G.R. No. 65006 - Diaz vs. People

Case Digest (G.R. No. 65006)

Facts:

Information and charge against petitioner

Petitioner Reolandi Diaz was charged in Criminal Case No. 934 of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, Fifth Judicial District, Branch VI, San Fernando, Pampanga with the crime of Falsification of Official Document.
The information alleged that on or about 5 December 1972, in the Municipality of San Fernando, Province of Pampanga, within the court’s jurisdiction, petitioner, then a Senior Clerk at the Jose Abad Santos High School, a public employee, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously committed falsification of an official document.
The falsification was alleged to have been committed by executing and filing with the Civil Service Commission of San Fernando a Personal Data Sheet, CS Form No. 212(65), an official document, stating that petitioner was a fourth year Bachelor of Arts student for 1950–1954 at the Cosmopolitan and Harvardian Colleges, as a requirement for his reappointment as School Administrative Assistant I of the Jose Abad Santos High School, where the academic requirement was allegedly at least a fourth year college undergraduate.
The information further alleged that petitioner knew the statement was false and that he did not reach the fourth year of a Bachelor of Arts degree.
It was alleged that, by reason of the untruthful narration, petitioner’s appointment was approved by the Civil Service Commission.

Trial court proceedings and conviction

Petitioner pleaded not guilty upon arraignment.
After trial, the trial court found petitioner guilty as charged.
The trial court held petitioner guilty of falsification of official document penalized under Article 171, paragraph 4, of the Revised Penal Code.
The trial court imposed an indeterminate sentence of:

Two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum; to
Six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum.

The trial court imposed a fine of ONE THOUSAND (P1,000.00) PESOS, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
The trial court ordered costs against the accused.

Appeal to the Intermediate Appellate Court and modification

Petitioner appealed to the Intermediate Appellate Court, docketed as CA-GR No. 24580-Cr.
In a decision promulgated on 7 April 1983, the Intermediate Appellate Court modified the trial court’s penalty.
The Intermediate Appellate Court increased the penalty as to the maximum, and required subsidiary imprisonment in case of non-payment of the fine due to insolvency.
The Intermediate Appellate Court held that the penalty for falsification of an official document committed under Article 171, paragraph 4, of the Revised Penal Code was prision mayor and a fine not to exceed P5,000.00.
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Intermediate Appellate Court fixed the indeterminate penalty as:

Two (2) Years, Four (4) Months and One (1) Day of prision correccional as minimum; to
Eight (8) Years and One (1) Day of prision mayor as maximum.

The Intermediate Appellate Court ordered subsidiary imprisonment if the fine of P1,000.00 was not paid due to insolvency.
The Intermediate Appellate Court affirmed the conviction in all other respects.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

Contentions raised by petitioner before the Supreme Court

Petitioner claimed entitlement to acquittal on these grounds:

The findings that petitioner was not a fourth year A.B. college student were contrary to the evidence presented.
The Intermediate Appellate Court committed an error of law because petitioner allegedly had no legal obligation to state in CS Form 212 that he was a fourth year college student.
The Intermediate Appellate Court committed grave abuse of discretion in finding that the transcript of records (Exhibit I) was spurious.

Material facts found by the lower courts and reiterated in the Supreme Court narration

Petitioner was a senior clerk at Jose Abad Santos High School in San Fernando, Pampanga.
In 1972, petitioner sought appointment as School Administrative Assistant I in the same school.
As a requirement, petitioner filled up and submitted a prescribed personal information sheet, Civil Service Form 212, and swore to the truth and veracity of the data furnished before the proper administering officer.
In Exh. A, petitioner indicated that his highest educational attainment was Fourth Year A.B. (Liberal Arts) allegedly pursued/obtained at the Cosmopolitan and Harvardian Colleges, during 1950–1954 inclusive.
Based on this, petitioner was extended an appointment as School Administrative Assistant I (Exh. B).
Petitioner’s personal information sheet (Exh. A), together with appointment paper (Exh. B), certification as to the availability of funds (Exh. C), and the Provincial Board resolution creating the position (Exh. D) were forwarded to the Civil Service Commission for approval.
The lower courts found that petitioner’s claimed educational attainment and enrollment history were false:

Petitioner was never enrolled at the Cosmopolitan Colleges during 1950–1954, as certified by the Registrar of Ortanez University (Mr. Atilano D. Solomon), and the Cosmopolitan Colleges later became Abad Santos Educational Institution and still later Ortanez University.
Petitioner was never a student at the Harvardian Colleges in Tondo, Manila during the first quarter of school year 1953–1954, as certified by the school’s President, Mrs. Virginia King Vda. de Yap.
Petitioner never enrolled as a collegiate student at Harvardian Colleges in San Fernando, Pampanga after finishing secondary course in June 1950, as certified by the school’s Executive Director Atty. Arnulfo Garcia.
Petitioner’s name was not included in enrollment lists submitted to the then Bureau of Private Schools of the Department of Education by the Harvardian Colleges and the Cosmopolitan Colleges during the period claimed.

Petitioner did not take the witness stand.
Petitioner presented an alleged transcript of records (Exh. 1) purportedly showing that he took collegiate courses at the Philippine Harvardian College in Tondo, Manila from the first quarter of school year 1951–1952 up to the first quarter of school year 1953–1954.
The transcript was allegedly signed by Mrs. Virginia King Vda. de Yap, for and on behalf of the then President Ildefenso Yap.
The prosecution presented Mrs. Virginia Yap, who disowned the signature.
The transcript contained a printed notation that it was valid only with the college seal and President’s signature.
The transcript allegedly lacked the imprint of the college seal and the signature of President Ildefonso Yap.
No other corroborating evidence was presented by petitioner.
The lower courts disregarded Exh. 1 as spurious for lack of authenticating marks and lack of corroboration, including the failure to produce classmates or teachers to support the claimed enrollment and passing of subjects for the period claimed.

Recharacterization of the offense by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court applied the doctrine laid down in People v. Rufo B. Cruz, No. L-15132, May 25, 1960, 108 Phil. 255, and the earlier case of United States v. Tupasi Molina, 29 Phil. 119, holding that the crime under the established facts was perjury.
The Supreme Court reasoned that the statements in petitioner’s sworn civil service application and personal information sheet constituted willful assertion of falsehood under oath on a material matter.

Issues:

Factual issue on educational attainment and enrollment

Whether the findings that petitioner was not a fourth year A.B. undergraduate were contrary to the evidence presented.

Legal issue on obligation to state educational attainment in the civil service form

Whether petitioner committed the charged falsification despite his claim that he had no legal obligation to state in CS Form 212 that he was a fourth year college student.

Evidentiary issue on the alleged transcript (Exh. 1)

Whether the Intermediate Appellate Court gravely abused discretion in finding that Exhibit I was spurious.

Substantive issue on the proper offense

Whether, based on the established facts, the offense charged as falsification of official document should instead be treated as perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code.

Penalty issue following recharacterization

If perjury applied, what penalty should be imposed, considering the penalty range under Art. 183 and the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

Ruling:

(Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

(Subscriber-Only)

Unlock Full Case Digest

Supreme Court E-Library

Case Digest (G.R. No. 65006)
Concise

Facts:

Issues:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 65006)

Facts:

Issues:

Ruling:

Ratio:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 65006) Concise

Facts:

Issues:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 65006)

Facts:

Issues:

Ruling:

Ratio:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 65006)
Concise