Calamba, Norman B.

July 21, 2015

J.D. 1-2

Layug vs. Sandiganbayan

Petitioner applied with the Division Office of Davao del Sur for a permanent teaching

position in the Digos Provincial High School. He stated in his application letter that he

obtained the degrees of Associate in Arts and Bachelor of Arts in Psychology.

Petitioner claimed having taught for 7 years in high school and college level.

At the Davao del Sur National High School (DSNHS), petitioner taught English,

Literature and Social Studies. Principal Ramon Presto authorized the head of the

Science Department to assign any science course to petitioner. Lourdes Magbanua of

the Science Department issued a memorandum detailing petitioner’s schedule for

Science IV classes. Jovencio Tablang, the assistant principal in charge of academic

affairs, noted the memorandum. Petitioner refused to receive the memorandum,

Magbanua informed Presto through a letter that petitioner refused to teach 3 Science

IV classes assigned to him for the reason that he was "inexperienced and incompetent

to teach the subject." Magbanua mentioned in that letter that petitioner's science

load had been unattended to for one week already and thus she referred the matter

to Tablang. Magbanua would see petitioner in campus, talking with friends or with the

security guards.

Petitioner filed a daily time record showing that he reported for work within his daily

official working hours. Petitioner signed the daily time record but the principal did

not sign it. The daily time records showed that, except for reasons of court
Calamba, Norman B. July 21, 2015

J.D. 1-2

appearances in certain mornings and afternoons, petitioner regularly reported for

work within his official time.

Presto filed with the Ombudsman a complaint for estafa through falsification of public

documents against petitioner. Presto alleged that petitioner made it appear that he

had completed the required number of hours of work in his daily time records,

notwithstanding that he only worked for a short period of time.

Presto noted that as a result of petitioner's refusal to the science subjects assigned to

him, petitioner was short of 15 hours per week. Petitioner was instructed to report to

Ruperto Escarcha but didn’t comply. Presto issued a memorandum calling petitioner's

attention to his failure to follow instructions from his superiors. Presto warned him

that should he fail to explain within 5 days, he would be constrained to recommend

petitioner's preventive suspension or summary dismissal to higher authorities.

Petitioner filed complaints for harassment and oppression and for unjustifiable refusal

to release vacation salaries against Presto. The cases were consolidated with the

complaint filed by Presto against petitioner for dishonesty.

The DECS regional office detailed petitioner to the Division Office. Petitioner filed a

motion for reconsideration. The regional office denied the motion thereby sustaining

the order detailing him to the Division Office. Petitioner did not report to the Division

Office pursuant to those orders. Neither did he file a leave of absence.

Calamba, Norman B. July 21, 2015

J.D. 1-2

Date had been fixed by this Court in the Decision arising from petitioner's preventive

suspension by the DECS Regional Director and approved by DECS Secretary Lourdes

Quisumbing.

In that case, interruptions in the administrative investigation caused by petitioner's

own fault or upon his own request would not be counted in computing the 90-day

statutory limit of suspension. Hence, for his refusal to accept assignments given to

him by the regional director, petitioner was not entitled to receive salary for the

period of idleness; he may receive salary when he reported for work.

The issue in this case is whether or not petitioner is guilty of falsification of public

documents for filling up his daily time record as a teacher which reflected his actual

teaching time and also those when he was within the school facilities.

Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies. The elements of felonies in general

are (1) that there must be an act or omission, (2) that the act or omission are

punishable by the RPC, and (3) that the act is performed or the omission incurred by

means of dolo or culpa.1 All of the said elements are applied in this case.

The act of the petitioner filing a daily time record showing that he reported for work

within his daily official working hours is an act of falsification of document because it

is contrary to the statement of Magbanua which mentioned in a letter that petitioner's

science load had been unattended to for one week already and she added that she

would see petitioner in campus, talking with friends or with the security guards.

1
Rev. Pen. Code, art. 3.
Calamba, Norman B. July 21, 2015

J.D. 1-2

Petitioner made it appear that he had completed the required number of hours of

work in his daily time records, notwithstanding that he only worked for a short period

of time. Petitioner was short of 15 hours per week as a result of his refusal to the

science subjects assigned to him.

The act of the petitioner is punishable by article 171 of the RPC. Penalty of prision

mayor and a fine not to exceed P5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer,

employee, or notary who, taking advantage of his official position, shall falsify a

document by making untruthful statements in a narration of facts.2 Petitioner made

untruthful statement when he filed a daily time record showing that he reported for

work within his daily official working hours but his science load had been unattended

for one week already and he was short of 15 hours per week.

The act of the petitioner is performed by means of dolo or malice. The requisites of

dolo are (1) he must have freedom while doing an act or omitting to do an act, (2) he

must have intelligence while doing the act, (3) he must have intent while doing the

act or omitting to do the act.3 All the requisites are present in this case.

Layug had freedom while doing the act of falsification of document. A person who

acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force is exempt from criminal liability. 4

Also, a person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or

greater injury is exempt from criminal liability.5 The act of the petitioner is not under

2
Rev. Pen. Code, art. 171.
3
L.B. Reyes, Criminal Law, p. 40, 18th ed. (2012).
4
Rev. Pen. Code, art. 12, par. 5.
5
Rev. Pen. Code, art. 12, par. 6.
Calamba, Norman B. July 21, 2015

J.D. 1-2

the compulsion of an irresistible force nor under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear

of an equal or greater injury thus he is not exempted from criminal liability and it is

clear that the petitioner acted with freedom.

Layug has intelligence while doing the acts of falsification of document. Without this

power, necessary to determine the morality of human acts, no crime can exist. 6

Intelligence is the ability to determine what is right and what is wrong. Petitioner is a

holder of 2 degrees and graduated in both prestigious universities. He is also an

educator who provides education and intelligence to students. It is impossible for a

man to be an educator without intelligence.

Layug had intent while doing the act of falsification of document. Intent to commit

the act with malice, being purely a mental process, is presumed and the presumption

arises from the proof of the commission of an unlawful act. 7 In this case, presumption

is made true when petitioner acted with dishonesty in putting false entries in his DTR.

Dishonesty’s intention is to contradict what is true. The mere fact that the petitioner

acted with dishonesty in putting false entries in his DTR, intention to contradict what

is true, meaning the intent to falsify a document that is supposed to be reporting a

true and correct hours of work performed, existed.

Criminal liability has been proven through the elements of article 3 of the RPC in

connection with the act done by the petitioner. Thus, conviction of the petitioner is

proper.

6
L.B. Reyes, Criminal Law, p. 41, par. 3, 18th ed. (2012).
7
L.B. Reyes, Criminal Law, p. 41, par. 4, 18th ed. (2012).