This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2009-07-20 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In Lumancas v. Intas,[27] this Court held that in the falsification of public or official documents, whether by public officials or by private persons, it is unnecessary that there be present the idea of gain or the intent to injure a third person, for the reason that, in contradistinction to private documents, the principal thing punished is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of the truth as therein solemnly proclaimed. | |||||
|
2009-04-16 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It is to be made clear that the "use" of a falsified document is separate and distinct from the "falsification" of a public document. The act of "using" falsified documents is not necessarily included in the "falsification" of a public document. Using falsified documents is punished under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code. In the case at bar, the falsification of the Employees Clearance was consummated the moment the signature of Laura Pangilan was imitated. In the falsification of a public document, it is immaterial whether or not the contents set forth therein were false. What is important is the fact that the signature of another was counterfeited.[54] It is a settled rule that in the falsification of public or official documents, it is not necessary that there be present the idea of gain or the intent to injure a third person for the reason that in the falsification of a public document, the principal thing punished is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of the truth as therein solemnly proclaimed.[55] Thus, the purpose for which the falsification was made and whether the offender profited or hoped to profit from such falsification are no longer material. | |||||
|
2007-09-12 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| First, petitioner was a public officer, being then the Acting Chief Operator of the BTO, Iriga City, when he accomplished and submitted his PDS on 4 January 1988 at the BTO, Legazpi City. It is settled that a PDS is a public document.[46] He stated under Item No. 18 of his PDS that he passed the civil engineering board examination given on 30-31 May 1985 in Manila with a rating of 75.8%. Thereafter, petitioner submitted his PDS to the BTO, Legazpi City. | |||||
|
2006-05-31 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| The Court observes that it is not uncommon for employees to do everything in their power to better their lot. However, let this case serve as a stern warning to all that one's pursuit of personal development and improvement, without regard to the demands of ethics and utmost responsibility in the public service, will never be countenanced by this Court.[15] | |||||
|
2003-12-15 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Respondent asserted during the hearings by the OAS that the new PDS form is different from the old PDS form. This was in an attempt to lend credence to his claim that he left the space for educational attainment in the new PDS form blank. The claim, however, would not exonerate respondent even if we accept it as true. For then, respondent would be liable for suppression of a material fact. It is clear from the PDS form that his educational attainment is being asked from him. This is clear from the heading Number of Units Completed/Course Title next to the column for Degree Earned (write NONE if not graduated). The filing of a PDS is required in connection with the promotion to a higher position and the contenders for promotion have the legal obligation to disclose the truth.[18] Any willful concealment of facts in the Personal Data Sheet constitutes mental dishonesty amounting to misconduct.[19] | |||||