Transcript
Case / Keyword Type of case/ Doctrines Facts Ruling Gigantoni v. Javier, G.R. No. 74727 Dava v. People, G.R. No. 73905, September 30, 1991 Layno v. People, G.R. No. 93842, September 7, 1992 Falsification of public documents under Art. 171 par.4 of RPC Petitioner, an incumbent Mayor, appointed his legitimate son as the meat inspector in the office of the treasure. He signed the appointment documents and supporting documents then forwarded it to the Davao Regional office COMELEC. One of the supporting documents that he forwarded states that the one who he appointed is not related to him or to any person that has direct supervision over him within the 3 rd degree of either consanguinity or affinity. The appointment was approved; however, the appointee neither assumed the position to which he was appointed nor collected the salary corresponding to it. The petitioner was convicted of the crime of falsification of public documents under 171 par.4 of RPC. He filed a petition where he contends that he had no obligation to disclose the truth about his relationship with the appointee — his son Fernando Y. Layno. He argues that there is nothing in Section 49 (a) of P.D. No. 807 which makes it a legal obligation of the appointing public official to disclose his true relationship with the appointee in the form of a certification. x x x x Art.171 par.4 of RPC “Any public officer, employee or notary who, taking advantage of his official position, shall falsify a document by committing any of the following acts: 4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of fact; Elements: (a) That the offender makes in a document untruthful statements in a narration of facts; YES. The law on nepotism, as provided in Section 49(a) of PD No. 807, prohibits the appointing or recommending authority from making any appointment in the national, provincial, city or municipal governments or in any branch or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations, in favor of his (appointing or recommending authority’s) relative within the third degree of consanguinity or affinity. Thus, in order to guarantee that the law is duly observed, it is required, among others, that the appointment paper should be accompanied by a certification of the appointing or recommending authority stating therein that he is not related to the appointee within the third degree of consanguinity or affinity. Although Section. 49(a) of PD No. 807 does not explicitly provide that the appointing or recommending authority shall disclose his true relationship with the appointee in the form of a certification, nonetheless, the legal obligation of the appointing or recommending authority to state the true facts required to be stated in the certification is inherent in the law on prohibition against nepotism and the nature and purpose of such certification. Since it was proved that the petitioner has an obligation to disclose the truth about his relationship to the appointee, the elements of the crime charged to the petitioner are present. The petitioner was a public officer being then the incumbent when he issued on the appointment in favor of his son as a meat inspector in the office of the municipal (b) That he has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him; and (c) That the facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false. Issue: WON petitioner is guilty of the crime of Falsification of Public Documents under Art.171 par. 4 / WON petitioner has an obligation as an appointing public official to disclose his true relationship with the appointee in the form of a certification? treasurer. In connection with the said appointment, the petitioner taking advantage of his official position issued the certification stating therein that he is not related to the appointee within the third degree of consanguinity or affinity; but, as previously discussed, he had the legal obligation to disclose his true relationship with the appointee. The facts narrated by the petitioner in the said certification are absolutely false because the bare fact and naked truth is that the appointee Fernando Y. Layno is his legitimate son. Batulanon v. People, G.R. No. 139857, September 15, 2006 Fullero v. People, G.R. No. 170583, September 12, 2007 Spouses Villamar v. People, G.R. No. 178652, December 8, 2010 Tan v. Matsuura and Anjutco, G.R. No. 179003 and G.R. No. 195816, January 9, 2013 Del Prado v. People, G.R. No. 186030, March 21, 2012 People v. Pio Gok To, G.R. No. L-7236, April 30, 1955 Lopez et al v. City Judge, G.R. No. L-25795, October 29, 1966 Borje v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. L-55436, November 25, 1983 Tomas v. People, G.R. No. 170453, G.R. No. 170518, October 30, 2006 Layug v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 121047-57, August 16, 2000 Llamas v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 149588, August 16, 2010 UnionBank v. People, G.R. No. 192565, February 28, 2012 Domingo v. People, G.R. No. 186101, October 12, 2009 Ricaforte v. Jurado, G.R. No. 154438, September 5, 2007 Franco v. People, G.R. No. 171328, G.R. No. 171335, February 16, 2011 Pamintuan v. People, G.R. No. 172820, June 23, 2010 People v. Montaner, G.R. No. 184053, August 31, 2011 Galvez & Guy v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 187919, G.R. No. 187979, G.R. No. 188030, February 20, 2013 People v. Crisostomo, G.R. No. L-16945, August 31, 1962 People v. Supnad, G.R. No. L-18747, March 30, 1963 People v. Reyes, G.R. Nos. 101127-31, November 18, 1993 People v. Ojeda, G.R. Nos. 104238-58, June 3, 2004 Corpus v. People, G.R. No. 180016, April 29, w
