. Co. v. CA 258 SCRA 535.

8. Interorient Maritime Enterprises, Inc. v. NLRC 261 SCRA 757.

9. Quiñon v. Sandiganbayan, 271 SCRA 575.

10. Pareño v. Sandiganbayan, 256 SCRA 242.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






November-1998 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. P-99-1315 November 3, 1998 - JESUSA MANINGAS, ET AL. v. CARLITO C. BARCENAS

  • G.R. No. 136448 November 3, 1998 - LIM TONG LIM v. PHIL. FISHING GEAR INDUSTRIES

  • G.R. No. 137136 November 3, 1998 - NORTHWEST AIRLINES v. CAMILLE T. CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135913 November 4, 1998 - VICTORIANO B. TIROL v. CIPRIANO A. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-98-1425 November 16, 1998 - DOMINGO G. PANGANIBAN v. PABLO B. FRANCISCO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1504 November 16, 1998 - ANG KEK CHEN v. AMALIA R. ANDRADE

  • G.R. No. 106593 November 16, 1998 - NAT’L HOUSING AUTHORITY v. MAURO T. ALLARDE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106795 November 16, 1998 - STATE INVESTMENT HOUSE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113638 November 16, 1998 - A. D. GOTHONG MANUFACTURING CORP. EMPLOYEES UNION-ALU v. NIEVES CONFESOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115180 November 16, 1998 - FILIPINO PIPE AND FOUNDRY CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123045 November 16, 1998 - DEMETRIO R. TECSON v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123686 November 16, 1998 - APOLINARIO MELO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124166 November 16, 1998 - BENGUET CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 125814-15 November 16, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SAMSON PATALINGHUG

  • G.R. No. 126332 November 16, 1998 - LAND BANK OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 128361 November 16, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MOROY "SONNY" GALLO

  • G.R. No. 128452 November 16, 1998 - COMPANIA MARITIMA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128957 November 16, 1998 - ANTONIO PARE v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131235 November 16, 1998 - UST FACULTY UNION (USTFU) v. BENEDICTO ERNESTO R. BITONIO JR.

  • G.R. No. 131777 November 16, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSALINDA ARIOLA

  • G.R. No. 132497 November 16, 1998 - LUIS MIGUEL YSMAEL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 5170 November 17, 1998 - LILIA FERRER TUCAY v. MANUEL R. TUCAY

  • ADM. MATTER No. RTJ-95-1324 November 17, 1998 - EVARISTO MANAHON v. ALVIN I. TAN

  • G.R. No. 123152 November 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODRIGO LASOLA

  • G.R. No. 129169 November 17, 1998 - NIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129256 November 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEL PINCA

  • G.R. No. 130591 November 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARMELO LACABA

  • G.R. No. 130607 November 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUSTICO RIVERA

  • G.R. No. 131499 November 17, 1998 - HERMIE M. HERRERA, ET AL. v. COMELEC

  • G.R. Nos. 132216 & 133479 November 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR TORIO

  • G.R. No. 132238 November 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LITO BAYGAR

  • G.R. No. 133148 November 17, 1998 - J.R. BLANCO v. WILLIAM H. QUASHA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134467 November 17, 1998 - ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING & DEV’T. CORP. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • A.M. No. P-99-1326 November 18, 1998 - MARIVIC T. BALISI-UMALI v. SIXTO A. PEÑALOSA

  • A.M. No. P-99-1338 November 18, 1998 - ESTELA P. VALLES v. NILA ARZAGA-QUIJANO

  • G.R. No. 103476 November 18, 1998 - CODIDI MATA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 106531 November 18, 1998 - FERNANDO GARCIA, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109371 November 18, 1998 - JOSE GAUDIA v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122240 November 18, 1998 - CRISTONICO B. LEGAHI v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127167 November 18, 1998 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. NLRC, ET AL

  • A.M. No. P-94-1080, P-95-1128 & P-95-1144 November 19, 1998 - DINAH CHRISTINA A. AMANE, ET AL. v. SUSAN MENDOZA-ARCE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110048 November 19, 1998 - SERVICEWIDE SPECIALISTS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114198 November 19, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MATEO BALUDDA

  • G.R. No. 114508 November 19, 1998 - PRIBHDAS J. MIRPURI v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115412 November 19, 1998 - HOME BANKERS SAVINGS AND TRUST COMPANY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126932 November 19, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PASCUA GALLADAN

  • G.R. No. 127768 November 19, 1998 - UNITED AIRLINES v. WILLIE J. UY

  • G.R. No. 128797 November 19, 1998 - FIRST NATIONWIDE ASSURANCE CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129096 November 19, 1998 - MARIVIC ZARATE v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129732 November 19, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO BASCO

  • G.R. No. 130772 November 19, 1998 - WALLEM MARITIME SERVICES v. NLRC, Et. Al.

  • G.R. No. 130922 November 19, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO REQUIZ

  • G.R. No. 131479 November 19, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO GASPAR

  • G.R. No. 131732 November 19, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILSON CATAMPONGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132474 November 19, 1998 - RENATO CENIDO v. AMADEO APACIONADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132644 November 19, 1998 - ERNESTO DAVID, ET AL. v. CRISTITO MALAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134685 November 19, 1998 - MARIA ANTONIA SIGUAN v. ROSA LIM

  • A.M. No. P-94-1076 November 22, 1998 - ENRIQUE M. ALMARIO v. JAMESWELL M. RESUS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-99-1341 November 22, 1998 - JULITO BIAG v. LUALHATI GUBATANGA

  • G.R. No. 97914 November 22, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEL BROMO

  • G.R. No. 122279 November 22, 1998 - C & A CONSTRUCTION CO. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127566 November 22, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EULALIO PADIL

  • G.R. No. 135562 November 22, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENITO BRAVO

  • Administrative Case No. 5169 November 24, 1998 - ELMO S. MOTON v. RAYMUNDO D. CADIAO

  • A.M. No. P-99-1351 November 24, 1998 - RENATO G. CUNANAN v. ARTURO C. FLORES

  • G.R. No. 66508 November 24, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FORTUNATO SIOC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102648 November 24, 1998 - DRS. ALENDRY and FLORA P. CAVILES v. EVELYN and RAMON T. BAUTISTA

  • G.R. No. 110559 November 24, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO SABAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111854 November 24, 1998 - BARANGAY BLUE RIDGE "A" OF QUEZON CITY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114671 November 24, 1998 - AURELIO SALINAS v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119492 November 24, 1998 - ROLANDO MALINAO, ET AL. v. NLRC

  • G.R. No. 122006 November 24, 1998 - ALLIED INVESTIGATION BUREAU v. SECRETARY OF LABOR & EMPLOYMENT

  • G.R. No. 132748 November 24, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO PATRIARCA

  • G.R. No. 135864 November 24, 1998 - AUGUSTO TOLEDO v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138876 November 24, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EGMEDIO LAMPAZA

  • A.M. No. 99-9-141-MTCC November 25, 1998 - HOLD DEPARTURE ORDER ISSUED BY JUDGE FELIPE M. ABALOS

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1236 November 25, 1998 - GERMAN AGUNDAY v. NIETO T. TRESVALLES

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1237 November 25, 1998 - ALFONSO LUMIBAO, ET AL. v. MAMERTO C. PANAL

  • G.R. No. 109024 November 25, 1998 - HEIRS OF MARCIANO SANGLE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109307 November 25, 1998 - TEODORA SALTIGA DE ROMERO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114262 November 25, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. QUIRINO QUIJADA

  • G.R. No. 119466 November 25, 1998 - SALVADOR and LIGAYA ADORABLE. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122823 November 25, 1998 - SEA COMMERCIAL COMPANY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123059 November 25, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO CAPILLO

  • G.R. No. 124140 November 25, 1998 - BERNARDO B. RESOSO v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 127347 November 25, 1998 - ALFREDO N. AGUILA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128389 November 25, 1998 - DON ORESTES ROMUALDEZ ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129958 November 25, 1998 - MIGUEL MELENDRES v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134340 November 25, 1998 - LININDING PANGANDAMAN v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116616 November 26, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO EMBERGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117929 November 26, 1998 - CORA VERGARA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129955 November 26, 1998 - MARIANO and JULIETA MADRIGAL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134229 November 26, 1998 - LITO and JERRY LIMPANGOG. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 99-10-10-SC November 29, 1998 - RE: DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST ANTONIO LAMANO

  • G.R. No. 116320 November 29, 1998 - ADALIA FRANCISCO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119341 November 29, 1998 - EDUARDO FONTANILLA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 119350-51 November 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAURO SUBA

  • G.R. No. 123307 November 29, 1998 - SAMUEL BARANGAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124640 November 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JERRY A. CAPCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126800 November 29, 1998 - NATALIA P. BUSTAMANTE v. RODITO F. ROSEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127840 November 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLAND PARAISO

  • G.R. No. 128743 November 29, 1998 - ORO CAM ENTERPRISES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133750 November 29, 1998 - APEX MINING, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133927 November 29, 1998 - MA. AMELITA C. VILLAROSA v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135423 November 29, 1998 - JESUS L. CHU v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136191 November 29, 1998 - JESUS O. TYPOCO v. COMELEC, ET AL.