Suarez who is also a sister of Conchita Suarez. He knew the Suarez sisters because they were the neighbors of his grandmother whom he frequently visited when he was still studying.15

Both Galeos and Rivera testified that they only provided the entries in their SALN but did not personally fill up the forms as these were already filled up by "people in the municipal hall" when they signed them.

Galeos, when shown his 1993 SALN, 16 confirmed his signature thereon. When he was asked if he understood the question "To the best of your knowledge, are you related within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity to anyone working in the government?" he answered in the negative. He claimed that the "X" mark corresponding to the answer “No” to said question, as well as the other entries in his SALN, were already filled up when he signed it. When shown his SALN for the years 1994, 1995 and 1996, Galeos reiterated that they were already filled up and he was only made to sign them by an employee of the municipal hall whom he only remembers by face. He also admitted that he carefully read the documents and all the entries therein were explained to him before he affixed his signature on the document. However, when asked whether he understands the term "fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity" stated in the SALNs, he answered in the negative. 17

Rivera testified that he was not aware that his wife was a close relative of the Municipal Mayor because when he asked her, the latter told him that Ong was a distant relative of hers. Rivera added that it was not Ong who first appointed him as a casual employee but Ong's predecessor, Mayor Vicente Mendiola. 18

On the part of Ong, he testified that at the time he was serving as Municipal Mayor of Naga, he did not know that he and Galeos are relatives, as in fact there are several

persons with the surname "Galeos" in the municipality. He signed Galeos' 1993 SALN when it was presented to him by Galeos at his office. There were many of them who brought such documents and he would administer their oaths on what were written on their SALN, among them were Galeos and Rivera. He came to know of the defect in the employment of Galeos when the case was filed by his "political enemy" in the Ombudsman just after he was elected ViceMayor in 1998. As to Rivera, Ong claimed that he knows him as a casual employee of the previous administration. As successor of the former mayor, he had to re-appoint these casual employees and he delegated this matter to his subordinates. He maintained that his family was not very close to their other relatives because when he was not yet Mayor, he was doing business in Cebu and Manila. When queried by the court if he had known his relatives while he was campaigning considering that in the provinces even relatives within the 6th and 7th degree are still regarded as close relatives especially among politicians, Ong insisted that his style of campaigning was based only on his performance of duties and that he did not go from house to house. Ong admitted that he had been a resident of Naga, Cebu since birth. He could no longer recall those SALN of most of the employees whose oaths he had administered. He admitted that he was the one who appointed Galeos and Rivera to their permanent positions and signed their official appointment (Civil Service Form No. 33) but he was not aware at that time that he was related to them. It was only after the filing of the case that he came to know the wife of Rivera. As to the qualifications of these appointees, he no longer inquired about it and their appointment were no longer submitted to the Selection Board. When the appointment forms for Galeos and Rivera were brought to his office, the accompanying documents were attached thereto. Ong, however, admitted that before the permanent appointment is approved by the CSC, he issues a certification to the effect that all requirements of law and the CSC have been complied with.19

Wherefore, judgment is hereby rendered on the following:

In Criminal Case No. 26181, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Paulino S. Ong and Rosalio S. Galeos GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Falsification of Public Document as defined in and penalized by Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code and, there being no modifying circumstances, are hereby sentenced to each suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from Two (2) Years, Four (4) Months and One (1) Day of Prision Correccional medium as the minimum penalty to Eight (8) Years and One (1) Day of Prision Mayor medium as the maximum penalty and to each pay a Fine of Five Thousand

Pesos (P5,000.00).

In Criminal Case No. 26182, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Paulino S. Ong and Federico T. Rivera GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Falsification of Public Document as defined in and penalized by Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code and, there being no modifying circumstances, are hereby sentenced to each suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from Two (2) Years, Four (4) Months and One (1) Day of Prision Correccional medium as the minimum penalty to Eight (8) Years and One (1) Day of Prision Mayor medium as the maximum penalty and to each pay of Fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00).

In Criminal Case No. 26183, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Paulino S. Ong and Rosalio S. Galeos GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Falsification of Public Document as defined in and penalized by Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code and, there being no modifying circumstances, are hereby sentenced to each suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from Two (2) Years, Four (4) Months and One (1) Day of Prison Correccional medium as the minimum penalty to Eight (8) Years and One (1) Day of Prison Mayor medium as the maximum penalty and to each pay of Fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00).

In Criminal Case No. 26184, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Paulino S. Ong and Federico T. Rivera GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Falsification of Public Document as defined in and penalized by Article

no modifying circumstances, are hereby sentenced to each suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from Two (2) Years, Four (4) Months and One (1) Day of Prision Correccional medium as the minimum penalty to Eight (8) Years and One (1) Day of Prision Mayor medium as the maximum penalty and to each pay of Fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00).

In Criminal Case No. 26185, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Paulino S. Ong and Federico T. Rivera GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Falsification of Public Document as defined in and penalized by Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code and, there being no modifying circumstances, are hereby sentenced to each suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from Two (2) Years, Four (4) Months and One (1) Day of Prision Correccional medium as the minimum penalty to Eight (8) Years and One (1) Day of Prision Mayor medium as the maximum penalty and to each pay of Fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00).

In Criminal Case No. 26186, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Paulino S. Ong and Rosalio S. Galeos GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Falsification of Public Document as defined in and penalized by Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code and, there being no modifying circumstances, are hereby sentenced to each suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from Two (2) Years, Four (4) Months and One (1) Day of Prision Correccional medium as the minimum penalty to Eight (8) Years and One (1) Day of Prision Mayor medium as the maximum penalty and to each pay of Fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00).

In Criminal Case No. 26187, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Paulino S. Ong and Rosalio S. Galeos GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Falsification of Public Document as defined in and penalized by Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code and, there being no modifying circumstances, are hereby sentenced to each suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from Two (2) Years, Four (4) Months and One (1) Day of Prision Correccional medium as the minimum penalty to Eight (8) Years and One (1) Day of Prision Mayor medium as the maximum penalty and to each pay of Fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00).

In Criminal Case No. 26188, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Paulino S. Ong NOT GUILTY for Violation of Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code for failure of the Prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt; and

In Criminal Case No. 26189, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Paulino S. Ong GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for Falsification of Public Document as defined in and penalized by Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code and, there being no modifying circumstances, is hereby sentenced to each suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from Two (2) Years, Four (4) Months and One (1) Day of Prision Correccional medium as the minimum penalty to Eight (8) Years and One (1) Day of Prision Mayor medium as the maximum penalty and to each pay of Fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00).

SO ORDERED.20

In its Resolution21 dated August 28, 2006, the Sandiganbayan denied the motions for reconsideration of Ong and Galeos. However, in view of the death of Rivera on August 22, 2003 before the promulgation of the decision, the cases (Criminal Case Nos. 26182, 26184 and 26185) against him were dismissed.

In G.R. Nos. 174730-37, Galeos contends that the Sandiganbayan erred when:

1) ...IT HELD THAT THE SUBJECT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE CONTAINED UNTRUTHFUL STATEMENTS IN A NARRATION OF FACTS.

2) ...IT DID NOT CONSIDER PETITIONER'S VALID DEFENSE OF GOOD FAITH AND LACK OF INTENT to coMMIT THE CRIMES IMPUTED.

3) ...IT GAVE FULL CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE SOLE WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION. 22

In support of his assigned errors, Galeos argues that he did not make untruthful or false statements in his SALN since a "statement” requires a positive averment and thus silence or non-disclosure cannot be considered one. And even if they are considered statements, Galeos contends that they were not made in a "narration of facts" and the least they could be considered are "conclusions of law." He also argues that the prosecution failed to adduce any evidence to support the finding that he was aware of their relationship at the time of the execution of the SALN. With

Ong similarly argues that the subject SALN do not contain any untruthful statements containing a narration of facts and that there was no wrongful intent of injuring a third person at the time of the execution of the documents. He contends that he cannot be held liable for falsification

for merely administering the oath in a document since it is not among the legal obligations of an officer administering the oath to certify the truthfulness and/or veracity of the contents of the document.

Neither can he be made liable for falsification regarding the letter-certification he issued since there was no evidence

adduced that it was made to support Rivera's appointment.

In the Joint Memorandum filed by the Ombudsman through the Office of the Special Prosecutor of the Sandiganbayan, it was pointed out that Galeos categorically admitted during his testimony that before affixing his signature on the subject SALN, he carefully read its contents and the entries therein have been explained to him. Moreover, the admission made by Ong during the pre-trial under the joint stipulation of facts indicated no qualification at all that he became aware of his relationship with Galeos and Rivera only after the execution of the subject documents. The defense of lack of knowledge of a particular fact in issue, being a state of mind and therefore self-serving, it can be legally assumed that the admission of that particular fact without qualification reckons from the time the imputed act, to which the particular fact relates, was committed. As to mistaken reliance on the testimony of prosecution witness, the analysis and findings in the assailed decision do not show such testimony was even taken into consideration in arriving at the conviction of petitioners.24

With respect to Ong"s liability as conspirator in the execution of the SALN containing untruthful statements, the Special Prosecutor argues that as a general rule, it is not the duty of the administering officer to ascertain the truth of the statements found in a document. The reason for this is that the administering officer has no way of knowing if the facts stated therein are indeed truthful. However, when the facts laid out in the document directly involves the administering officer, then he has an opportunity to know of their truth or falsity. When an administering officer nevertheless administers the oath despite the false contents of the document, which are known to him to be false, he is liable, not because he violated his duty as an administering officer, but because he participated in the falsification of a document. 25

24

After a thorough review, we find the petitions unmeritorious.

Petitioners were charged with falsification of public document under Article 171, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, which states:

Art. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastic minister. The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed 5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer, employee, or notary who, taking advantage of his official position, shall falsify a document by committing any of the following acts:

1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubrics;

The elements of falsification in the above provision are as follows:

(a) the offender makes in a public document untruthful statements in a narration of facts;

(b) he has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him; and

(c) the facts narrated by him are absolutely false.26

In addition to the afore-cited elements, it must also be proven that the public officer or employee had taken advantage of his official position in making the falsification. In falsification of public document, the offender is considered to have taken advantage of his official position when (1) he has the duty to make or prepare or otherwise to intervene in the preparation of a document; or (2) he has the official

Santos v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 71523-25, December 8, 2000, 347 SCRA 386, 424.

custody of the document which he falsifies. 27 Likewise, in falsification of public or official documents, it is not necessary that there be present the idea of gain or the intent to injure a third person because in the falsification of public document, what is punished is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of the truth as therein solemnly proclaimed. 28

Falsification of Public Document by making untruthful statements concerning relatives in the government service

All the elements of falsification of public documents by making untruthful statements have been established by the prosecution:

Petitioners argue that the statements "they are not related within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity" and "that Section 79 of the Local Government Code has been complied with in the issuance of the appointments" are not a narration of facts but a conclusion of law, as both require the application of the rules on relationship under the law of succession. Thus, they cite People v. Tugbong29 where it was held that "a statement expressing an erroneous conclusion of law cannot be considered a falsification." Likewise, in People v. Yanza, 30 it was held that when defendant certified that she was eligible for the position, she practically wrote a conclusion of law, which turned out to be incorrect or erroneous; hence, she may not be declared guilty of falsification because the law violated pertains to narration of facts.

We disagree.

27

Id., citing Luis B. Reyes, THE REVISED PENAL CODE, CRIMINAL LAW (14th Edition, Revised 1998), BOOK TWO, ARTS. 114-367, p. 216, People v. Uy, 101 Phil. 159, 163 (1957) and United States v. Inosanto, 20 Phil. 376, 378 (1911); Adaza v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 154886, July 28, 2005, 464 SCRA 460, 478-479.

28 Regidor, Jr. v. People, G.R. Nos. 16608692, February 13, 2009, 579 SCRA 244, 263, citing Lastrilla v. Granda, G.R. No. 160257, January 31, 2006, 481 SCRA 324, 345, Lumancas v. Intas, G.R. No. 133472, December 5, 2000, 347 SCRA 22, 3334, further citing People v. Po Giok To, 96 Phil. 913, 918 (1955).

A conclusion of law is a determination by a judge or ruling authority regarding the law that applies in a particular case. it is opposed to a finding of fact, which interprets the factual circumstances to which the law is to be applied. 31 A narration of facts is merely an account or description of the particulars of an event or occurrence. 32 We have held that a certification by accused officials in the Statement of Time Elapsed and Work Accomplished qualifies as a narration of facts as contemplated under Article 171 (4) of the Revised Penal Code, as it consisted not only of figures and numbers but also words were used therein giving an account of the status of the flood control project. 33

In this case, the required disclosure or identification of relatives "within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity" in the SALN involves merely a description of such relationship; it does not call for an application of law in a particular set of facts. On the other hand, Articles 963 to 967 of the Civil Code simply explain the concept of proximity of relationship and what constitute direct and collateral lines in relation to the rules on succession. The question of whether or not persons are related to each other by consanguinity or affinity within the fourth degree is one of fact. Contrary to petitioners' assertion, statements concerning relationship may be proved as to its truth or falsity, and thus do not amount to expression of opinion. When a government employee is required to disclose his relatives in the government service, such information elicited therefore qualifies as a narration of facts Contemplated under Article 171 (4) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. Further, it bears to stress that the untruthful statements on relationship have no relevance to the employee's eligibility for the position but pertains rather to prohibition or restriction imposed by law on the appointing power.