Atty. Rodolfo Pactolin vs Fourth Division of the Sandiganbayan On December 7, 2012 ....

0 0

Criminal Law

Falsification By Public Officer

Sandiganbayan Jurisdiction

In 1996, a certain Elmer Abastillas sent a letter to Ozamis City Mayor Benjamin Fuentes acting the latter to donate fund to the local volleyball team. Fuentes a pproved the letter and forwarded the same to the City Treaurer. In the same year , Abastillas received a P10k check on behalf of the volleyball team. Later, Mayo r Fuentes had to be out of town so he designated Councilor Mario Ferraren as OIC -Mayor. While Ferraren was acting as OIC-Mayor, another councilor, Atty. Rodolfo Pactoli n, went to the Treasurer s office and requested for the letter sent by Abastillas. S ince he is a councilor, the City Treasurer gave said letter. Pactolin then photo copied said letter and returned it to the said Office. Subsequently, Pactolin filed a case with the Ombudsman against OIC-Mayor Ferrar en. He accused Ferraren of illegally disbursing fund to Abastillas. He presented a letter purportedly signed by Ferraren. Apparently, Pactolin falsified said letter. Ferraren then filed a criminal case for violation of Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) against Pactolin wi th the Sandiganbayan. Pactolin was later found guilty of Falsification under Art icle 172 of the Revised Penal Code. Article 171 speaks of falsification by a pub lic officer. The Sandiganbayan however sentenced him under Article 172 (Falsific ation by a public individual) because apparently, the only thing proven during t rial was that he falsified Abastillas letter but that he did not commit the crime b y virtue of his office and that said document was not officially under his custo dy. Pactolin assailed said decision as he averred that the Sandiganabayan acted with out jurisdiction; that he was charged as a public officer (under Art. 171, RPC) and not as a private individual (under Art. 172, RPC); that the crime falsificat ion of a public document is not cognizable by the Sandiganbayan. ISSUE: Whether or not Pactolin is correct. HELD: No. Although in the information filed against him, there was no statutory designation as to what crime he committed; said crime can be inferred from the b ody which sufficiently describes that he violated Article 172 of the Revised Pen al Code. He cannot also claim that he was deprived of due process when he was or iginally accused as a public officer and then sentenced as a private individual because the averments in the information are unmistakable. He had the chance to defend himself. The said case is also within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. R.A. 1379 st ates that violations of Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code (which Art. 171 and 172 are part of) committed by members of the San ggunian are within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

The Supreme Court also referred this case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippin es for appropriate actions against Pactolin who is a lawyer. As a lawyer, he is bound by the profession s strict code of ethics. His conviction means he has not met the high ethical standard demanded by his profession. He must be dealt with acc ordingly.