In a complaint filed on July 19, 1980, (apparently as a retaliatory move for his ouster as municipal treasurer of the municipality of Bula, province of Camarines Sur) with the Sandiganbayan, Nestor R. Rueda charged the following with the crimes of malversation of public funds and falsification of public documents:

1. herein petitioner Vicente Luz, Acting Municipal Treasurer^[1] (who had replaced complainant Rueda);
   
   
2. Sabino Pontanal; mayor of the municipality of Bula;
   
   
3. Juan Baldoza;
   
   
4. Eliseo Parro;
   
   
5. Rodolfo Colambo
   
   
6. Juan Alba;
   
   
7. Manuel Raña;
   
   
8. Perfecto Nogales, and
   
   
9. Antonio Guinoo.

The undisputed facts indicate that the accused policemen, after rendering service as such policemen in the municipality were unable, for one reason or another, to get paid.  To enable them to receive something, the mayor decided to have them included in the payroll for laborers on the mu­nicipal roads and bridges, and issued a certification to said effect.  The certification was then sent to petitioner who in his capacity as acting municipal treasurer and disbursing officer, signed the voucher involved (Voucher No. 118).  The policemen were then paid.  When complainant learned of this irregularity, (with the government being compelled to disburse some P336.00, or P48.00 for each of the seven policemen in­volved), he filed his charge with the Sandiganbayan.  After trial, all the aforementioned accused were acquitted of the crime of malversation of public funds and all except peti­tioner Vicente Luz were acquitted of the crime of falsification of public document.  No sentence was imposed on the mayor because he had died while the trial was in progress, As al­ready stated petitioner was convicted of falsification of public document and was sentenced to:

an indeterminate imprisonment ranging from two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum, eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision Mayor as maximum, to pay a fine of P2,000.00 and to pay the costs.

After his motion for reconsideration was denied, he filed the instant petition with Our Court.

He alleges in his defense that he knew nothing of the scheme devised by the mayor to enable the policemen to get paid, that he did not know them personally and did not know they were really policemen; that at any rate his duty to allow payment was purely ministerial as long as the needed certifi­cation by the municipal mayor was present, since there is no law or regulation which requires him to get out into the roads and bridges to see for himself whether or not the persons supposed to be paid were actually performing their jobs.

We believe he should be acquitted on the basis of reasonable doubt, among other things.  No proof has been given of the charge, that he knew of the mayor's plan.  And besides the presumption of good faith, it is clear that what he did was purely ministerial, in view of the certification that had been made by the municipal mayor.  (See People v. Reodica, 62 Phil. 567).  Were he to be given the task of verifying whether or not the employees and laborers of the municipality are really performing their assigned jobs (See U.S v. Balais, 17 Phil. 503), his would be an im­possible function.

WHEREFORE, petitioner is hereby ACQUITTED on reason­able doubt.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, C.J., Feria, Yap, Fernan, Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Alampay, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, and Feliciano, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] He was Officer-in-charge of the Treasurer's Office.