Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1957 > April 1957 Decisions > G.R. No. L-9460 April 23, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO UY

101 Phil 159:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-9460. April 23, 1957.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SANTIAGO UY, Defendant-Appellee.

Solicitor General Ambrosio Padilla and Solicitor Antonio A. Torres for Appellant.

Ramon T. Oben for Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW, FALSIFICATION BY PUBLIC OFFICER; PERSONNEL INFORMATION SHEET IS OFFICIAL DOCUMENT. — A document required by a Bureau to be filled by its officers for purposes of its record and information is an official document. Making untruthful statements in the narration of facts therein violates Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code.

2. ID.; ID.; UNTRUTHFUL STATEMENTS AS TO QUALIFICATION VIOLATE INTEGRITY OF DOCUMENT. — Where the position is confidential in nature, such as field agents of the National Bureau of Investigation, the civil service requirements and/or citizenship may be matters of importance in the selection of the agents. Hence, the untruthful statements made in the personnel information sheet are material and violate the integrity of the document.


D E C I S I O N


BENGZON, J.:


This is an appeal from the order of the Manila court of first instance dismissing the information filed against Santiago Uy on the ground that the facts alleged therein did not constitute the crime of falsification of an official document with which he was charged. The pertinent allegations were as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on or about the 14th day of January, 1954, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, being a field agent of the National Bureau of Investigation of the Department of Justice, duly appointed, qualified and acting as such and hence a public officer, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously falsify or caused to be falsified and commit acts of falsification in the Personnel Information Sheet of the said office which is a public and official document, in the following manner, to wit: the said accused, well knowing that having been born of Chinese parents, he is a Chinese citizen and as such is not qualified to hold a public office of confidential and delicate nature, in the Philippine Government, but having somehow obtained employment as field agent of the National Bureau of Investigation but desiring to continue in such employment, filled up or caused to be filled up the blanks in the said Personnel Information Sheet of said office stating therein that he was a naturalized Filipino citizen, a first grade civil service eligible and attended the first year law course of the Far Eastern University in 1942 when in truth and in fact as said accused fully knew those statements were false and untrue and made solely to convince the authorities of the said office that he was fit and qualified to continue in such employment, thus making untruthful statements in the narration of facts, and once the said Personnel Information Sheet was falsified in the manner above set forth, the said accused, in pursuance of his desire to mislead the authorities so that he may be retained as field agent in the said office, executed an affidavit on the last page of said Personnel Information Sheet . . .’ (Italics ours.)

Two main reasons were cited by the Judge in his order of dismissal: (a) the position of an N.B.I. agent (National Bureau of Investigation) was confidential in nature, not requiring citizenship nor civil service qualifications, therefore the untruthful statements did not violate the integrity of the document; and (b) defendant made the statement as to Filipino citizenship in good faith, because he honestly believed he was such, inasmuch as he was born in 1918 at which time the principle of jus soli prevailed.

For the purposes of this decision we have to assume that the following allegations of fact or partly of fact in the information are true, or could be proven by the prosecution at the trial:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. The document was an official document; 2. The accused had no civil service eligibility, but stated therein that he was a first-grade eligible; 3. He never attended the first-year-law course but he stated therein he had attended that course in the Far Eastern University; 4. He wrote therein he was a naturalized citizen, although he was not; 5. He made the statements solely to convince the authorities that "he was fit and qualified to continue in the employment" and to mislead the authorities into retaining him as field agent.

In view of the allegations in No. 5 which must be admitted in a motion to quash, we find it was error to hold the falsities were immaterial or did not violate the integrity of the document. Precisely because the position was confidential in nature, the authorities had a leeway in the matter of appointing or retaining field agents of the N.B.I. (National Bureau of Investigation); therefore the facts falsely stated by him could very properly be considered by the authorities, and if the allegations of the information must be believed, they were really and actually considered. In the circumstances the courts could not declare such facts to be prima facie immaterial. Indeed, as the Civil Service itself admits the appointing officer’s right to demand civil service requirements and/or citizenship for confidential positions, the prosecution might prove in support of its allegation as to defendant’s purposes that in the National Bureau of Investigation there is the practice (or a regulation) making civil service eligibility or citizenship 1 a matter of importance in the selection of field agents.

Anyway, defense contends, as the accused was already a field agent of the N.B.I. he could not be discharged whatever his qualifications might be, for the reason that section 3 of Republic Act No. 157 provided "that the present personnel of the Division of Investigation shall be transferred to, and form the nucleus of the new Bureau (N.B.I.) ." Supposing the accused was a part of the "present personnel" 2 referred to in the said section 3, the provision however must be read in the light of its first part which says "the composition and size of the personnel of the Bureau of Investigation shall be determined by the Director of the Bureau of Investigation" which means that although this defendant had been transferred to the Bureau he was not thereby assured permanent retention as "field agent" without regard to the other plans of the Director of the N.B.I. The Director could, under section 3 make the accused a mere desk man, or office assistant, not necessarily a "field agent." And herein lies the materiality of the information sheet with its contents. The prosecution alleges this defendant made the false statement for the purpose of inducing his retention as field agent; and such purpose is not precluded by a mere inference from section 3 of Republic Act 157 drawn by defendant — inference which is inconclusive. It should be underlined in this connection that as the law expressly gives preference to law graduates (section 4) it is not illogical to believe that law students may likewise enjoy preference; hence defendant’s false statement about having attended first-year law, far from being entirely innocent, materially affected the document.

The court of first instance held the sheet to be a public document. The defendant however maintains it is not. He has a right to support the appealed order of dismissal with reasons different from those of the court a quo; he is not bound by them. However, it can not be seriously contended that a document required by a Bureau to be filled by its officers for purposes of its record and information is not an official document.

The provision allegedly violated by defendant is Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code which partly reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"ART. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee, or notary or ecclesiastic 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:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts;

x       x       x"

That the defendant took advantage of his position may be gathered from the fact that he himself filled the information sheet which obviously was to be submitted by each and every officer or employee of the N.B.I.

Last contention of the defendant is the court’s lack of jurisdiction. It is based on his opinion that the crime was a mere falsification of a certificate of merit under Article 174 of the Revised Penal Code. This contention must be overruled, because as above stated the violation is prosecuted under Article 171.

In view of the foregoing, the appealed order is revoked and the case is hereby remanded to the lower court for further proceedings. So ordered.

Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Endencia, and Felix, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. His alleged good faith is a matter of defense: it was not admitted by the prosecution. Furthermore it is noteworthy that he said he was a naturalized citizen.

2. This is a matter for proof.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






April-1957 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-9543 April 11, 1957 - ASUNCION NABLE JOSE ET AL. v. RODOLFO BALTAZAR

    101 Phil 36

  • G.R. No. L-9962 April 11, 1957 - BENJAMIN MACASA, ET AL v. CRISTETO HERRERA

    101 Phil 44

  • G.R. No. L-10483 April 12, 1957 - JUAN B. MENDEZ v. RODOLFO GANZON, ET AL

    101 Phil 48

  • G.R. No. L-9519 April 15, 1957 - EUTIQUIO TORRE, ET AL v. HON. JOSE R. QUERUBIN, ET AL

    101 Phil 53

  • G.R. No. L-9892 April 15, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO BASALO

    101 Phil 57

  • G.R. No. L-10288 April 15, 1957 - DIONISIA PATINGO v. HON. PANTALEON PELAYO

    101 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. L-9807 April 17, 1957 - PAN PHIL., CORP. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL

    101 Phil 66

  • G.R. No. L-10017 April 17, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PO KEE KAM

    101 Phil 72

  • G.R. No. L-8862 April 22, 1957 - IN RE: UY TIAO HONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 77

  • G.R. No. L-9230 April 22, 1957 - ANDRES A. ANGARA v. DRA. JOSEFINA A. GOROSPE, ET AL

    101 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. L-9415 April 22, 1957 - LIGGETT & MYERS TOBACCO CO. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    101 Phil 106

  • G.R. No. L-9601 April 22, 1957 - IN RE: PABLO CHANG BRIONES LORENZO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 111

  • G.R. No. L-9811 April 22, 1957 - GEORGE L. TUBB v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL

    101 Phil 114

  • G.R. No. L-9840 April 22, 1957 - LU DO & LU YM CORP. v. I. V. BINAMIRA

    101 Phil 120

  • G.R. No. L-9908 April 22, 1957 - STANDARD CIGARETTE WORKERS’ UNION (PLUM) v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

    101 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. L-9983 April 22, 1957 - SANTOS O. CHUA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 130

  • G.R. No. L-10061 April 22, 1957 - ALFREDO C. YULO v. CHAN PE

    101 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. L-10129 April 22, 1957 - PASCUAL ROMANO, ET AL v. CRISOSTOMO PARINAS, ET AL

    101 Phil 140

  • G.R. No. L-10458 April 22, 1957 - VICENTE MIJARES, ET AL v. HON. EDMUNDO S. PICCIO, ET AL

    101 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. L-11146 April 22, 1957 - MARIETA VIRGINIA CRUZCOSA, ET AL v. HON. JUDGE HERMOGENES CONCEPCION, ET AL

    101 Phil 146

  • G.R. No. L-9292 April 23, 1957 - JOHNSTON LUMBER CO. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL

    101 Phil 151

  • G.R. No. L-9460 April 23, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO UY

    101 Phil 159

  • G.R. No. L-9682 April 23, 1957 - CHAY GUAN TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

    101 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. L-9843 April 23, 1957 - IN RE: MANUEL YU TONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 169

  • G.R. No. L-10064 April 23, 1957 - REHABILITATION FINANCE CORP. v. BUEN MORALES

    101 Phil 171

  • G.R. No. L-10754 April 23, 1957 - FÉLIX M. MONTE v. HON. JUDGE JOSE L. MOYA, ET AL

    101 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. L-8293 April 24, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR LUBO, ET AL

    101 Phil 179

  • G.R. No. L-9729 April 24, 1957 - BACHRACH MOTOR CO. INC. v. CHUA TUA HIAN

    101 Phil 184

  • G.R. No. L-9194 April 25, 1957 - CO TAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

    101 Phil 188

  • G.R. No. L-9602 April 25, 1957 - IN RE: TEOTIMO RODRIGUEZ TIO TIAM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 195

  • G.R. No. L-10170 April 25, 1957 - WESTERN MINDANAO LUMBER CO. v. MINDANAO FEDERATION OF LABOR, ET AL

    101 Phil 200

  • G.R. No. L-9782 April 26, 1957 - HILARION CORTEZ v. JUAN AVILA

    101 Phil 205

  • G.R. Nos. L-10123 & L-10355 April 26, 1957 - GENARO URSAL v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL

    101 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. L-4962 April 27, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTOR BAQUERO, ET AL

    101 Phil 212

  • G.R. No. L-9712 April 27, 1957 - IN RE: ONG HO PING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 219

  • G.R. No. L-9810 April 27, 1957 - ESTANISLAO LEUTERIO v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

    101 Phil 223

  • G.R. No. L-6713 April 29, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO DAISIN

    101 Phil 228

  • G.R. No. L-8752 April 29, 1957 - BENITO COSA v. JUAN BAROTILLO

    101 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. L-8957 April 29, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES O. FERRER

    101 Phil 234

  • G.R. Nos. L-9117-18 April 29 1957

    COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. LOURDES CUENCO, ET AL

    101 Phil 239

  • G.R. No. L-9156 April 29, 1957 - WISE & COMPANY v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL

    101 Phil 244

  • G.R. No. L-9186 April 29, 1957 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. JUAN ISASI, ET AL

    101 Phil 247

  • G.R. No. L-9265 April 29, 1957 - LUZON STEVEDORING CO. v. LUZON MARINE DEPARTMENT UNION, ET AL

    101 Phil 257

  • G.R. No. L-9674 April 29, 1957 - MELECIO ARRANZ v. MANILA FIDELITY & SURETY CO.

    101 Phil 272

  • G.R. No. L-9694 April 29, 1957 - VICENTE VILLANUEVA, ET AL v. JUANA ALCOBA

    101 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. L-9727 April 29, 1957 - MARGARITA TABUNAN v. TIMOTEO MARIGMEN, ET AL

    101 Phil 288

  • G.R. No. L-9855 April 29, 1957 - MELCHOR MANIEGO v. RICARDO L. CASTELO

    101 Phil 293

  • G.R. No. L-9987 April 29, 1957 - GRACIANO INDIAS v. PHIL., IRON MINES

    101 Phil 297

  • G.R. No. L-10573 April 29, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HON. MACAPANTON ABBAS, ET AL

    101 Phil 301

  • G.R. No. L-10585 April 29, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR D. INTAL

    101 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. L-10688 April 29, 1957 - WILLIAM H. BROWN v. BANK OF THE PHIL., ISLANDS, ET AL

    101 Phil 309

  • G.R. AC-UNAV. April 30, 1957 - In Re Charges of LILIAN F. VILLASANTA for Immorality v. HILARION M. PERALTA

    101 Phil 313

  • G.R. No. L-7820 April 30, 1957 - MIGUEL CARAM, ET AL v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

    101 Phil 315

  • Adm. Case No. 229 April 30, 1957 - IN RE: DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS v. NARCISO N. JARAMILLO

    101 Phil 323

  • G.R. No. L-6239 April 30, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO TAN

    101 Phil 324

  • G.R. Nos. L-8895 & L-9191 April 30, 1957 - SALVADOR ARANETA v. HON. MAGNO S. GATMAITAN, ET AL

    101 Phil 328

  • G.R. No. L-8907 April 30, 1957 - JOSE L. LOPEZ v. BOARD OF DIRECTORS & GEN., MANAGER OF THE NAT’L. MKTG., CORP.

    101 Phil 349

  • G.R. No. L-9110 April 30, 1957 - JOSEFA VDA. DE CRUZ, ET AL v. MANILA HOTEL CO.

    101 Phil 358

  • G.R. No. L-9160 April 30, 1957 - ADRIANO GOLEZ v. CARMELO S. CAMARA

    101 Phil 363

  • G.R. Nos. L-9208-16 April 30, 1957 - MARIA VELARDE, ET AL v. FELIPA PAEZ, ET AL

    101 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. L-9540 April 30, 1957 - SEVERINO MANOTOK v. ELADIO GUINTO

    101 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. L-9637 April 30, 1957 - AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY v. CITY OF MANILA

    101 Phil 386

  • G.R. No. L-9638 April 30, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ADELINA NABALUNA, ET AL

    101 Phil 402

  • G.R. No. L-9823 April 30, 1957 - IN RE: JESUS ISASI Y LARRABIDE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 405

  • G.R. No. L-9900 April 30, 1957 - YUCUANSEH DRUG CO., INC., ET AL v. NAT’L. LABOR UNION, ET AL

    101 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. L-10056 April 30, 1957 - MANILA SURETY & FIDELITY CO. v. VICENTE S. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL

    101 Phil 412

  • G.R. No. L-10080 April 30, 1957 - DEE CHO LUMBER WORKERS’ UNION v. DEE CHO LUMBER COMPANY

    101 Phil 417

  • G.R. Nos. L-10093 & L-10356 April 30, 1957 - CARLOS J. TORRES v. HON. JOSE TEODORO, ET AL

    101 Phil 422

  • G.R. No. L-10153 April 30, 1957 - PLARIDEL SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC. v. HON. AGUSTIN P. MONTESA, ET AL

    101 Phil 431

  • G.R. Nos. L-10308 & L-10385-88 April 30, 1957 - MARIA PAZ S. ALBA, ET AL v. DR. HORACIO BULAONG, ET AL

    101 Phil 434

  • G.R. No. L-10338 April 30, 1957 - MAGALONA & CO. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER, ET AL

    101 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. L-10736 April 30, 1957 - EMILIANO ACUÑA, ET AL v. HON. HERMOGENES CALUAG, ET AL

    101 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. L-10771 April 30, 1957 - EDUARDO M. PERALTA v. DANIEL M. SALCEDO, ETC

    101 Phil 452