Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

EVELYN M. RELUCIO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR Nos. 147773-74 2008-02-18	DENNIS MANGANGEY v. SANDIGANBAYAN and the PEOPLE VELASCO JR., J.
To convict for falsification of a public document under Art. 171, paragraph 4 of the RPC, the following requisites must concur: (1) the offender makes in a document untruthful statements in a narration of facts; (2) the offender has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated; (3) the facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false; and (4) the perversion of truth in the narration of facts was made with the wrongful intent to injure a third person.[16]
	AM NO. 04-6-332-RTC 2006-04-05	REPORT ON INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED ON ALLEGED SPURIOUS BAILBONDS
In administrative cases, the quantum of proof necessary is substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[48] In the present case, the Court does not find substantial evidence to prove that Ramos, Agawin and Nequinto are guilty of falsification. The rule is that there can be no conviction for falsification of a public document if the acts of the accused are consistent with good faith.[49] Stated differently, a crime is not committed if the mind of the person performing the act complained of be innocent.[50] While the above-cited principle is applicable in criminal proceedings, the Court finds no cogent reason not to apply the same in the present administrative case, especially considering that administrative proceedings against judicial employees are by nature, highly penal in character and are to be governed by the rules applicable to criminal cases.[51] In the instant case, it is true that Ramos, Agawin and Nequinto admitted or were found to have certified release orders without Judge Leonida having signed the original copies thereof. However, there is no sufficient evidence to show that there was deliberate intention on their part to mislead or misinform, nor was there proof that they were prompted by bad faith, corrupt motives or any wrongful intention.
	GR NO. 152884 2005-09-30	DERICK D. WOODEN v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Petitioner should, therefore, be exonerated from the charge filed against him. Consequently, the reinstatement of his eligibility and his reinstatement to the position of Teacher I, with payment of back salaries are in order. Pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence,[41] a civil service employee terminated from the service and later found innocent of the charges is entitled to back salaries limited to a period not exceeding five years.
	GR No. 146731 2004-01-13	AGUSTINA M. ENEMECIO v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN CARPIO, J.
Under Article 171, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code, the elements of falsification of public documents through an untruthful narration of facts are: (a) the offender makes in a document untruthful statements in a narration of facts; (b) the offender has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated; (c) the facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false; and (d) the perversion of truth in the narration of facts was made with the wrongful intent to injure a third person.[24]