G.R. No. 73905 September 30, 1991 MICHAEL T. DAVA, petitioner, vs. THE PEPLE ! THE PHILIPPINES "#$ t%e INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE C&RT, respondents.
KV. Faylona & Associates for petitioner.
!ERNAN, C.J.: p
On October 19, 1975, while driving a car along Shaw Boulevard, Mandaluyong, Rial, petitioner Michael !. "ava, then holder o# non$pro#essional driver%s license &o. 1'7''(7 1 with o##icial receipt &o. 7)(*)*7, ' bu+ped pedestrians Bernadette Roas -la+or and "olores . Roas, causing death to #or+er and physical in/uries to the latter.
0s a conseuence o# said incident, incident, "ava was brought to Mandaluyong Mandaluyong 2olice headuarters where his driver%s license was con#iscated by -pl. "aniel Severino who later sub+itted "ava%s driver%s license to the #iscal%s o##ice in 2asig, Rial. license was therea#ter presented as prosecution evidence in cri+inal case #or ho+icide and serious physical in/uries rec3less i+prudence #iled against "ava in the then -ourt 4irst nstance o# Rial in 2asig. 3 On 0pril 1(, 1976, 0ntonio Roas, the brother o# Bernadette and the #ather o# "olores, saw "ava driving a +aroon ol3swagen 8beetle$type car with plate &o. 0"$9)( B. :nowing that "ava%s driver%s license was used as an ehibit in court and that no tra##ic violation receipt had been issued to "ava, Roas sought the help o# then Minister o# "e#ense ;uan 2once nrile in apprehending "ava #or driving without a license. ( !he Ministry o# "e#ense later indorsed Roas% reuest #or assistance to the -onstabulary
*) in the evening o# ;uly (1, 1976, M?Sgt. "o+ingo @ising and S?Sgt. 0rturo iduya iduya o# the -<2= saw the +aroon ol3swagen car described by Roas par3ed in #ront o# the Aniwide "epart+ent Store near the then &ation theater in -u bao, ueon -ity. Chen the driver and his co+panion arrived, @ising and iduya con#ronted the+ and as3ed the driver #or his license. !hey were shown non$pro#essional driver%s license &o. (7)D667 5 with o##icial receipt &o. )D)567) ) issued by 0gency (@ 2a+panga in the na+e o# Michael !. !. "ava. Chen as3ed about the source o# his license, "ava in#or+ed the+ that his o##ice+ate had secured it #or hi+. @ising and iduya invited "ava to the -<2= o##ice in -a+p -ra+e, ueon -ity #or uestioning. "ava re#used to give a state+ent upon the advice o# his lawyer. @ising then sub+itted a spot report to -ol. Maristela stating therein that Esub/ect had violated Section *1 o# R0 '1*D #or #alse representation in the application o# a driver%s license intended to be used as a legal license.E 7 n his a##idavit o# apprehension dated &ove+ber 1D, 1976, @ising stated that he was %about to boo3 hi+ #or violation o# Section *1 o# Rep. 0ct '1*D, when subseuent investigation revealed that the "river%s @icense above$+entioned is a 4a3e and a 4alsity% and there#ore a case #or #alsi#ication and use o# #alsi#ied
docu+ents under Section 17( o# the Revised 2enal -ode should be #iled against "ava. * @ising concluded that "ava%s driver%s license was #a3e because when he co+pared it with the ero copy o# "ava%s license which was attached to the record o# the cri+inal case in 2asig, the signatures and the dates o# birth indicated in the two licenses did Enot tally.E 9
0ccordingly, an in#or+ation #or #alsi#ication o# a public docu+ent was #iled against "ava in the then -ourt o# 4irst nstance o# Rial, Branch at ueon -ity. 10 One o# the prosecution witnesses was -aroline inluan o# the 0ngeles -ity branch o# the Bureau o# @and !ransportation 8B@!. C<R4OR, as prayed #or, our decision is hereby reconsidered and set aside, and another /udg+ent shall be entered annulling the proceedings in the court a quo without pre/udice to the re#iling o# the charges with the proper court. 8Rollo, pp. *5$*D. -onseuently, the case was re#iled with the Regional !rial -ourt o# 2a+panga, Branch '7 at San 4ernando as -ri+inal -ase &o. ('((. !he in#or+ation #or #alsi#ication o# a public docu+ent reads as #ollows> !hat on or about the 1(th day o# 0pril, 1976, and #or so+eti+e prior thereto, in the +unicipality o# San 4ernando, province o# 2a+panga, 2hilippines, and within the /urisdiction o# this
#act they did not so participate an d the accused +ade use o# the sa+e 3nowing it to be #alsi#ied. 0@@ -O&!R0RF !O @0C. 0t the trial, the prosecution presented 0ntonio Roas who testi#ied on how he saw "ava driving a car and that, 3nowing that "ava%s license had been con#iscated as a result o# the #iling o# the ho+icide and serious physical in/uries through rec3less i+prudence case, he therea#ter sought the assistance o# then Minister nrile in apprehending "ava #or driving without a license. 19 4or his part, "o+ingo @ising, who apprehended "ava, narrated in court how he #irst saw "aya driving a car along Banahaw and &. "o+ingo Sts. in ueon -ity until he #inally con#ronted "ava at the vicinity o# the 0raneta -oliseu+ and con#iscated his driver%s license. 0s earlier stated, he conclude that the driver%s license shown to hi+ by "ava was #a3e because he noticed that, when co+pared with the license attached to record o# the cri+inal case #iled against "ava, the license con#iscated bore a di##erent signature and date o# birth. '0 "aniel Severino, a sergeant o# the Mandaluyong police, testi#ied that he investigated the tra##ic incident along Shaw Boulevard on October 19, 1975 which involved "ava and the two relatives o# 0ntonio Roas.
indeed issued "ava%s license. 33 !herea#ter, the o##icer$in$charge o# the @icense "ivision o# the B@! in ast 0venue, ueon -ity, @eonardo R. Medina, issued a certi#ication dated "ece+ber (', 1979 to the e##ect that non$pro#essional drivers license &o. (7)D667 in the n a+e o# "ava was Enot registered in 8their nde -ard.E 3( 4rancisco also in#or+ed the court that -arolino inluan, the #or+er head o# the 0ngeles -ity B@! agency, had died on May 1(, 196). 35 4eliardo Manalili. 0 #riend o# "ava and his #or+er co$ trainee at the Sando 2hilippines, a phar+aceutical #ir+, Manalili testi#ied that "ava uested hi+ to secure a driver%s license #or hi+ because he had none. Manalili went to the San 4ernando o##ice o# the @and !ransportation -o++ission 8@!- where he used to secure own license. 0t the @!- branch o##ice, he was EapproachedE 37 the #iers who roa+ed around the co+pound. Chen he as the+ how +uch it would cost to secure a driver%s license, he told that it would a+ount to 27) .)). 3* & C O4 !< 4OR=O&=, this -ourt #inds the accused Michael !. "ava guilty beyond reasonable doubt, as principal o# the ca+e o# 4alsi#ication o# a 2ublic "ocu+ent, as de#ined and penalied und er the provisions o# 0rticle 17( o# the Revised 2enal -ode, and considering the absence o# any +itigating or aggravating circu+stance, hereby sentences hi+ under the ndeter+inate Sentence @aw to su##er an indeter+inate i+prison+ent o# one 81 year and eight 86 +onths o# prision correecional as +ini+u+, to #our 8' years, nine 89 +onths and ten 81) days o# prision correccional as +ai+u+G and to pay a #ine o# !wo !housand 4ive
! S SO OR"R". "ava appealed to the then nter+ediate 0ppellate -ourt, (' which on Septe+ber *), 1965 a##ir+ed in in toto the decision o# the trial court. On 4ebruary (7, 196D, the appellate court denied "ava%s +otion #or the reconsideration o# said decision #inding that no new grounds had been raised therein.
!hus. on ;anuary (',1976, when driver%s license &o. (7)D667 together with o##icial receipt &o. 6D'*(1 (9 were presented to the San 4ernando @!- agency, the personnel therein issued o##icial$receipt &o. )D)567) in the na+e o# petitioner. 0lthough the receipt was not pe rsonally signed by o##ice registrar ictor Martin but by his assistant, the receipt 50 was genuine and the a+ount indicated therein was actually paid to and collected by the San 4ernando agency. 51!he driver%s license itsel# +ay not have been issued by said agency 5' but its #or+ was li3ewise genuine. 8a the o##ender 3new that a docu+ent was #alsi#ied by a nother personG 8b the #alse docu+ent is e+braced in 0rticle 171 or in any o# subdivisions &os. 1 and ( o# 0rticle 17(G 8c he used such docu+ent 8not in /udicial proceedings, and 8d the use o# the #alse docu+ent caused da+age to another or at last it was used with intent to cause such da+age. 55 cept #or last, all o# these ele+ents have been proven beyond reason doubt in this case. t is not disputed that it was petitioner hi+sel# who reuested Manalili to get hi+ a license.
197D, a #ew hours a#ter he had sought the #ier%s assistance. 59 n those days, all plastic /ac3ets e+anated #ro+ the @!- -entral O##ice, which accounted #or the delay in the release o# the license applied #or. Ander these circu+stances, no Ereasonable and #air+inded +anE would say that petitioner did not 3now that his license was a #a3e. )0
0 driver%s license is a public docu+ent within the purview o# 0rticles 171 and 17(. !he blan3 #or+ o# the drivers license beco+es a public docu+ent the +o+ent it is acco+plished. )1 !hus, when driver%s license &o. (7)D667 was #illed up with petitioner%s personal data and the signature o# the region o# the San 4ernando @!- agency was a##ied therein, even i# the sa+e was si+ulated, the driver%s license beca+e a public docu+ent. !he third ele+ent o# use o# the #alsi#ied docu+ent is proven by the #act that when petitioner was apprehended by @ising on 0pril 1(, 1976 it was in his possession and it was what he presented @ising to show that he had a license. Because he was a detail+an who did his /ob with the use o# a car, it is probable that #ro+ &ove+ber ', 197D 8its date o# issuance until 0pril 1(, 1976, petitioner used driver%s license &o. (7)D667. !he driver%s license being a public docu+ent, proo# o# the #ourth ele+ent o# da+age caused to another person or at least an intent to cause such da+age has beco+e i++aterial. n #alsi#ication o# public or o##icial docu+ents, the principal thing being punished is the violation o# the public #aith and the destruction o# the truth proclai+ed therein. )' n his atte+pt at eculpation, petitioner asserts that the #ollowing rulin g in People vs. Sendaydiego, )3 should be applied in his #avor> !he rule is that i# a person had in his possession a #alsi#ied docu+ent and he +ade use o# it 8uttered it, ta3ing advantage o # it and pro#iting thereby, the presu+ption is that he is the +aterial author o# the #alsi#ication. !his is especially true i# the use or uttering o# the #orged docu+ents was so closely connected in ti+e with the #orgery that the user or possessor +ay be proven to have the capacity o# co++itting the #orgery, or to have close connection with the #orgers, and there#ore, had co+plicity in the #orgery 8A.S. vs. -astillo, D 2hil. '5*G 2eople vs. "e @ara, '5 2M. 75'G 2eople vs. "o+ingo, '9 2hil. (6> 2eople vs. 0studillo, D) 2hil. **6G 2eople vs. Manansala, 1)5 2hil. 1(5*. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation , one who is #ound in possession o# a #orged docu+ent and who used or uttered it is presu+ed to be the #orger 80larcon vs. -ourt o# 0ppeals, @$(16'D, March *1, 19D7, 19 S-R0 D66G 2eople vs. -aragao, @$(6(56, "ece+ber (7, 19D9, *) S-R0 99*. 8+phasis supplied. Ce agree with the petitioner that the presu+ption enunciated in the Sendaydiego case is not absolute as it is sub/ect to the eception that the accused should have a satisfactory explanation why he is in possession o# a #alse docu+ent. )(
necessarily involved in the co++ission o# #orgery or #alsi#ication o# o##icial docu+entsE and he shares his #ees with Einsiders.E )5 4iers indeed appear as undetachable #itures in govern+ent licensing agencies. Chy they proli#erate is a sad co++entary not only on our bureaucracy but also on our own people. Chile not all #iers are engaged in illegal activities #or so+e si+ple serve as E#acilitators,E they nonetheless provide sources #or eploitation o# the un3nowing co++on people who transact business with the govern+ent and #or corruption o# the gullible govern+ent e+ployees. !heir unwanted presence +ust be dealt with accordingly and the soonest this is underta3en by our govern+ent agencies the better #or all o# us. C<R4OR, the decision o# the respondent appellate court is hereby a##ir+ed. @et a copy o# this decision be served on that "epart+ent o# !ransportation and -o++unication. -ost against the petitioner. SO OR"R". utierre!" #r." Feliciano" $idin and %avide" #r." ##." concur.
!oot#ote+
1 h. =. ( h. =$1. * -ri+inal -ase &o. 1D'7'G h. 4. ' h. 0. 5 h. B. D h. B$1. 7 h. ". 6 h. . 9 !S&, &ove+ber (9, 196*, pp. 15$17. 1) -ri+inal -ase &o. $1)759. 11 hs. :, :$(, :$', :$11. 1( h. :$'.
1* h. :$5. 1' h. :$1). 15 Ibid . 1D h. :$11. 17 Ibid ., h. :$D. 16 -0$=.R. &o. ('*1($-R. 19 !S&, Septe+ber (7, 196* I October 1*, 196*. () 0n ea+ination o# "ava%s two licenses reveals that there is al a discrepancy on the data regarding his height. n license &o. (7)D66 it is indicated that "ava is D #eet ( inches tall while in license &o. 1'7''(7, he is 5 #eet 6 inches tall. 8!S&, &ove+ber (9, 196*. (1 !S&, "ece+ber 6, 196*. (( Ibid ., pp. 9 I 1*. (* Ibid ., 2. 1). (' h. =. (5 h. =$1. (D !S&, "ece+ber 6, 196*, p. (9. (7 Ibid ., p. ((. (6 Ibid ., p. (5. (9 Ibid ., p. (6. *) !S&, ;anuary 1), 196', p. (. *1 h. B$1. *( !S&, "ece+ber 6, 196*, p. *1. ** !S&, "ece+ber (), 196*, p. 7. *' h. 1.
*5 !S&, "ece+ber (), 196*, p. 1(. *D !S&, &ove+ber 6, 196*, p. 7. *7 !S&, ;anuary 17, 196', p. (). *6 Ibid ., p. (1. *9 Ibid ., p. (*. ') Ibid ., pp. (*$*). '1 2enned by ;udge 4lorencio 4lorenda. '( ;ustice ;uan 0. Sison, ponente, with ;ustices 4ederico B. 0l#onso, ;r. and @orna S. @o+bos$de la 4uente, concurring. '* !echnically, petitioner was barred #ro+ raising the issue o# la o# /urisdiction #or the #irst ti+e on appeal 82&B vs. 0-, =.R. D(6*1$*(, ;uly *1, 196D, 1'* S-R0 (99. But, inas+uch as the prosecution did not uestion the appellate court%s resolution annulling t proceedings in -ri+inal -ase &o. $1)759 on the ground o# lac3 /urisdiction o# the lower court, and went along with the re#iling an trial o# the case in 2a+panga, the said resolution o# the a ppellant court should be respected. '' Solid h. B$1. 5) h. B$1. 51 !S&, "ece+ber 6, 196*, pp. (1, (' and *1. 5( Ibid ., p. (6G !S&, ;anuary 1), 196'G h. <. 5* !S&, "ece+ber 6, 196*, p. ((. 5' h. .
55 Reyes, !he Revised 2enal -ode, Boo3 11, 1975, ed., p. (19. 5D !S&, ;anuary 17, 196'G pp. 1D$17. 57 Ibid ., pp. D(G D'$D5. 56 Ibid ., pp. ('$(5. 59 Ibid ., pp. D6$D9. D) See> 0larcon vs. -ourt o# 0ppeals, 1(5 2hil. 111), 111( 819D7. D1 A.S. vs. 0sensi, *' 2hil. 75) 8191D. D( Sarep v. Sandiganbayan, =.R. &o. D6()*, Septe+ber 1*, 1969, 177 S-R0 ''), ''9G Syuian v. 2eople, =.R. &o. 6(197, March 1*, 1969, 171 S-R0 ((* citing 2eople v. 2o =io3 !o, 9D 2hil. 91*. D* @$**(5(, @$**(5* I @$**(5', ;anuary (), 1976, 61 S-R0 1(), 1'1. D' 2etition, p. 19. D5 2etition, p. 16.
