Patricia Anne M.

Martinez
Criminal Law II 1B
Judge Antonio Pangan
March 2016

Articles 171, 172 and 217: Complex Crime of Malversation thru

Falsification of Public Documents
G.R. No. 167671 September 3, 2008

Ricardo S. Santos, Jr., petitioner vs. People of the Philippines,

respondent

Facts:

Petitioner Ricardo S. Santos, Jr. is a disbursing officer of the Bureau of

Lands. He opposes the July 26, 2004 decision and April 7, 2005 resolution of
the Court of Appeals.

Four separate informations for malversation of public funds thru

falsification of public documents were filed in the Court of First Instance of
Rizal (CFI), Branch V, Quezon City, against petitioner Ricardo S. Santos and
nine others on October 8, 1969.

The CFI found Santos and his co-accused Pedro Velasco guilty beyond
reasonable doubt as principals of the complex crime of malversation
thru falsification of public documents under Articles 217 and 171 of
the Revised Penal Code.

All of the accused who were convicted appealed the consolidated

decision of the CFI to the CA. All of them except petitioner Santos died during
the pendency of the appeal. In the instant appeal, he was acquitted in three
out of four criminal cases. The CA held Santos guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of falsification of public document as he was a principal
by inducement, based on the testimony of state witness Henry Cruz.
Petitioner Santos induced Cruz to sign the travel expense voucher in
exchange for receiving a share of the proceeds of the claim even if he was
not entitled to.

Issue:

Whether or not petitioner Ricardo S. Santos is guilty of falsification of a

public document (as a principal by inducement)

Held/Ruling:
 Santos is guilty. The elements to prove that Santos committed the
crime of falsification of public documents under paragraph 1, Article 172 in
relation to paragraph 2, Article 171 of the RPC are all there.

The first element of paragraph 1, Article 172 was there: Ricardo S.

Santos, Jr. was a disbursing officer of the Bureau of Lands, a public official
whose duties did not include intervening in the preparation of travel expense
vouchers.

The second element was also there: Santos asked Cruz to sign the
falsified voucher on the promise of a share of the proceeds, even if Cruz
was not entitled to it.

Finally, it was never disputed that the travel voucher was a public
document.

The petition was DENIED. The July 26, 2004 decision and April 7, 2005
resolution of the Court of Appeals were AFFIRMED.