REOLANDI DIAZ, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, RESPONDENTS.

In Criminal Case No. 934 of the Court of First Instance
of Pampanga, Fifth Judicial District, Branch VI, San
Fernando, Pampanga, petitioner Reolandi
Diaz was charged with the crime of Falsification of Official Document committed
as follows:

“That on or about the 5th
day of December 1972, in the Municipality of San Fernando, Province of Pampanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, REOLANDI M. DIAZ, then a Senior Clerk at the Jose Abad Santos High School and, therefore, a public employee, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously commit falsification of official documents, to
wit:  by executing and filing in the
office of the Civil Service Commission of said municipality a Personal Data
Sheet, CS Form No. 212(65), an official document, stating and making it appear
therein that he was a fourth year Bachelor of Arts student in 1950-54 at the
Cosmopolitan and Harvardian Colleges which document
is a requirement for his reappointment as School Administrative Assistant I of
the Jose Abad Santos High School and wherein the
academic requirement to said position is at least a fourth year college
undergraduate, when in truth and in fact, the said accused well knew that the
said statement is false and he did not reach the fourth year in a Bachelor of
Arts degree course, and consequently, by reason of said untruthful narration of
facts, his appointment to the said position was approved by the Civil Service
Commission.

“All contrary to law.” (p. 44, Rollo)

After trial following a plea of not guilty upon arraignment,
petitioner was found guilty as charged. 
The dispositive portion of the trial court’s
decision is as follows:

“WHEREFORE, and in view of all the foregoing, this Court finds the
accused Reolandi M. Diaz guilty as charged of the crime of
falsification of official document penalized under Article 171, paragraph 4, of
the Revised Penal Code, and he is therefore sentenced to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of two (2) years, four (4) months and one
(1) day of prision correccional,
as minimum, to six (6) years and (1) day of prision
mayor, as maximum, and to pay a fine of ONE THOUSAND (P1,000.00) PESOS without
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

“Costs against the accused.” (pp. 55-56, Rollo)

Petitioner appealed the aforesaid judgment of conviction to the
intermediate Appellate Court, said appeal being docketed thereat as CA-GR No.
24580-Cr.

In its Decision promulgated on April 7, 1983, the respondent court modified the trial
court’s decision by increasing the maximum of the indeterminate penalty of
imprisonment in the event of non-payment of the fine due to insolvency, but
affirmed the verdict of conviction in all other respects.  The pertinent and dispositive
portions of respondent court’s decision read:

“The penalty for the offense of falsification of an official
document committed under Article 171, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code is prision mayor and a fine not to exceed P5, 000.00.  The correct penalty that should be imposed on
the appellant applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law is imprisonment of 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.  In case of non-payment of the fine of P1,000.00 due to insolvency, the appellant should be subject to subsidiary
imprisonment.

“WHEREFORE, with the above modification as to the penalty and the
imposition of subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, the decision
appealed from is affirmed in all other respects with costs against accused-appellant.” (p. 68, Rollo)

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, hence, the
present recourse.

It is the contention of petitioner that he is entitled to an acquittal because –

1. The findings of the lower court adopted by the respondent Intermediate Appellate Court that he
was not a fourth year A.B. College
student is contrary to the evidence presented.

2. The respondent Intermediate Appelate
Court gravely committed an error of law in convicting him as he did not have
any legal obligation to state in CS Form 212 that he was a fourth year college
student.

3. The Intermediate Appellate Court committed a grave abuse of
discretion in finding that the transcript of records (Exhibit I) is spurious.

Upon the following facts, found by both the trial court and
respondent Intermediate Appellate Court, to have been sufficiently and
satisfactorily established by the evidence on record, it appears that
petitioner Reolandi Diaz was a senior clerk at the Jose
Abad Santos
High School in San
Fernando, Pampanga.

In 1972 he sought appointment as School Administrative Assistant
I of the same school and as one of the requirements for appointment to said
position, filled up the prescribed personal information sheet, Civil Service
Form 212, and swore to the truth and veracity of the data and information
therein furnished by him before the proper administering officer.  As one of the required informations,
he indicated in Exh. “A” that his highest educational
attainment was Fourth Year A.B. (Liberal Arts) allegedly pursued or obtained at
the Cosmopolitan and Harvardian
Colleges, respectively, during the
years 1950 to 1954 inclusive.  On the
basis thereof, he was extended an appointment as School Administrative
Assistant I (Exh. “B”).  His personal information sheet (Exh. “A”) together with his appointment
paper (Exh. “B”), the certification as to the
availability of funds for the position (Exh. “C”) and the resolution of the Provincial Board of Pampanga creating the position (Exh.
“D”) were all forwarded to the Civil Service Commission for the approval of
petitioner’s appointment.

But contrary to petitioner’s claim that his highest educational
attainment was Fourth Year A.B. which he allegedly took at the Cosmopolitan and
Harvardian Colleges during the years 1950 to 1954, he
was never enrolled at the Cosmopolitan Colleges – which later became the Abad Santos Educational Institution and still later the Ortanez University – at any time during the period covering
the years from 1950 to 1954, inclusive as certified to by the Registrar of Ortanez University, Mr. Atilano
D. Solomon.  Likewise, petitioner was
never a student at the Harvardian
Colleges in Tondo,
Manila during the first quarter of
school year 1953-1954, inclusive, as certified to by the school’s President,
Mrs. Virginia King Vda. de
Yap.

Neither did petitioner ever enroll as a collegiate student at the
Harvardian Colleges in San
Fernando, Pampanga after he
finished his secondary course in the same school in June 1950, as certified to
by its Executive Director, Atty. Arnulfo Garcia.

Also, the name of petitioner was not included in all the
enrollment lists of college students submitted to the then Bureau Private
Schools of the Department of Education by the Harvardian
Colleges at San Fernando, Pampanga and at Tondo, Manila, during the period during which petitioner
claimed to have been enrolled.  The same
thing is true with the lists submitted by the Cosmopolitan Colleges to
the said bureau.

The petitioner did not take the witness stand.  He only presented in evidence an alleged
transcript of record (Exh. 1) purporting to show that
he took up collegiate courses at the Philippine Harvardian
College in Tondo, Manila, beginning from the first
quarter of the school year 1951-1952 up to the first quarter of school year 1953-1954
which transcript of record was allegedly signed by Mrs. Virginia King Vda. de Yap, for  and in behalf of the then President of the
school, lldefenso Yap.  But Mrs. Virginia Yap, testifying for the
prosecution disowned the said signature. 
Besides, at the bottom
portion of the transcript is a printed notation reading — this is only valid with the college seal and
signature of Pres. Ildefonso D. Yap.  Exhibit “1” lacks the imprint of the college
seal and the signature of President Ildefonso Yap
himself.  No other corroborating piece of evidence was presented by petitioner.

Contrary to petitioner’s posture, there was ample, solid and conclusive evidence
adduced by the prosecution to prove that he
was not a fourth year A.B.
undergraduate.

It was clearly established
that the statement made by the accused — that he reached fourth year A.B. and
that he studied for this course (Liberal Arts) at the Cosmopolitan
Colleges and the Harvardian Colleges
from the years 1950 to 1954, is devoid of truth.  The records of these colleges do not at all reveal that petitioner
was even enrolled at any time
from 1950 to 1954 in its College of Liberal
Arts.  His
name does not appear and could not found in the enrollment lists submitted to the Bureau of Private
Schools by these colleges.

While the petitioner in his defense presented
an alleged transcript (Exh. “1”) purporting to
show that he took up collegiate course at the Philippine Harvardian
College in Tondo, Manila, beginning from the first
quarter of the school year 1951-1952 up to the first quarter of the school year
1953-1954, both the trial court and the respondent court correctly disregarded
said transcript as having emanated from a spurious
source.  The transcript presented
lacks the authenticating marks — the imprint of the college seal and the
signature of the President of the college.

As correctly observed by the trial court –

“It is also quite
significant to note in this score that the accused in his defense failed to
present any corroborating piece of evidence which will show that he was indeed enrolled in the Philippine Harvardian Colleges from
the first quarter of the
school year 1953-1954.  If he had enrolled as a student during this
period of time and he was positive that the
transcript of records issued to him and in his possession is genuine and valid,
it could have been easy for him to introduce corroborating evidence, i.e., the
testimony of any of his classmates or teachers in the different subjects that
he took to support his claim that he studied and passed these collegiate
courses at the said school.  But this he
failed to do despite all the opportunities open to him and in the face of
damning evidence all showing that he had not really enrolled in this
school or in the other
school mentioned by him in the
personal information sheet that he filed up as requirement for his
appointment.” (p. 53, Rollo)

Following the doctrine laid down,
however, in the case of 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, the crime committed under the foregoing facts, is
perjury.  This offense, as defined in
Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code is the willful and corrupt assertion of a
falsehood under oath or affirmation administered by authority of law on a
material matter.  The said article
provides –

“Art. 183.  False testimony
in other cases and perjury in solemn affirmation.  The penalty of arresto
mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional
in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any person who, knowingly making
untruthful statements and not being included in the provisions of the next
preceding articles, shall testify under oath
or make an affidavit upon any material matter before a competent person
authorized to administer an oath in cases in which the law so requires.

“Any person who, in case of a solemn affirmation made in lieu of an
oath, shall commit any of the falsehoods mentioned in this and the three
preceding articles of this section shall suffer the respective penalties
provided therein.”

In that case of People v. Cruz supra, the accused Rufo B. Cruz filled up an application form (Civil Service
Form No. 2) for the patrolman examination. 
He stated therein that he had never been accused, indicted or tried for violation of any law,
ordinance or regulation before any court, when in truth and in fact, as the
accused well knew, he had been prosecuted and tried before the Justice of the Peace of Cainta,
Rizal, for different crimes.  The application was signed and sworn to by
him before the municipal mayor of Cainta, Rizal.

This Court in that case held:

“This article is similar to section 3 of Act No. 1697 of the
Philippine Commission, which was formerly the law punishing perjury.  Under said section 3 of that Act, this Court,
in the case of United States v. Tupasi Molina (29
Phil. 119), held that a person, who stated under oath in his application to
take police examination that he had never been convicted of any crime, when as
a matter of fact he has previous
convictions, committed perjury.  The
facts in that case are almost exactly analogous to those in the present, and we
find no reason, either in law or in the arguments of the Solicitor General to modify or reverse the conclusion of this Court therein.  More so, because all the
elements of the offense of perjury defined in Art. 183 of the Revised Penal Code concur
in the present case.”

The elements of the crime of perjury are –

(a) That the accused made a
statement under oath or executed an affidavit upon a material matter.

(b) That the statement or affidavit was made before a competent
officer, authorized to receive and administer oath.

(c) That in that statement or affidavit, the accused made a
willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood.

(d) That the sworn
statement or affidavit containing the falsity is required by law or made for a legal purpose.

All the foregoing elements are present in the case at bar.

Perjury under Art. 183 of the Revised Penal Code carries
a lesser penalty.  The penalty for this
crime is arresto mayor in its maximum
period to prision correccional
in its minimum period.  Since there is no
mitigating and aggravating circumstance the penalty should be imposed in its
medium period.  Applying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty should be from four (4) months of arresto mayor
as minimum to one (1) year and one (1) day of prision
correccional as maximum.

WHEREFORE, in
view of the foregoing considerations, the decision appealed from is modified as
follows:

(a) The accused Reolandi Diaz is found
guilty of the crime of perjury defined and penalized under Art. 183 of the
Revised Penal Code; and

(b) The accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of from
four (4) months of arresto mayor as
minimum to one (1) year and one (1) day of prision
correccional as maximum.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman),
Padilla, Sarmiento, and
Regalado, JJ., concur.