Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 170583 Septembe 1!" !007
ERNESTO M. #ULLERO" petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE O# THE PHILIPPINES" respondent.
D E C I S I O N
CHICO$NA%ARIO" J.&
In this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court,
1
petitioner
Ernesto M. Fullero sees to set aside the !ecision
"
dated 1# $ctober "%%5 of the Court of &ppeals in
C&'(.R. CR. )o. "*%+", affir,in- in toto the !ecision
.
dated # $ctober "%%. of the /e-a0pi Cit1
Re-ional 2rial Court 3R2C4, 5ranch 6, in Cri,inal Case )o. ++1", findin- petitioner -uilt1 of
falsification of public docu,ent as defined and penali0ed in para-raph 4, &rticle 1+1 of the Revised
Penal Code.
In an &,ended Infor,ation
4
dated 14 $ctober 1##+, petitioner was char-ed with falsification of public
docu,ent under para-raph 4, &rticle 1+1 of the Revised Penal Code, alle-edl1 co,,itted as follows7
2hat so,eti,e in 1#**, in the Cit1 of /e-a0pi, Philippines, and within the 8urisdiction of this
9onorable Court, the above'na,ed accused, with intent to pre8udice and defraud, bein- then the
&ctin- Chief $perator of Iri-a Cit1 2eleco,,unication:s $ffice, while actin- in said capacit1
and tain- advanta-e of his official function, did then and there willfull1, unlawfull1 and
feloniousl1 falsif1 and;or caused to be falsified a -enuine public docu,ent, that is when he
prepared his C<C "1" 3Personal !ata <heet4 for sub,ission to 5ureau of 2eleco,,unication
Re-ional $ffice )o. 5, /e-a0pi Cit1, he ,ade it appear that he passed the Civil En-ineerin-
5oard E=a,inations -iven b1 Professional Re-ulation Co,,ission on Ma1 .% and .1, 1#*5
with a ratin- of +5.*>? however, upon verification issued b1 PRC, said accused too the
e=a,ination in Ma1 1#*4 and another one @inA Ma1, 1#*5 with -eneral ratin-s of 56.+5> and
56.1%> respectivel1.
Bhen arrai-ned on 5 Canuar1 1##*, petitioner, with the assistance of counsel de parte, pleaded D)ot
(uilt1D to the char-e.
5
2hereafter, trial on the ,erits ensued.
Culled fro, the records are the followin- facts7
In 1#++, petitioner was e,plo1ed as a tele-raph operator at the 5ureau of 2eleco,,unications $ffice
in Iri-a Cit1 352$, Iri-a Cit14. In 1#*", he beca,e the &ctin- Chief $perator of the sa,e office until
1##4.
6
& Personal !ata <heet 3P!<4 @Civil <ervice For, "1"A dated * Canuar1 1#**, purportedl1
acco,plished and si-ned b1 petitioner, states that he passed the Civil En-ineerin- 5oard E=a,ination
-iven on .%'.1 Ma1 1#*5 in Manila with a ratin- of +5.*>.
+
It appears that he sub,itted the P!< to
the 5ureau of 2eleco,,unications Re-ional $ffice, /e-a0pi Cit1 352$, /e-a0pi Cit14.
*
& letter dated + March 1#** and si-ned b1 petitioner shows that he applied for the position of either a
Cunior 2eleco,,unications En-ineer or 2eleco,,unications 2raffic <upervisor with the Re-ional
!irector of the Civil <ervice Co,,ission 3C<C4, Re-ion 5, /e-a0pi Cit1.
#
Epon inFuir1 ,ade b1 Florenda 5. Ma-istrado 3Ma-istrado4, a subordinate of petitioner in the 52$,
Iri-a Cit1, with the Professional Re-ulation Co,,ission 3PRC4, it was verified that petitioner never
passed the board e=a,ination for civil en-ineerin- and that petitioner:s na,e does not appear in the
boo of re-istration for civil en-ineers.
1%
Petitioner denied e=ecutin- and sub,ittin- the sub8ect P!< containin- the state,ent that he passed the
.%'.1 Ma1 1#*5 board e=a,ination for civil en-ineerin-. 9e liewise disowned the si-nature and
thu,b,ar appearin- therein. 9e clai,ed that the stroe of the si-nature appearin- in the P!< differs
fro, the stroe of his -enuine si-nature.
11
9e added that the letters contained in the P!< he
acco,plished and sub,itted were t1pewritten in capital letters since his t1pewriter does not have s,all
letters. &s such, the sub8ect P!< could not be his because it had both s,all and capital t1pewritten
letters.
Moreover, petitioner clai,ed that Ma-istrado had an ill ,otive in filin- the instant case a-ainst hi,
because he issued a ,e,orandu, a-ainst her for ,isbehavior in the 52$, Iri-a Cit1.
1"
9e further
ar-ued that the R2C had no 8urisdiction to tr1 hi, there bein- no evidence that the alle-ed falsification
too place in /e-a0pi Cit1.
1.
&fter trial, the /e-a0pi Cit1 R2C rendered a !ecision dated # $ctober "%%. findin- petitioner -uilt1 of
the cri,e of falsification. 2hus7
B9EREF$RE, pre,ises considered, the accused E'e(to M. #)**eo is hereb1 found +),*t-
be1ond reasonable doubt of the cri,e of #.*(,/,0.t,o' defined and penali0ed under &rt. 1+1 344
of the Revised Penal Code, and hereb1 sentences hi, to suffer the penalt1 of i,prison,ent of
si= 364 1ears of prision correccional ,a=i,u, to ten 31%4 1ears of prision mayor ,ediu, as the
,a=i,u, and to pa1 a fine of three thousand P.,%%%.%% Pesos. Costs a-ainst the accused.
14
Petitioner appealed to the Court of &ppeals. $n 1# $ctober "%%5, the appellate court pro,ul-ated its
!ecision affir,in- in toto the assailed /e-a0pi Cit1 R2C !ecision. 2he appellate court decreed7
In su,, the Court finds that the prosecution has successfull1 established all the ele,ents of the
offense of falsification of a public docu,ent and that the trial court correctl1 rendered a
8ud-,ent of conviction a-ainst appellant.
B9EREF$RE, the appeal at bench is !I<MI<<E! for lac of ,erit and the appealed %#
$ctober "%%. decision is affir,ed.
15
$n "1 )ove,ber "%%5, petitioner lod-ed the instant petition before us citin- as errors the followin-7
I.
B9E29ER $R )$2 29E 9$)$R&5/E C$ER2 $F &PPE&/< ERRE! I) <E<2&I)I)(
29E CE!(ME)2 $F 29E RE(I$)&/ 2RI&/ C$ER2 !E<PI2E 29E F&C2 29&2 <&I!
/$BER C$ER2 C$)GIC2E! 29E &CCE<E! I) 29E &5<E)CE $F <EFFICIE)2
EGI!E)CE I.E., PR$$F 2$ <9$B 29&2 29E &CCE<E! &C2E&//H PERF$RME!
29E &C2 $F F&/<IFIC&2I$) 9E I< &CCE<E! $F?
II.
B9E29ER $R )$2 29E 9$)$R&5/E C$ER2 $F &PPE&/< ERRE! I) <E<2&I)I)(
29E CE!(ME)2 $F 29E RE(I$)&/ 2RI&/ C$ER2 !E<PI2E 29E F&C2 29&2, EGE)
$) 29E &<<EMP2I$) 29&2 &CCE<E! FI//E! EP 29E PER<$)&/ !&2& <9EE2
3P!<4 I)C/E!I)( 29E <2&2EME)2 29&2 9E I< & /ICE)<E! E)(I)EER, &CCE<E!
B&< E)!ER )$ $5/I(&2I$) 2$ <2&2E <&I! !&2& &)! )$ CRIMI)&/ I)2E)2
B&< <9$B).
III.
B9E29ER $R )$2 29E 9$)$R&5/E C$ER2 $F &PPE&/< ERRE! I) <E<2&I)I)(
29E CE!(ME)2 $F 29E RE(I$)&/ 2RI&/ C$ER2 !E<PI2E 29E F&C2 29&2 <&I!
R2C &!MI22E! EGI!E)CE< )$2 PR$PER/H I!E)2IFIE! &)! 29ERE&F2ER
C$)<I!ERE! 29E <&ME I) !E2ERMI)I)( 29E &//E(E! (EI/2 $F 29E
&CCE<E!?
IG.
B9E29ER $R )$2 29E 9$)$R&5/E C$ER2 $F &PPE&/< ERRE! I) <E<2&I)I)(
29E CE!(ME)2 $F 29E RE(I$)&/ 2RI&/ C$ER2 !E<PI2E 29E F&C2 29&2 29E
/$BER C$ER2 9&! )$ CERI<!IC2I$) 5EC&E<E 29E GE)EE <9$E/! 9&GE
5EE) I) 29E RE(I$)&/ 2RI&/ C$ER2 $F IRI(& CI2H, B9ERE 29E &//E(E!
PER<$)&/ !&2& <9EE2 B&< &CC$MP/I<9E! )$2 I) 29E R2C $F /E(&IPI CI2H.
Apropos the first issue, petitioner ,aintained that none of the prosecution witnesses actuall1 saw hi,
acco,plish and si-n the P!<? that the prosecution failed to establish that he too advanta-e of his
position in falsif1in- the P!<? that a person need not be an &ctin- Chief $perator to be able to falsif1 a
P!<? that he never beca,e the custodian of the P!< nor did he have an1 special access to it b1 reason
of his office? and that the identit1 of the person who falsified the P!< has not been established b1 the
prosecution.
16
In establishin- its char-e of falsification a-ainst petitioner, the prosecution presented the followin-
witnesses, na,el17 Ma-istrado, CoaFuin C. &ta10a 3&ta10a4, Ro,eo 5ri0o 35ri0o4, E,,a Francisco
3Francisco4 and Edith C. &venir 3&venir4.
M.+,(t.1o, a subordinate of petitioner at the 52$, Iri-a Cit1, testified that prior to the filin- of the
instant case a-ainst petitioner, she sued the petitioner for un8ust ve=ation as the latter issed her on one
occasion. Bhile the case for un8ust ve=ation was pendin-, her law1er, &tt1. Mariano 5aranda, Cr. 3&tt1.
5aranda4, ased her if petitioner was indeed a licensed civil en-ineer since so,e persons si,pl1
referred to petitioner as DMr. FulleroD whereas in the 52$, Iri-a Cit1, petitioner was nown as
DEn-ineer Fullero.D <uspicious of the true status of petitioner, she went to the Records $ffice of the
52$, /e-a0pi Cit1, and reFuested therein if she can see petitioner:s P!<. Epon bein- shown
petitioner:s P!<, she observed that, under Ite, )o. 1* thereof, petitioner appears to be a licensed civil
en-ineer havin- passed the board e=a,ination for civil en-ineerin- -iven on .%'.1 Ma1 1#*5.
Enconvinced of the veracit1 of petitioner:s state,ent in the P!< that he is a licensed civil en-ineer, she
sou-ht the advice of &tt1. 5aranda. &tt1. 5aranda then proceeded to the ,ain office of the PRC in
Manila to chec the records of petitioner. <ubseFuentl1, &tt1. 5aranda obtained a certification fro, the
PRC attestin- that petitioner never passed the board e=a,ination for civil en-ineerin-. &tt1. 5aranda
showed the said certification to her. 2hereafter, she instituted the instant case a-ainst petitioner.
1+
At.-2., Re-ional !irector of the PRC in /e-a0pi Cit1, testified that petitioner is not re-istered as a
board passer for the civil en-ineerin- e=a,ination -iven on .%'.1 Ma1 1#*5.
1*
3,2o, 9u,an Resource Mana-e,ent $fficer and &ctin- Records $fficer of the 52$, /e-a0pi Cit1,
testified that his dut1 as actin- records officer was to safe-uard the records and files of the 52$, Iri-a
Cit1, and 52$, /e-a0pi Cit1. 9e said he personall1 nows the petitioner and is fa,iliar with the latter:s
si-nature because he re-ularl1 received petitioner:s dail1 ti,e records and other docu,ents bearin-
petitioner:s si-nature. 9e confir,ed that the si-nature appearin- in petitioner:s P!< was the si-nature
of petitioner.
1#
#.'0,(0o was the $fficer'In'Char-e of the Records <ection of the PRC, Manila. <he declared that
petitioner:s na,e was included in the ,aster list of e=a,inees in the Ma1 1#*4 civil en-ineerin-
licensure e=a,ination where petitioner obtained a failin- -rade of 56.+5>. <he affir,ed that
petitioner:s na,e also appears in the list of e=a,inees for the .%'.1 Ma1 1#*5 and Ma1 1##% civil
en-ineerin- licensure e=a,inations where he -ot failin- ,ars.
"%
A4e', was the <pecial Investi-ator III in the /e-al &ffairs !ivision of the C<C, Re-ional $ffice )o.
5, /e-a0pi Cit1. &s the dul1 authori0ed representative of the Re-ional !irector of the said office,
&venir brou-ht to the court the letter of petitioner appl1in- for the position of either Cunior
2eleco,,unications En-ineer or 2eleco,,unications 2raffic <upervisor, and a certification sub,itted
b1 the petitioner statin- that the latter is a licensed civil en-ineer. &venir stated that the letter and the
certification were taen fro, the records of their office and that these docu,ents were bein- ept as
part of the records of an ad,inistrative case of petitioner with the said office.
"1
2he prosecution also presented docu,entar1 evidence to bolster the fore-oin- testi,onies of the
prosecution witnesses, to wit7 314 a certification issued b1 Cose &. &rriola, !irector II, PRC, Manila,
attestin- that petitioner:s na,e is not re-istered in the boo of re-istr1 for licensed civil en-ineers? 3"4
certifications issued b1 Francisco affir,in- that petitioner failed in the .%'.1 Ma1 1#*5 board
e=a,ination for civil en-ineerin-?
""
3.4 the P!< where petitioner stated that he passed the .%'.1 Ma1
1585 board e=a,ination for civil en-ineerin- with a ratin- of +5.*> and which was si-ned b1 hi,?
".
344 certifications issued b1 Francisco attestin- that petitioner failed the Ma1 1550 board e=a,ination
for civil en-ineerin-?
"4
354 transcript of steno-raphic notes in the per8ur1 case filed b1 petitioner
a-ainst Ma-istrado which states that, durin- the trial thereof, petitioner affir,ed before the court
hearin- the case that he is a licensed civil en-ineer?
"5
364 a letter si-ned and sub,itted b1 petitioner to
the Re-ional !irector of the C<C, Re-ional $ffice )o. 5, /e-a0pi Cit1, clai,in- to be a licensed civil
en-ineer and appl1in- for the position of either a Cunior 2eleco,,unications En-ineer or
2eleco,,unications 2raffic <upervisor?
"6
3+4 an $rder dated "% !ece,ber "%%1 of the C<C, Re-ional
$ffice )o. 5, findin- petitioner ad,inistrativel1 liable for conduct pre8udicial to the best interest of the
service and i,posin- upon hi, a penalt1 of si= ,onths suspension for falsif1in- his P!< which is also
the sub8ect ,atter of the instant case?
"+
3*4 a certification sub,itted b1 the petitioner to the C<C,
Re-ional $ffice )o. 5, /e-a0pi Cit1, showin- that he is a licensed civil en-ineer?
"*
3#4 the dail1 ti,e
records of Ma-istrado si-ned b1 petitioner as the for,er:s superior?
"#
and 31%4 other docu,ents
bearin- the si-nature of petitioner in blue ballpen.
.%
$n the other hand, the defense presented petitioner as its sole witness. )o docu,entar1 evidence was
proffered.
Petitioner interposed denials and alibi to support his contentions. Petitioner denied that he e=ecuted and
sub,itted the sub8ect P!< containin- the state,ent that he passed the board e=a,inations for civil
en-ineerin-. 9e liewise disowned the si-nature and thu,b,ar appearin- therein. 9e averred that the
P!< he acco,plished and sub,itted was t1pewritten in capital letters since his t1pewriter does not
have s,all letters? thus, the sub8ect P!< could not be his since the letters were t1pewritten in s,all and
capital letters? that the stroe of the si-nature appearin- in the P!< differs fro, the stroe of his
-enuine si-nature? that Ma-istrado had an ill ,otive in filin- the instant case a-ainst hi, since he
issued a ,e,orandu, a-ainst her for the latter:s ,isbehavior in the 52$, Iri-a Cit1? that he is not a
licensed civil en-ineer? and that he acco,plished a different P!< in the 52$, Iri-a Cit1.
Petitioner testified that he cannot recall the e=act date when he issued the alle-ed ,e,orandu, a-ainst
Ma-istrado
.1
and when durin- the trial of his per8ur1 case a-ainst Ma-istrado, he clai,ed that he is a
licensed civil en-ineer.
."
9e cannot also re,e,ber if he sub,itted a letter to the C<C, Re-ional $ffice
)o. 5, /e-a0pi Cit1, appl1in- for the position of either a Cunior 2eleco,,unications En-ineer or
2eleco,,unications 2raffic <upervisor
..
and the fact that he sub,itted therein a certification that he is
a licensed civil en-ineer.
.4
2he initial Fuer1 to be resolved is whose evidence between the prosecution and defense is credible.
Case law dictates that an accused can be convicted even if no e1ewitness is available as lon- as
sufficient circu,stantial evidence had been presented b1 the prosecution.
.5
Circu,stantial evidence is
sufficient if7
3a4 2here is ,ore than one circu,stance?
3b4 2he facts fro, which the inferences are derived are proven? and
3c4 2he co,bination of all the circu,stances is such as to produce a conviction be1ond
reasonable doubt.
.6
&lthou-h none of the prosecution witnesses actuall1 saw the petitioner falsif1in- the P!<, the1,
nonetheless, testified that that the1 are ver1 fa,iliar with the petitioner:s handwritin- and si-nature.
Ma-istrado testified that, bein- a subordinate of petitioner, she is ver1 fa,iliar with petitioner:s
si-nature and actuall1 witnessed petitioner affi=in- his si-nature on her dail1 ti,e records for
<epte,ber 1#*+ to Ma1 1#**.
.+
5ri0o testified that he is also fa,iliar with petitioner:s si-nature
because he personall1 nows petitioner and that he re-ularl1 received petitioner:s dail1 ti,e records
and other docu,ents bearin- petitioner:s si-nature.
.*
5oth Ma-istrado and 5ri0o opined that the
si-nature in the P!< belon-s to petitioner.
2he fore-oin- testi,onies are consistent with the docu,entar1 evidence sub,itted b1 the prosecution.
2he R2C and the Court of &ppeals found the testi,onies of Ma-istrado and 5ri0o as trustworth1 and
believable.
More si-nificant are the docu,entar1 evidence consistin- of petitioner:s si-nature in certain authentic
instru,ents which are apparentl1 si,ilar to the si-nature in the P!<. 2he R2C and the Court of
&ppeals have co,pared petitioner:s si-natures in Ma-istrado:s dail1 ti,e records and petitioner:s
si-nature in his application letter to the C<C, Re-ional $ffice )o. 5, /e-a0pi Cit1, with that of
petitioner:s alle-ed si-nature in the P!<. 2he1 observed that the slant position of the writin-, as well as
the stroe and the last roundin- loop of the si-nature in the P!<, does not differ fro, petitioner:s
si-natures in Ma-istrado:s dail1 ti,e records and in petitioner:s application letter.
.#
2he1 noted that
petitioner:s si-natures in the said docu,ents are Dstriin-l1 si,ilar, such that throu-h the naed e1e
alone, it is patent that the si-natures therein were written b1 one and the sa,e person.D 2he observation
of the Court of &ppeals is worth notin-, viz7
&ppellant:s alle-ation that he did not e=ecute the sub8ect P!< is unavailin-. First, the
infor,ations entered in the P!<, such as his accurate personal data and precise e,plo1,ent
histor1, are ,atters which onl1 the accused could have nown. Second, a visual anal1sis of
appellant:s si-natures in the Certificate of &rrai-n,ent and )otice of 9earin-, vis-a-vis his
si-nature in the P!< would show no si-nificant disparit1, leadin- to the conclusion that
appellant hi,self prepared the P!< and affi=ed his si-nature therein. Third, the si-nature of
appellant in the P!< and in the !ail1 2i,e Records 3E=hibits DCD to DJD4 of prosecution witness
Florenda Ma-istrado, were -larin-l1 identical. = = =.
4%
2he rule is that the findin-s of fact of the trial court, its calibration of the testi,onies of the witnesses
and its assess,ent of the probative wei-ht thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findin-s,
are accorded hi-h respect if not conclusive effect.
41
2his is ,ore true if such findin-s were affir,ed b1
the appellate court. Bhen the trial court:s findin-s have been affir,ed b1 the appellate court, said
findin-s are -enerall1 bindin- upon this Court.
4"
In absolute disparit1, the evidence for the defense is co,prised of denials. Petitioner denied havin-
acco,plished and si-ned the P!<. 9e tried to i,part that so,eone else had filled it up. 9owever, aside
fro, this self'servin- and ne-ative clai,, he did not adduce an1 convincin- proof to effectivel1 refute
the evidence for the prosecution.
It is a hornboo doctrine that as between bare denials and positive testi,on1 on affir,ative ,atters, the
latter is accorded -reater evidentiar1 wei-ht.
4.
2he subseFuent ,atter to be deter,ined is whether the ele,ents of falsification for which petitioner is
char-ed were proven be1ond reasonable doubt.
&rticle 1+1, para-raph 344 of the Revised Penal Code, provides7
&R2. 1+1. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastic minister. K 2he
penalt1 of prision mayor and a fine not to e=ceed 5,%%% pesos shall be i,posed upon an1 public
officer, e,plo1ee, or notar1 who, tain- advanta-e of his official position, shall falsif1 a
docu,ent b1 co,,ittin- an1 of the followin- acts7
= = = =
4. Main- untruthful state,ents in a narration of facts.
2he ele,ents of falsification in the above provision are as follows7
a4 the offender ,aes in a public docu,ent untruthful state,ents in a narration of facts?
b4 he has a le-al obli-ation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated b1 hi,? and
c4 the facts narrated b1 hi, are absolutel1 false.
44
In addition to the aforecited ele,ents, it ,ust also be proven that the public officer or e,plo1ee had
taen advanta-e of his official position in ,ain- the falsification. In falsification of public docu,ent,
the offender is considered to have taen advanta-e of his official position when 314 he has the dut1 to
,ae or prepare or otherwise to intervene in the preparation of a docu,ent? or 3"4 he has the official
custod1 of the docu,ent which he falsifies.
45
&ll of the fore-oin- ele,ents of falsification of public docu,ents under para-raph 4, &rticle 1+1 of the
Revised Penal Code, have been sufficientl1 established.
First, petitioner was a public officer, bein- then the &ctin- Chief $perator of the 52$, Iri-a Cit1, when
he acco,plished and sub,itted his P!< on 4 Canuar1 1#** at the 52$, /e-a0pi Cit1. It is settled that a
PDS ,( . p)b*,0 1o0)me't.
46
9e stated under Ite, )o. 1* of his P!< that he passed the civil
en-ineerin- board e=a,ination -iven on .%'.1 Ma1 1#*5 in Manila with a ratin- of +5.*>. 2hereafter,
petitioner sub,itted his P!< to the 52$, /e-a0pi Cit1.
Second, in Inting v. Tanodbayan,
4+
we ruled that the acco,plish,ent of the P!< bein- a reFuire,ent
under the Civil <ervice Rules and Re-ulations in connection with e,plo1,ent in the -overn,ent, the
,ain- of an untruthful state,ent therein was, therefore, inti,atel1 connected with such e,plo1,ent.
9ence, the filin- of a P!< is reFuired in connection with pro,otion to a hi-her position and
0o'te'1e( /o pomot,o' 6.4e t6e *e+.* ob*,+.t,o' to 1,(0*o(e t6e t)t6. $therwise, enhancin- their
Fualifications b1 ,eans of false state,ents will pre8udice other Fualified aspirants to the sa,e
position.
4*
Petitioner was le-all1 obli-ed to disclose in the P!< that he is not a licensed civil en-ineer since, as
evidenced b1 his application letter, he was appl1in- for positions to be occupied onl1 b1 licensed civil
en-ineers. Further, petitioner was also le-all1 obli-ed to ,ae truthful state,ents in his P!< since he
affir,ed therein Dunder the penalty of perjuryD that his answers to the Fueries are Dtrue and correct to
the best of his! "no#ledge and belief.D
4#
Third, petitioner:s state,ent in the P!< that he passed the civil en-ineerin- board e=a,ination -iven
on .%'.1 Ma1 1#*5 in Manila with a ratin- of +5.*> is absolutel1 false. &s $fficer'in'Char-e of the
Records <ection of the PRC, Manila, Francisco declared that petitioner was included in the ,aster list
of e=a,inees in the Ma1 1#*4 civil en-ineerin- licensure e=a,ination wherein petitioner obtained a
failin- -rade. <he affir,ed that petitioner:s na,e also appears in the list of e=a,inees for the Ma1
1#*5 and Ma1 1##% civil en-ineerin- licensure e=a,inations where petitioner also -ot failin- ,ars.
<he also sub,itted certifications and authentic docu,ents in support of her state,ents. Further,
petitioner ad,itted that he never passed the board e=a,ination for civil en-ineerin-.
5%
Finally, as a public officer, petitioner is dut1'bound to prepare, acco,plish and sub,it his P!<
pursuant to the Civil <ervice Rules and Re-ulations.
51
Bere it not for his position and e,plo1,ent in
the -overn,ent, he could not have acco,plished the P!<. In $eople v. %y,
5"
<antia-o E1, a field a-ent
of the )ational 5ureau of Investi-ation, was char-ed with falsification of public docu,ent under
para-raph 4, &rticle 1+1 of the Revised Penal Code, for ,ain- false state,ents in his Personal
Infor,ation <heet. Be ruled therein7 78T96.t t6e 1e/e'1.'t :S.'t,.+o U-; too< .14.'t.+e o/ 6,(
po(,t,o' m.- be +.t6ee1 /om t6e /.0t t6.t 6e 6,m(e*/ /,**e1 t6e ,'/om.t,o' (6eet =6,06
ob4,o)(*- =.( to be ()bm,tte1 b- e.06 .'1 e4e- o//,0e o emp*o-ee o/ t6e N3I. D In the sa,e
vein, petitioner also had the responsibilit1 to prepare, acco,plish and sub,it his P!< at the ti,e he
,ade a false state,ent therein that he is a licensed civil en-ineer. 9ence, it is clear that petitioner too
advanta-e of his position as &ctin- Chief $perator of 52$, Iri-a Cit1 when he falsified his P!<.
&nent the second issue, petitioner posited that bein- a licensed civil en-ineer is not a Fualification for
hi, to hold office and such is not a reFuire,ent for his pro,otion? that the false state,ent caused no
pre8udice to an1 private person as he did not have an1 co,petitor in his position nor was the
-overn,ent da,a-ed b1 such false state,ent? that the false state,ent would not in an1 wa1 redound to
his benefit and, as such, no cri,inal intent could have i,pelled hi, to ,ae such false clai,? and that
no evidence was produced showin- that he had intent to cause in8ur1.
2he law is clear that wron-ful intent on the part of the accused to in8ure a third person is not an
essential ele,ent of the cri,e of falsification of public docu,ent.
5.
It is 8urisprudentiall1 settled that in
the falsification of public or official docu,ents, whether b1 public officers or private persons, it is not
necessar1 that there be present the idea of -ain or the intent to in8ure a third person for the reason that,
in contradistinction to private docu,ents, the principal thin- punished is the violation of the public
faith and the destruction of truth as therein sole,nl1 proclai,ed.
54
In falsification of public docu,ents,
therefore, the controllin- consideration is the public character of a docu,ent? and the e=istence of an1
pre8udice caused to third persons or, at least, the intent to cause such da,a-e beco,es i,,aterial.
55
2he fact that the petitioner:s false state,ent in the P!< did not redound to his benefit, and that the
-overn,ent or an1 private individual was not thereb1 pre8udiced, is inconseFuential. Bhat is clear and
decisive in this case is that petitioner ,ade an entr1 in his P!< that he passed the .%'.1 Ma1 1#*5
board e=a,ination for civil en-ineerin- despite his full awareness that such is not true.
Re-ardin- the third issue, petitioner contended that the prosecution:s docu,entar1 evidence, consistin-
of E=hibits &, C, F, (, 9, I, C, L, /, M, ), $, P, J and R and their sub',arin-s, are inad,issible in
evidence based on the followin- reasons7
314 E>6,b,t A, which is the Certification of the PRC dated 1+ Canuar1 1##*, confir,in- that
petitioner:s na,e does not appear in the re-istr1 boos of licensed civil en-ineers, was not properl1
identified durin- the trial. 2he proper person to identif1 the certification should have been the si-nator1
therein which was PRC !irector II Cose &. &rriola, or in his absence, a person who actuall1 witnessed
the e=ecution of the certification. Prosecution witness &ta10a, who was not present when the
certification was e=ecuted, had identified the certification durin- the trial. 2hus, the contents of the
certification are ,ere hearsa1? 3"4 E>6,b,t C, which is, accordin- to petitioner, a ,achine cop1 of the
P!<, does not show that it was the petitioner who prepared and sub,itted the P!< to 52$, /e-a0pi
Cit1. 2here was nothin- in the P!< which reFuires a periodic sub,ission of an updated P!<.
Prosecution witness 5ri0o does not now whether petitioner:s P!< was personall1 delivered or ,ailed.
9ence, the identification and subseFuent testi,onies of the prosecution witnesses on the P!< are ,ere
hearsa1? 3.4 E>6,b,t #, which is the 2ranscript of <teno-raphic )otes dated 1+ March 1##* of the
per8ur1 case filed b1 petitioner a-ainst Ma-istrado where petitioner alle-edl1 ad,itted that he is a civil
en-ineer, lacs proper identification as the steno-rapher or records officer was not presented in court?
344 E>6,b,t G, which is the alle-ed letter of petitioner to the Re-ional !irector of the C<C, Re-ion 5,
/e-a0pi Cit1, appl1in- for the position of either a Cunior 2eleco,,unications En-ineer or
2eleco,,unications 2raffic <upervisor? and E>6,b,t I, which is a ,achine cop1 of a certification
alle-edl1 issued b1 the PRC attestin- that petitioner is a licensed civil en-ineer and which was
alle-edl1 sub,itted b1 petitioner to the Re-ional !irector of the C<C, Re-ion 5, /e-a0pi Cit1, as his
credential in appl1in- for the aforesaid positions, are ,erel1 ,achine copies and the loss and
unavailabilit1 of their ori-inal were not proven? and 354 E>6,b,t( ?" @" L" M" N" O" P" A .'1 R, which
are the dail1 ti,e records of Ma-istrado si-ned b1 petitioner and which were offered to co,pare
petitioner:s alle-ed si-nature in the P!< with the said e=hibits, are devoid of factual basis. Petitioner:s
si-natures in the said e=hibits are, Dwith the use of naed e1e,D not the sa,e as his si-nature in the
P!<. 2he /e-a0pi Cit1 R2C should have sub,itted these docu,ents to a handwritin- e=pert for
e=a,ination instead of rel1in- on the testi,on1 of Ma-istrado.
56
<ection .6, Rule 1.% of the Revised Rules on Evidence, states that a witness can testif1 onl1 to those
facts which he nows of or co,es fro, his personal nowled-e, that is, which are derived fro, his
perception. & witness, therefore, ,a1 not testif1 as to what he ,erel1 learned fro, others either
because he was told, or he read or heard the sa,e. <uch testi,on1 is considered hearsa1 and ,a1 not
be received as proof of the truth of what he has learned.
5+
2his is nown as the hearsa1 rule.
2he law, however, provides for specific e=ceptions to the hearsa1 rule. $ne of the e=ceptions is the
entries in official records ,ade in the perfor,ance of dut1 b1 a public officer.
5*
In other words, official
entries are ad,issible in evidence re-ardless of whether the officer or person who ,ade the, was
presented and testified in court, since these entries are considered prima facie evidence of the facts
stated therein. $ther reco-ni0ed reasons for this e=ception are necessit1 and trustworthiness. 2he
necessit1 consists in the inconvenience and difficult1 of reFuirin- the official:s attendance as a witness
to testif1 to innu,erable transactions in the course of his dut1. 2his will also undul1 ha,per public
business. 2he trustworthiness consists in the presu,ption of re-ularit1 of perfor,ance of official dut1
b1 a public officer.
5#
E>6,b,t A, or the Certification of the PRC dated 1+ Canuar1 1##*, was si-ned b1 &rriola, !irector II of
the PRC, Manila.
6%
&lthou-h &rriola was not presented in court or did not testif1 durin- the trial to
verif1 the said certification, such certification is considered as prima facie evidence of the facts stated
therein and is therefore presu,ed to be truthful, because petitioner did not present an1 plausible proof
to rebut its truthfulness. E>6,b,t A is therefore ad,issible in evidence.
<ection ., Rule 1"* of the Revised Rules on Evidence, provides that an evidence is ad,issible when it
is relevant to the issue and is not e=cluded b1 the law or rules. E>6,b,t C, which accordin- to petitioner
is the ,achine cop1 of the P!<, is ver1 relevant to the char-e of falsification and is not e=cluded b1 the
law or rules. It was offered precisel1 to prove that petitioner co,,itted the cri,e of falsification b1
,ain- false state,ents in the P!<. Further, the infor,ation specificall1 accuses petitioner of
falsif1in- such P!<. & scrutin1 of E>6,b,t C would show that it is the ver1 P!< which petitioner
falsified and not a ,ere ,achine cop1 as alle-ed b1 petitioner. 5ein- the ori-inal falsified docu,ent, it
is the best evidence of its contents and is therefore not e=cluded b1 the law or rules.
61
<ection ", Rule 1." of the Revised Rules on Evidence, e=plicitl1 provides that a transcript of the record
of the proceedin-s ,ade b1 the official steno-rapher, stenot1pist or recorder and certified as correct b1
hi, shall be dee,ed prima facie a correct state,ent of such proceedin-s.
Petitioner failed to introduce proof that E>6,b,t #, or the 2ranscript of <teno-raphic )otes dated 1+
March 1##* of the per8ur1 case filed b1 petitioner a-ainst Ma-istrado in which petitioner alle-edl1
ad,itted that he is a civil en-ineer, is not what it purports to be. 2hus, it is prima facie correct.
Moreover, as earlier elucidated, one of the e=ceptions to the hearsa1 rule is the entries in official
records ,ade in the perfor,ance of dut1 b1 a public officer. E>6,b,t #, bein- an official entr1 in the
court:s records, is ad,issible in evidence and there is no necessit1 to produce the concerned
steno-rapher as a witness.
6"
<ection +, Rule 1.% of the Revised Rules on Evidence, provides that when the ori-inal of a docu,ent is
in the custod1 of a public officer or is recorded in a public office, its contents ,a1 be proved b1 a
certified cop1 issued b1 the public officer in custod1 thereof. E>6,b,t G, which is the alle-ed letter of
petitioner to the Re-ional !irector of the C<C, Re-ion 5, /e-a0pi Cit1, appl1in- for the position of
either a Cunior 2eleco,,unications En-ineer or 2eleco,,unications 2raffic <upervisor? and E>6,b,t
I, which is the ,achine cop1 of a certification alle-edl1 issued b1 the PRC attestin- that petitioner is a
licensed civil en-ineer and which was alle-edl1 sub,itted b1 petitioner to the Re-ional !irector of the
C<C, Re-ion 5, /e-a0pi Cit1, as his credential in appl1in- for the aforesaid positions, are certified true
copies of their ori-inal docu,ents recorded or ept in the C<C, Re-ional $ffice )o. 5, /e-a0pi Cit1
6.
and, thus, ad,issible to prove the contents of their ori-inals.
E>6,b,t( ? to R, which are the dail1 ti,e records of Ma-istrado si-ned b1 petitioner and which were
offered to co,pare petitioner:s alle-ed si-nature in the P!< with the said e=hibits, are ad,issible in
evidence since the1 are relevant and ,aterial to the char-e of falsification a-ainst petitioner. 2he
si-natures of petitioner in the said e=hibits, the authenticit1 of which were not denied b1 petitioner,
were presented to prove that these si-natures were si,ilar to petitioner:s si-nature in the P!< where he
,ade the alle-ed falsification.
Bell'entrenched is the rule that resort to handwritin- e=perts is not ,andator1. 9andwritin- e=perts,
while probabl1 useful, are not indispensable in e=a,inin- or co,parin- handwritin-s or si-natures.
64
2his is so since under <ection "", Rule 1." of the Revised Rules on Evidence, the handwritin- of a
person ,a1 be proved b1 an1 witness who believes it to be the handwritin- of such person, because he
has seen the person write? or has seen writin- purportin- to be his upon which the witness has acted or
has been char-ed, and has thus acFuired nowled-e of the handwritin- of such person. Moreover, the
opinion of a non'e=pert witness, for which proper basis is -iven, ,a1 be received in evidence re-ardin-
the handwritin- or si-nature of a person with which he has sufficient fa,iliarit1.
65
2he /e-a0pi Cit1 R2C was, therefore, not obli-ed to put a handwritin- e=pert on the witness stand and
direct the latter to e=a,ine petitioner:s si-natures in the fore-oin- e=hibits before rulin- on their
ad,issibilit1. It can, as it did, rel1 on the testi,onies of the prosecution witnesses who are fa,iliar with
petitioner:s handwritin-;si-nature in deter,inin- the ad,issibilit1 of the aforesaid e=hibits. It can, b1
itself, also co,pare petitioner:s si-nature in the P!< with the petitioner:s si-natures in the sub8ect
e=hibits with or without the aid of an e=pert witness and thereafter rule on the ad,issibilit1 of such
e=hibits based on its own observation. In short, it can e=ercise independent 8ud-,ent as re-ards the
ad,issibilit1 of said e=hibits.
&s to the fourth issue, petitioner ar-ued that since none of the prosecution witnesses testified that the1
actuall1 saw hi, fill up the P!<, then there is no evidence showin- that the alle-ed falsification too
place in /e-a0pi Cit1? that when the P!< was alle-edl1 falsified, he was stationed at 52$, Iri-a Cit1,
and was a resident of Iri-a Cit1? that, even assu,in- without ad,ittin- that he filled up the P!<, the
sa,e was, Din all probabilit1,D filled up in Iri-a Cit1 and, as such, the cri,e of falsification was
consu,,ated therein? that, conseFuentl1, the instant case should have been tried in the Iri-a Cit1 R2C
and not in the /e-a0pi Cit1 R2C.
66
2here are three i,portant reFuisites which ,ust be present before a court can acFuire 8urisdiction over
cri,inal cases. First, the court ,ust have 8urisdiction over the offense or the sub8ect ,atter. Second, the
court ,ust have 8urisdiction over the territor1 where the offense was co,,itted. &nd third, the court
,ust have 8urisdiction over the person of the accused.
6+
2here is no dispute that the /e-a0pi Cit1 R2C
has 8urisdiction over the offense and over the person of petitioner. It is the territorial 8urisdiction of the
/e-a0pi Cit1 R2C which the petitioner i,pu-ns.
2he territorial 8urisdiction of a court is deter,ined b1 the facts alle-ed in the co,plaint or infor,ation
as re-ards the place where the offense char-ed was co,,itted.
6*
It should also be e,phasi0ed that
where so,e acts ,aterial and essential to the cri,e and reFuisite to its consu,,ation occur in one
province or cit1 and so,e in another, the court of either province or cit1 has 8urisdiction to tr1 the case,
it bein- understood that the court first tain- co-ni0ance of the case will e=clude the others.
6#
In the case at bar, the infor,ation specificall1 and positivel1 alle-es that the falsification was
co,,itted in /e-a0pi Cit1. Moreover, as heretofore discussed, the testi,onies and docu,entar1
evidence for the prosecution have sufficientl1 established that petitioner acco,plished and thereafter
sub,itted the P!< to the 52$, /e-a0pi Cit1. 2he fore-oin- circu,stances clearl1 placed the locus
criminis in /e-a0pi Cit1 and not in Iri-a Cit1.
Be find no reason to disturb the prison ter, and fine i,posed on petitioner b1 the /e-a0pi Cit1 R2C
and the Court of &ppeals, as the1 are in accord with law and 8urisprudence.
BHERE#ORE, the petition is hereb1 DENIED. 2he !ecision of the Court of &ppeals, dated 1#
$ctober "%%5, in C&'(.R. CR. )o. "*%+", is hereb1 A##IRMED in toto. Costs a-ainst petitioner.
SO ORDERED.