Statements in A Narration of Facts (2) He Has A Legal Obligation To Disclose The Truth of The Facts

FAKE RECEIPT
G.R. No. 153152 October 19, 2005
RUPERTO V. PERALTA and EMERITA P. PERALTA, Petitioners,

vs.
Hon. ANIANO DESIERTO, in His Official Capacity as Ombudsman of the Philippines; TOBIAS
REYNALD M. TIANGCO; MANUEL T. ENRIQUEZ; GEORGE T. GOCO; JOSE C. RUIZ JR.;
EVANGELINE P. CRUZ; ERNESTO J. GARCIA; and VALERIO A. BINAYUG, Respondents.
"[Petitioners] are the owners of a motor shop operating under the name of Shalom Motor Works.
They claimed that sometime in August 2000, respondent Garcia, the head of the Motor Pool Division
of the municipality of Navotas, engaged the services of their motor shop for the fixing and repair of
the municipality’s service vehicles. Allegedly, the terms and conditions for the repair is such that, the
repair shall be based on the job estimate provided by the [petitioners] as approved by the
municipality.
"With respect to the alleged fake Purchase Order and Cash Invoice purporting to cover Fire Truck
No. SBT No. 338, respondent Tiangco contended that he investigated the matter and found out that
the alleged fake Sales Invoice of Shalom Motor Works, which [petitioners] claimed they were able to
obtain during their visit to respondent’s Office did not really come from his office or any other offices
of the municipal government. A scrutiny of the Disbursement Voucher covering the repair of the
subject fire truck will show that the award for its repair was granted to Mighty Mike Auto Supply and
not to Shalom Motor Works. Hence, the alleged fake receipt of Shalom Motor Works was obviously
manufactured by the [petitioners].
According to petitioners, the alleged use of fake receipts through the connivance of respondent local
officials establishes the illegal disbursement of public funds. Not only was the Cash Invoice fake; the
repair of the vehicle to which it allegedly referred was not done by petitioners.
ALTERED DTR
SITUATION ALTERED DTR PERO WALA MAN NAPASA
To convict an accused of the crime of falsification of public or official document under that provision
of law, the following requisites must be established: (1) the offender makes in a document untruthful
statements in a narration of facts; (2) he has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts
narrated by him; and (3) the facts narrated by him are absolutely false. 38
There is authority to the effect that a fourth requisite, i.e., that the act of falsification was committed
to the damage of a third party or with intent to cause such damage, may be dispensed with as
regards falsification of public or official document. The reason for this is that in falsification of public
document, the principal thing punished is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of the
truth as therein solemnly proclaimed. However, the daily time record that a public official or
39
employee must fill up is a public document which has characteristics distinct from other public
documents. It should contain a "true and correct report of hours of work performed, record of which
was made daily at the time of arrival at and departure from office." As to its nature and purpose, this
40
Court has said:

". . . The evident purpose of requiring government employees to keep a time record is to
show their attendance in office to work and to be paid accordingly. Closely adhering to the
policy of no work no pay, a daily time record is primarily, if not solely, intended to prevent
damage or loss to the government as would result in instances where it pays an employee
for no work done. The integrity of the daily time record as an official document, however,
remains untarnished if the damage sought to be prevented has not been produced. . . .
(w)hile it is true that a time record is an official document, it is not criminally falsified if it does
not pervert its avowed purpose as when it does not cause damage to the government. It may
be different in the case of a public document with continuing interest affecting the public
welfare which is naturally damaged if that document is falsified where the truth is necessary
for the safeguard and protection of that general interest. . ." (Emphasis supplied.)
41
As such, in the prosecution of cases involving falsification of daily time records, it is imperative that
there be proof of damage to the government. Such damage may take the form of salary paid to the
accused for services not rendered. 42
There is no proof that petitioner unduly benefited from his daily time record. On the contrary, what
appears on record is the fact that petitioner was deprived of his salary from June 1986 to April 1987,
the period of time material in these cases. In fact, petitioner had to resort to our courts before he
could get the salary that was due him in proportion to the time he actually rendered services to the
government.
FALSIFICATION IS EQUIVALENT TO DISHONESTY
On the basis of these established facts, petitioner was correct in holding respondents
administratively guilty of dishonesty and falsification of official document. Dishonesty is defined as
the "disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness, lack of integrity."21 Falsification
of an official document, as an administrative offense, is knowingly making false statements in official
or public documents. Both are grave offenses under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in
the Civil Service, which carry with it the penalty of dismissal on the first offense.22
Falsification of DTRs amounts to dishonesty.23 The evident purpose of requiring government

employees to keep a time record is to show their attendance in office to work and to be paid
accordingly. Closely adhering to the policy of no work-no pay, a DTR is primarily, if not solely,
intended to prevent damage or loss to the government as would result in instances where it pays an
employee for no work done.24
Respondents’ claim of good faith, which implies a sincere intent not to do any falsehood or to seek
any undue advantage, cannot be believed. This Court pronounced –
Good faith, here understood, is an intangible and abstract quality with no technical meaning
or statutory definition, and it encompasses, among other things, an honest belief, the
absence of malice and the absence of design to defraud or to seek an unconscionable
advantage. An individual’s personal good faith is a concept of his own mind and,
therefore, may not conclusively be determined by his protestations alone. It implies
honesty of intention, and freedom from knowledge of circumstances which ought to put the
holder upon inquiry. The essence of good faith lies in an honest belief in the validity of one’s
right, ignorance of a superior claim, and absence of intention to overreach another. x x x25
Thus, the CA gravely erred when it exonerated respondents from administrative guilt based on the
findings of fact of petitioner which it even affirmed. The jurisprudence27 adopted by the appellate
court in laying the legal basis for its ruling does not apply to the instant case because said cases
pertain to criminal liability for Falsification of Public Document under the Revised Penal Code. The
element of damage need not be proved to hold respondents administratively liable.
But it cannot even be said that no damage was suffered by the government. When respondents
collected their salaries on the basis of falsified DTRs, they caused injury to the government. The
falsification of one’s DTR to cover up one’s absences or tardiness automatically results in financial
losses to the government because it enables the employee concerned to be paid salaries and to
earn leave credits for services which were never rendered. Undeniably, the falsification of a DTR
foists a fraud involving government funds.28
Likewise, the existence of malice or criminal intent is not a prerequisite to declare the respondents
administratively culpable. What is merely required is a showing that they made entries in their
respective DTRs knowing fully well that they were false. This was evident in the many documents
viewed and reviewed by petitioner through GIO Generoso.
RA 3019

Statements in A Narration of Facts (2) He Has A Legal Obligation To Disclose The Truth of The Facts

Uploaded by

Statements in A Narration of Facts (2) He Has A Legal Obligation To Disclose The Truth of The Facts

Uploaded by

FAKE RECEIPT

G.R. No. 153152 October 19, 2005

RUPERTO V. PERALTA and EMERITA P. PERALTA, Petitioners,

SITUATION ALTERED DTR PERO WALA MAN NAPASA

Court has said:

FALSIFICATION IS EQUIVALENT TO DISHONESTY

Falsification of DTRs amounts to dishonesty.23 The evident purpose of requiring government

You might also like