Cases Reported: Supreme Court Reports Annotated

2/13/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 576

CASES REPORTED

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

____________________

G.R. No. 168437. January 8, 2009.*
LAURINIO GOMA and NATALIO UMALE, petitioners, vs.

THE COURT OF APPEALS, PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, and SANGGUNIAN MEMBER MANUEL
G. TORRALBA, respondents.
Criminal Law; Falsification of Public Documents; Evidence;

Public Documents; Municipal Corporations; Words and Phrases;
In falsification under Art. 171(2) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC),
it is not necessary that there be a genuine document—it is enough
that the document fabricated or simulated has the appearance of a
true and genuine document or of apparent legal efficacy; Verily,
resolutions and ordinances of sanggunians, be they of the
sanggunian panlalawigan, panlungsod, bayan, or barangay, come
within the pale of Section 19(a), Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on
Evidence, such issuances being their written official acts in the
exercise of their legislative authority; Black defines a public
document as “a document of public interest issued or published by
a political body or otherwise connected with public business”; The
term public document is also described as a document in the
execution of which a person in authority or notary public takes
part.—Under Sec. 19(a) of Rule 132, Revised Rules on Evidence,
public documents include “[t]he written
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000152d98e6a77ff8f5ae2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/12
official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign

authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers,
whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country.” Verily,
sanggunian panlalawigan, panlungsod, bayan, or barangay, come
within the pale of the above provision, such issuances being their
written official acts in the exercise of their legislative authority.
As a matter of common practice, an action appropriating money
for some public purpose or creating liability takes the form of an
ordinance or resolution. Black defines a public document as “a
document of public interest issued or published by a political body
or otherwise connected with public business.” The term is also
described as a document in the execution of which a person in
authority or notary public takes part. There can be no denying
that the public moneydisbursing and seemingly genuine Res. T
95, in the preparation of which petitioners, in their official
capacity, had a hand, is, in context, a public document in a
criminal prosecution for falsification of public document. And it
bears to stress that in falsification under Art. 171(2) of the RPC, it
is not necessary that there be a genuine document; it is enough
that the document fabricated or simulated has the appearance of
a true and genuine document or of apparent legal efficacy.
Same; Same; Elements.—The elements of the crime of
falsification of public documents, as above defined and penalized,
are: 1. That the offender is a public officer, employee, or notary
public. 2. That he takes advantage of his official position. 3. That
he falsifies a document by causing it to appear that persons have
participated in any act or proceeding. 4. That such person or
persons did not in fact so participate in the proceeding.
Same; Same; Falsification of a public document is consummated
upon the execution of the false document, and erring public
officers’ failure to attain their objectives, if that really be the case,
is not determinative of their guilt or innocence; The element of gain
or benefit on the part of the offender or prejudice to a third party
as a result of the falsification, or tarnishing of a document’s
integrity, is not essential to maintain a charge for falsification of
public documents.—Petitioners urge their acquittal on the theory
that they did not benefit from, or that the public was not
prejudiced by, the resolution in question, it not having been used
to obtain the PhP 18,000 seminar funds. The argument holds no
water. Falsification of a public document is consummated upon
the execution of the false document. And criminal intent is
presumed upon the execution of the criminal act. Erring public
officers’ failure to attain their objectives, if that really be the case,
is not determinative of their guilt or innocence. The simulation of
a public document, done in a manner so as to give it the
appearance of a true and genuine instrument, thus, leading
others
to errors as to its authenticity, constitutes the crime of

falsification. In fine, the element of gain or benefit on the part of
the offender or prejudice to a third party as a result of the
falsification, or tarnishing of a document’s integrity, is not
essential to maintain a charge for falsification of public
documents. What is punished in falsification of public document is
principally the undermining of the public faith and the
destruction of truth as solemnly proclaimed therein. In this
particular crime, therefore, the controlling consideration lies in
the public character of a document; and the existence of any
prejudice caused to third persons or, at least, the intent to cause
such damage becomes immaterial.
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Leonardo M. Ragasa, Jr. for petitioners.
The Solicitor General for respondents.
VELASCO, JR., J.:
The Case
Appealed, via this Petition for Review on Certiorari

under Rule 45, is the Decision1 dated June 6, 2005 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CAG.R. CR No. 27963, affirming
the July 28, 2003 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC), Branch 26 in Santa Cruz, Laguna in Criminal Case
No. SC6712. The RTC convicted petitioners of the crime of
falsification of public document under Article 171 of the
Revised Penal Code (RPC).
The Facts
On the basis of the affidavitcomplaint of Manuel

Torralba and two other members of the Sangguniang
Barangay of Brgy. Cabanbanan, Pagsanjan, Laguna, the
Office of the Ombudsman for Luzon filed
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 2740. Penned by Associate Justice Perlita J. TriaTirona

and concurred in by Associate Justices Delilah VidallonMagtolis and Jose
C. Reyes, Jr.
2 Id., at pp. 4151. Penned by Judge Pablo B. Francisco.
with the RTC in Sta. Cruz, Laguna an Information for

falsification of public document under Art. 171(2) of the
RPC against petitioners Laurinio Goma and Natalio
Umale.3 Specifically, the complaint alleged that Laurinio
and Natalio, as barangay chairperson and secretary,
respectively, falsified a barangay resolution dated
September 24, 1995, allocating the amount of PhP 18,000
as disbursement for a seminar for the two officials. The
indicting information, docketed as Crim. Case No. SC6712
and raffled to Branch 26 of the Sta. Cruz RTC, alleged as
follows:
“That on or about September 24, 1995 in Barangay Cabanban

[sic], Pagsanjan, Laguna, Philippines and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused LAURINIO
GOMA and NATALIO A. UMALI, both public officials, being the
Barangay Chairman and Barangay Secretary, respectively,
taking advantage of their official positions and committing the
offense in relation to their office, in connivance and conspiracy
with each other, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously falsify a Resolution dated September 24, 1995, an
official document, by indicating therein that aforesaid Resolution
was passed on motion of Kagawad Renato Dizon, seconded by
Kagawad Recaredo C. Dela Cruz and unanimously approved by
those present in the meeting held on September 24, 1995 at 2:00
P.M., when in truth and in fact no meeting was held as no
quorum was mustered, to the damage and prejudice of public
interest.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”4
When arraigned, both Laurinio and Natalio, assisted by

counsel, pleaded not guilty to the above charge. Pretrial
and trial then ensued.
The prosecution presented the three complaining
witnesses,5 who testified that, for lack of quorum, no actual
session of the sanggunian of Brgy. Cabanbanan took place
on September 24, 1995, the day the disputed resolution was
allegedly passed. On that day, according to
_______________
3 His surname is spelled “Umali” in both the RTC and CA decisions.

4 Rollo, p. 41.
5 Barangay Kagawads Manuel G. Torralba, Armando F. Cabantog, and
Ricaredo dela Cruz of Barangay Cabanbanan, Pagsanjan, Laguna. The
defense presented Laurinio, Natalio, and Asst. Municipal Treasurer
Elizalde G. Cabaleño.
the three, they went to the barangay health center to

attend a prescheduled session which, however, did not
push through as, apart from them, only one other member,
i.e. Laurinio, came. But they later got wind of the existence
of subject Resolution No. T95 (Res. T95) dated September
24, 1995, in which it was made to appear that all the
sanggunian members attended the session of September
24, 1995 and unanimously approved, upon motion of
kagawad Renato Dizon, duly seconded by kagawad
Ricaredo dela Cruz, the allocation of PhP 18,000 to defray
the expenses of two officials who would attend a seminar in
Zamboanga. On the face of the resolution appears the
signature of Natalio and Laurinio, in their respective
capacities as barangay secretary and chairperson. It also
bore the official seal of the barangay.
On October 15, 1995, the sanggunian held a special
session during which it passed a resolution therein stating
that no session was held on September 24, 1995.6
In their defense, Natalio and Laurinio, while admitting
having affixed their signatures on the adverted falsified
resolution, alleged that said resolution was nothing more
than a mere proposal or a draft which Natalio, as was the
practice, prepared and signed a week before the scheduled
September 24, 1995. They also alleged that the same
resolution was not the enabling instrument for the release
of the seminar funds.
The Ruling of the RTC
After trial, the RTC rendered on July 28, 2003

judgment, finding both Laurinio and Natalio guilty as
charged and, accordingly, sentenced them, thus:
“WHEREFORE, this Court finds both accused Laurinio Goma

and Natalio A. Umali guilty beyond reasonable doubt as
principals in the felony of falsification of public document
punishable under Section [sic] 171 of the Revised Penal Code and
there being neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstance,
hereby imposes upon each of said accused the penalty of four
_______________
6 Rollo, p. 44.
(4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum,

to eight (8) years, and two (2) months of prision mayor, as
maximum.
Costs against both accused.
SO ORDERED.”7
The RTC found Res. T95 to have all the appearance of a

complete and “true and genuine document,” sealed and
signed by the Sanggunian secretary.8 And for reasons set
out in its decision, the trial court dismissed, as incredulous,
the defense’s theory, and the arguments propping it, about
the subject resolution being just a mere proposal.
The Ruling of the CA
From the RTC decision, Laurinio and Natalio appealed

to the CA, their recourse docketed as CAG.R. CR No.
27963, raising three issues, to wit: (a) whether Res. T95 is
a public document; (b) whether they violated Art. 171(2) of
the RPC; and (c) whether the penalty imposed is proper.
Answering all three issues in the affirmative, the CA, by its
Decision dated June 6, 2005, affirmed that of the trial
court, disposing as follows:
“WHEREFORE, the 28 July 2003 Decision of Branch 26,

Regional Trial Court of Santa Cruz, Laguna finding accused
appellants Laurinio Goma and Natalio A. Umali guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of falsification of public document
under Article 171(2) of the Revised Penal Code and sentencing
them to suffer the penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of
prision correctional [sic], as minimum, to eight (8) years, and two
(2) months of prision mayor, as maximum, is AFFIRMED. Costs
against appellants.
SO ORDERED.”9
Petitioners are now before this Court raising the very

same issues they earlier invoked before the CA, the first
two of which may be reduced into the following proposition:
Whether Res. T95 may be characterized as a public
document to bring the case, and render
_______________
7 Id., at p. 51.
8 Id., at p. 45.
9 Id., at pp. 3940.
petitioners liable on the basis of the evidence adduced,

under Art. 171(2) of the RPC.
The Court’s Ruling
The petition is bereft of merit.

As a preliminary consideration, petitioners, in this
recourse, merely highlight and discuss their defense that
the subject resolution is a mere draft or proposed resolution
not acted upon by the sanggunian for lack of quorum on
September 24, 1995, and that they never had any criminal
intent when they signed such proposed resolution. They
deny having affixed the barangay official seal on the
subject resolution.
Subject Resolution a Public Document
Under Sec. 19(a) of Rule 132, Revised Rules on

Evidence, public documents include “[t]he written official
acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign
authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers,
whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country.” Verily,
sanggunian panlalawigan, panlungsod, bayan, or
barangay, come within the pale of the above provision, such
issuances being their written official acts in the exercise of
their legislative authority. As a matter of common practice,
an action appropriating money for some public purpose or
creating liability takes the form of an ordinance or
resolution.
Black defines a public document as “a document of
public interest issued or published by a political body or
otherwise connected with public business.”10 The term is
also described as a document in the execution of which a
person in authority or notary public takes part.11 There can
be no denying that the public moneydisbursing and
seemingly genuine Res. T95, in the preparation of which
petitioners, in
_______________
10 BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 520 (8th ed.).

11 Bermejo v. Barrios, Nos. L2361415, February 27, 1970, 31 SCRA
764; Cacnio v. Baens, 5 Phil. 742 (1906); cited in 6 Herrera, Remedial Law
256 (1999).
their official capacity, had a hand, is, in context, a public

document in a criminal prosecution for falsification of
public document. And it bears to stress that in falsification
under Art. 171(2) of the RPC, it is not necessary that there
be a genuine document; it is enough that the document
fabricated or simulated has the appearance of a true and
genuine document or of apparent legal efficacy.12
genuine document or of apparent legal efficacy.12
Petitioners Guilty of Falsification
At the outset, it must be emphasized that the Court

usually defers to factual findings of the trial court, more so
when such findings receive a confirmatory nod from the
appellate court. We explained in one case:
“The rule is that the findings of fact of the trial court, its
calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment
of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions
anchored on said findings, are accorded high respect if not
conclusive effect. This is more true if such findings were affirmed
by the appellate court. When the trial court’s findings have been
affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally
binding upon this Court.13
And this factual determination, as a matter of long and

sound appellate practice, deserves great weight and shall
not be disturbed on appeal, except only for the most
convincing reasons,14 such as when that determination is
clearly without evidentiary support on record15 or when the
judgment is based on misapprehension of facts or
overlooked certain relevant facts which, if properly
considered, would justify a different conclusion.16 This is as
it should be since it is not
_______________
12 2 L.B. Reyes, The Revised Penal Code 213 (1981); citing Miller on
Criminal Law.
13 Fullero v. People, G.R. No. 170583, September 12, 2007, 533 SCRA
97, 117; Citations omitted.
14 Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 116372, January 18, 2001,
349 SCRA 451, 460.
15 Alba Vda. de Raz v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120066, September 9,
1999, 314 SCRA 36, 52.
16 Sampayan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 156360, January 14, 2005,
448 SCRA 220, 229.
the function of the Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of

Court to evaluate and weigh all over again the evidence
presented or the premises supportive of the factual
holdings of lower courts.17
The case disposition of the CA and the factual and
logical premises holding it together commend themselves
for concurrence. Its inculpatory findings on the guilt of

petitioners for falsification under Art. 171(2) of the RPC,
confirmatory of those of the trial court, are amply
supported by the evidence on record, consisting mainly of
the testimony of the complaining witnesses and a copy of
the subject resolution.
Art. 171(2) of the RPC provides as follows:
“ART. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee; or notary

or ecclesiastical 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:
x x x x
(2) Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any
act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate.”
The elements of the crime of falsification of public

documents, as above defined and penalized, are:
“1. That the offender is a public officer, employee, or notary

public.
2. That he takes advantage of his official position.
3. That he falsifies a document by causing it to appear that
persons have participated in any act or proceeding.
4. That such person or persons did not in fact so participate in
the proceeding.”18
The first two elements clearly obtain, petitioners, during

the period material, being local government elected officials
who, by reason of their position, certified, as Natalio did, as
to the holding of a baran
_______________
17 Culaba v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125862, 15 April 2004, 427
SCRA 721, 729.
18 2 L.B. Reyes, The Revised Penal Code (15th ed., 2001).
10
gay session and falsely attested, as Laurinio did, as to the

veracity of a resolution supposedly taken up therein. The
other two elements are likewise present. As correctly
observed by the CA:
“x x x [Petitioners] made it appear in the Barangay resolution

dated 24 September 1995 that all members of the Sangguniang
Barangay deliberated upon and unanimously approved the
questioned resolution, when in fact no such deliberation and

approval occurred. The nonparticipation of the members of the
Sangguniang Barangay in the passage of the resolution was
established by the 15 October 1995 resolution issued by 7 of the 8
members of the Sangguniang Barangay denying that the
challenged resolution was passed upon and approved by the
council.”19
Petitioners’ bid to pass off the resolution in question as a

mere proposal or a draft cannot be accorded merit in the
light of the manner they worded and made it appear.
Consider the following apt observations of the trial court:
Barangay Resolution No. T95 does not appear to be a proposed

resolution in all aspects x x x
x x x x
b) the opening paragraph unequivocally states that the
contents thereof were copied from the minutes of the ordinary
session of Sanggunian held on September 24, 1995 meeting, at
2:00 o’clock pm;
c) it announces all the names of the members of the
Sanggunian who attended the session during which said
resolution [was] passed;
d) it bears the resolution number, not the proposed resolution
number;
e) the title clearly states that the Sanggunian had already
approved the allocation of P18,000.00 for two (2) barangay
officials x x x;
f) it made mention that Kagawad Renato M. Dizon made the
motion, duly seconded by Kagawad [Ricaredo] C. de la Cruz, for
the passing of said resolution; and
g) accused Natalio A. Umali, in his official capacity as
Barangay Kalihim, certified said resolution as true and correct,
and accused Laurinio A. Goma, Punong Barangay, attested to the
truthfulness of said resolution.20
_______________
19 Rollo, p. 36.
20 Id., at pp. 4950.
11
Indeed, the contents and appearance of Res. T95 argue

against the very idea of its being merely a proposal or a
draft barangay enactment. Res ipsa loquitur. A draft
resolution would not be numbered or be carrying
certificatory and attestative signatures, let alone impressed
with the dry seal of the barangay. It would not also include
such particulars as the attendance of all members of the

sanggunian and the identity of the moving and seconding
kagawads relative to the passage of the resolution, for such
details are not certain; unless they have been rehearsed or
planned beforehand. But the notion that a plan had been
arranged by the sanggunian as a body would be negated by
subsequent development which saw the approval of a
resolution dated October 15, 1995 duly signed by seven
kagawads virtually trashing Res. T95 as a falsity. The
sequence of events would readily show that petitioners
falsified the subject resolution, but only to be exposed by
private complainants.
Petitioners’ allegation that kagawad Torralba was the
one who affixed the seal or that he harbored illfeelings
towards them strikes this Court as a mere afterthought,
absent convincing evidence to support the imputation.
Finally, petitioners urge their acquittal on the theory
that they did not benefit from, or that the public was not
prejudiced by, the resolution in question, it not having been
used to obtain the PhP 18,000 seminar funds. The
argument holds no water. Falsification of a public
document is consummated upon the execution of the false
document. And criminal intent is presumed upon the
execution of the criminal act. Erring public officers’ failure
to attain their objectives, if that really be the case, is not
determinative of their guilt or innocence. The simulation of
a public document, done in a manner so as to give it the
appearance of a true and genuine instrument, thus, leading
others to errors as to its authenticity, constitutes the crime
of falsification.21
In fine, the element of gain or benefit on the part of the
offender or prejudice to a third party as a result of the
falsification, or tarnishing of a document’s integrity, is not
essential to maintain a charge for
_______________
21 Re: Fake Decision Allegedly in G.R. No. 75242, A.M. No. 028230,
February 16, 2005, 451 SCRA 357, 386.
12
falsification of public documents.22 What is punished in

falsification of public document is principally the
undermining of the public faith and the destruction of
truth as solemnly proclaimed therein. In this particular
crime, therefore, the controlling consideration lies in the
public character of a document; and the existence of any
prejudice caused to third persons or, at least, the intent to

cause such damage becomes immaterial.23
Third Issue: Imposed Penalty Proper
Finally, the penalty imposed by the RTC, as affirmed by
the CA, is proper. Art. 171 of the RPC provides for a single
divisible penalty of prision mayor to public officers or
employees who, taking advantage of their official positions,
shall cause it to appear that persons have participated in
any act or proceeding when they did not in fact participate.
And where neither aggravating nor mitigating
circumstance attended the execution of the offense, as here,
the imposable penalty is, according to Art. 64 of the RPC,
that of the medium period provided. The medium period for
prision mayor is from eight (8) years and one (1) day to ten
(10) years.
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty
imposable would be that of a degree lower than the
medium period of prision mayor as minimum, and the
maximum is any period included in the medium period of
prision mayor. The degree lower than the medium period of
prision mayor is the medium period of prision correccional
which ranges from two (2) years, four (4) months, and one
(1) day to four (4) years and two (2) months.
The penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of
prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and
two (2) months of prision mayor, as maximum, thus
imposed on petitioners is well within the authorized
imposable range, and is, therefore, proper.
_______________
22 Bustillo v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 146217, April 7, 2006, 486

SCRA 545, 551.
23 Lastrilla v. Granda, G.R. No. 160257, January 31, 2006, 481 SCRA
324, 345, citing Lumancas v. Intas, G.R. No. 133472, December 5, 2000,
347 SCRA 22, 3334, and Luague v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 55683,
February 22, 1982, 112 SCRA 97, 101.
© Copyright 2016 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Cases Reported: Supreme Court Reports Annotated

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cases Reported: Supreme Court Reports Annotated

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cases Reported: Supreme Court Reports Annotated

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2/13/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 576

G.R. No. 168437. January 8, 2009.*

LAURINIO GOMA and NATALIO UMALE, petitioners, vs.

Criminal Law; Falsification of Public Documents; Evidence;

official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign

to errors as to its authenticity, constitutes the crime of

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Appealed, via this Petition for Review on Certiorari

On the basis of the affidavit­complaint of Manuel

1 Rollo, pp. 27­40. Penned by Associate Justice Perlita J. Tria­Tirona

with the RTC in Sta. Cruz, Laguna an Information for

“That on or about September 24, 1995 in Barangay Cabanban

When arraigned, both Laurinio and Natalio, assisted by

3 His surname is spelled “Umali” in both the RTC and CA decisions.

the three, they went to the barangay health center to

The Ruling of the RTC

After trial, the RTC rendered on July 28, 2003

“WHEREFORE, this Court finds both accused Laurinio Goma

(4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum,

The RTC found Res. T­95 to have all the appearance of a

The Ruling of the CA

From the RTC decision, Laurinio and Natalio appealed

“WHEREFORE, the 28 July 2003 Decision of Branch 26,

Petitioners are now before this Court raising the very

petitioners liable on the basis of the evidence adduced,

The Court’s Ruling

The petition is bereft of merit.

Subject Resolution a Public Document

Under Sec. 19(a) of Rule 132, Revised Rules on

10 BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 520 (8th ed.).

their official capacity, had a hand, is, in context, a public

genuine document or of apparent legal efficacy.12

Petitioners Guilty of Falsification

At the outset, it must be emphasized that the Court

And this factual determination, as a matter of long and

the function of the Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of

for concurrence. Its inculpatory findings on the guilt of

“ART. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee; or notary

The elements of the crime of falsification of public

“1. That the offender is a public officer, employee, or notary

The first two elements clearly obtain, petitioners, during

gay session and falsely attested, as Laurinio did, as to the

“x x x [Petitioners] made it appear in the Barangay resolution

questioned resolution, when in fact no such deliberation and

Petitioners’ bid to pass off the resolution in question as a

Barangay Resolution No. T­95 does not appear to be a proposed

Indeed, the contents and appearance of Res. T­95 argue

such particulars as the attendance of all members of the

falsification of public documents.22 What is punished in

prejudice caused to third persons or, at least, the intent to

22 Bustillo v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 146217, April 7, 2006, 486

© Copyright 2016 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like

On the basis of the affidavitcomplaint of Manuel

1 Rollo, pp. 2740. Penned by Associate Justice Perlita J. TriaTirona

The RTC found Res. T95 to have all the appearance of a

Barangay Resolution No. T95 does not appear to be a proposed

Indeed, the contents and appearance of Res. T95 argue