SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 202 12/13/19, 12:01 PM

62 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dava vs. People
*
G.R. No. 73905. September 30, 1991.

MICHAEL T. DAVA, petitioner, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES and the INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE
COURT, respondents.

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Jurisdiction; In the absence of

proof that the party raising the issue of lack of jurisdiction is barred
by estoppel, a decision rendered by a court without jurisdiction is a
total nullity.·We find petitioner's contention to be meritorious. The
resolution of the then Intermediate Appellate Court in CA-G.R. No.
24312CR, expressly annulled the proceedings had in Criminal Case
No. Q10759 for lack of jurisdiction of the Quezon City court over the
case. That ruling is founded on solid jurisprudence. We had time
and again held that in the absence of proof that the party raising
the issue of lack of jurisdiction is barred by estoppel, a decision
rendered by a court without jurisdiction is a total nullity. Being
worthless in itself, all the proceedings founded upon it are equally
worthless. Hence, the testimony of Vinluan is not only inadmissible
in evidence but may as well be considered as totally nonexistent.
Criminal Law; Falsification; Elements of the crime of using a
falsified document in any transaction (other than as evidence in a
judicial proceeding) penalized under the last paragraph of Article
172.·The elements of the crime of using a falsified document in
any transaction (other than as evidence in a judicial proceeding)
penalized under the last paragraph of Article 172 are the following:
(a) the offender knew that a document was falsified by another
person; (b) the false document is embraced in Article 171 or in any
of subdivisions Nos. 1 and 2 of Article 172; (c) he used such
document (not in judicial proceedings), and (d) the use of the false
document caused damage to another or at least it was used with
intent to cause such damage.
Same; Same; A driver's license is a public document within the
purview of Articles 171 and 172.·A driver's license is a public
document within the purview of Articles 171 and 172. The blank
form of the driver's license becomes a public document the moment
it is accomplished. Thus, when driver's license No. 2706887 was
filled up with petitioner's personal data and the signature of the
registrar of the San Fernando LTC agency was affixed therein, even
if the same

_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016efd64bfc6b701b4c3003600fb002c009e/p/APS671/?username=Guest Page 1 of 15
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 202 12/13/19, 12:01 PM

63

VOL. 202, SEPTEMBER 30, 1991 63

Dava vs. People

was simulated, the driver's license became a public document.

Same; Same; Same; The driver's license being a public
document, proof of the fourth element of damage caused to another
person or at least an intent to cause such damage has become
immaterial.·The driver's license being a public document, proof of
the fourth element of damage caused to another person or at least
an intent to cause such damage has become immaterial. In
falsification of public or official documents, the principal thing being
punished is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of
the truth proclaimed therein.

PETITION for review on certiorari from the decision of the

then Intermediate Appellate Court.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
K.V. Faylona & Associates for petitioner.

FERNAN, C.J.:

On October 19, 1975, while driving a car along Shaw

Boulevard, Mandaluyong, Rizal, petitioner Michael T.
Dava, then the1
holder of non-professional driver's
2
license
No. 1474427 with official receipt No. 7023037, bumped
pedestrians Bernadette Roxas Clamor and Dolores E.
Roxas, causing death to the former and physical injuries to
the latter.
As a consequence of said incident, Dava was brought to
the Mandaluyong Police headquarters where his driver's
license was confiscated by Cpl. Daniel Severino who later
submitted Dava's driver's license to the fiscal's office in
Pasig, Rizal. The license was thereafter presented as
prosecution evidence in the criminal case for homicide and
serious physical injuries thru reckless imprudence filed
against3
Dava in the then Court of First Instance of Rizal in
Pasig.
On April 12, 1978, Antonio Roxas, the brother of
Bernadette and the father of Dolores, saw Dava driving a
maroon Volkswagen (beetle-type) car with plate No. AD-
902 B. Knowing that Dava's driver's license was used as an
exhibit in court and that

_______________

1 Exh. G.
2 Exh. G-1.
3 Criminal Case No. 16474; Exh. F.

64

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016efd64bfc6b701b4c3003600fb002c009e/p/APS671/?username=Guest Page 2 of 15
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 202 12/13/19, 12:01 PM

64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dava vs. People

no traffic violation receipt had been issued to Dava, Roxas

sought the help of then Minister of Defense Juan Ponce4
Enrile in apprehending Dava for driving without a license.
The Ministry of Defense later indorsed Roxas' request for
assistance to the Constabulary Highway Patrol Group
(CHPG).
At around 7:30 in the evening of July 21, 1978, M/Sgt.
Domingo Lising and S/Sgt. Arturo Viduya of the CHPG saw
the maroon Volkswagen car described by Roxas parked in
front of the Uniwide Department Store near the then
Nation theater in Cubao, Quezon City. When the driver and
his companion arrived, Lising and Viduya confronted them
and asked the driver for his license. They were 5
shown non-
professional driver's 6
license No. 2706887 with official
receipt No. 0605870 issued by Agency 2L Pampanga in the
name of Michael T. Dava. When asked about the source of
his license, Dava informed them that his officemate had
secured it for him.
Lising and Viduya invited Dava to the CHPG office in
Camp Crame, Quezon City for questioning. Dava refused to
give a statement upon the advice of his lawyer. Lising then
submitted a spot report to Col. Maristela stating therein
that "subject had violated Section 31 of RA 4136 for false
representation in the application of 7 a driver's license
intended to be used as a legal license." In his affidavit of
apprehension dated November 16, 1978, Lising stated that
he was "about to book him for violation of Section 31 of
Rep. Act 4136, when subsequent investigation revealed
that the Driver's License above-mentioned is a Fake and a
Falsity" and therefore a case for falsification and use of
falsified documents under Section 172 8
of the Revised Penal
Code should be filed against Dava. Lising concluded that
Dava's driver's license was fake because when he compared
it with the xerox copy of Dava's license which was attached
to the record of the criminal case in Pasig, the signatures
and the 9
dates of birth indicated in the two licenses did "not
tally."

_______________

4 Exh. A.
5 Exh. B.
6 Exh. B-1.
7 Exh. D.
8 Exh. E.
9 TSN, November 29, 1983, pp. 15-17.

65

VOL. 202, SEPTEMBER 30, 1991 65

Dava vs. People

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016efd64bfc6b701b4c3003600fb002c009e/p/APS671/?username=Guest Page 3 of 15
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 202 12/13/19, 12:01 PM

Accordingly, an information for falsification of a public

document was fiIed against Dava in the then Court10
of First
Instance of Rizal, Branch V at Quezon City. One of the
prosecution witnesses was Carolino Vinluan of the Angeles
City branch of the Bureau of Land Transportation (BLT).
He testified that he was then the registrar of the said office
when Dava's driver's license was brought to him by lawyer
Jose Francisco who was interested in knowing whether it
was genuine or fake and if it was issued by the Angeles
City agency of the BLT. He examined it and found out that
it was "fake or illegally issued" because form No. 2706887
was one of the fifty (50) forms which had been reported
missing from their office sometime in November, 1976 and
that it 11was never issued to any applicant for a driver's
license. He added that any license that was not included
in their office index card was considered as "coming from 12
(an) illegal source" and "not legally issued by any agency."
Vinluan stated that 13
although the form used for the
license was14 genuine, the signature of the issuing official
was fake. He "believed" certain persons had been
apprehended
15
for "plasticization" of licenses outside their
office and that sometime in November, 1976, agents of the
National Bureau of Investigation raided the house of a
certain person who had in his possession some 16
of the forms
which had been missing from their office. He concluded
that the license was fake because while the form was
issued by the central office to the Angeles City agency. the
license appeared on its face to17 have been issued by the San
Fernando, Pampanga agency.
Dava was convicted of the 18 crime charged. He appealed to
the then Court of Appeals which affirmed the lower
court's decision on January 29,1982. Dava filed a motion
for reconsidera-

_______________

10 Criminal Case No. Q-10159.

11 Exhs. K, K-2, K-4, K-11.
12 Exh. K-4.
13 Exh. K-5.
14 Exh. K-10.
15 Ibid.
16 Exh. K-11.
17 Ibid., Exh. K-6.
18 CA-G.R.No.24312-CR.

66

66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dava vs. People

tion of the said decision contending that the lower court

had no jurisdiction to try the case. On April 27, 1982, the
Court of Appeals reversed and set aside its decision and
issued a resolution the dispositive portion of which reads:

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016efd64bfc6b701b4c3003600fb002c009e/p/APS671/?username=Guest Page 4 of 15
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 202 12/13/19, 12:01 PM

"WHEREFORE, as prayed for, our decision is hereby reconsidered

and set aside, and another judgment shall be entered annulling the
proceedings in the court a quo without prejudice to the refiling of
the charges with the proper court." (Rollo, pp. 35-36.)

Consequently, the case was refiled with the Regional Trial

Court of Pampanga, Branch 47 at San Fernando as
Criminal Case No. 2422. The information for falsification of
a public document reads as follows:

"That on or about the 12th day of April, 1978, and for sometime
prior thereto, in the municipality of San Fernando, province of
Pampanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused MICHAEL T. DAVA, a
private individual, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously falsify or cause to be falsified, a Non-Professional
Driver's License with Serial No. 2706887 covered by Official Receipt
No. 0605870, dated January 24, 1978, a public document, by
making it appear that the signatories therein who are officials of
the Pampanga LTC Agency participated in the preparation thereof,
when in truth and in fact they did not so participate and the
accused made use of the same knowing it to be falsified.
"ALL CONTRARY TO LAW."

At the trial, the prosecution presented Antonio Roxas who

testified on how he saw Dava driving a car and that,
knowing that Dava's license had been confiscated as a
result of the filing of the homicide and serious physical
injuries through reckless imprudence case, he thereafter
sought the assistance of then Minister Enrile 19
in
apprehending Dava for driving without a license. For his
part, Domingo Lising, who apprehended Dava, narrated in
court how he first saw Dava driving a car along Banahaw
and N. Domingo Sts. in Quezon City until he finally
confronted Dava at the vicinity of the Araneta Coliseum
and

_______________

19 TSN, September 27, 1983 & October 13, 1983.

67

VOL. 202, SEPTEMBER 30, 1991 67

Dava us. People

confiscated his driver's license. As earlier stated, he

concluded that the driver's license shown to him by Dava
was fake because he noticed that, when compared with the
license attached to the record of the criminal case filed
against Dava, the license 20 he confiscated bore a different
signature and date of birth.
Daniel Severino, a sergeant of the Mandaluyong police,
testified that he investigated the traffic incident along
Shaw Boulevard on October 19, 1975 which involved Dava
and the two relatives of Antonio Roxas. He himself

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016efd64bfc6b701b4c3003600fb002c009e/p/APS671/?username=Guest Page 5 of 15
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 202 12/13/19, 12:01 PM

confiscated Dava's nonprofessional driver's license 21No.

1474427 which he later turned over to the fiscal's office.
In the course of Severino's testimony, the defense
counsel informed the court that, upon a resolution of the
Court of Appeals, Dava was allowed by the lower court
having jurisdiction over Criminal Case No. 16474 to
withdraw his driver's
22
license No. 1474427 from the records
of said case. When confronted by the court, Dava
volunteered that he withdrew said license in December,
1982 and surrendered it to the BLT Western
23
District Office
so that he could renew his license. Hence, the evidence
presented24
before the Court was a mere xerox copy of said
license which also bears a notation that Dava received the
original
25
driver's license and its receipt on December 15,
1982.
Victor Martin, who had been the head of the San
Fernando, Pampanga branch of the BLT and whose name
appears as registrar thereof in official receipt No. 0605870
which was supposed to be attached to Dava's driver's
license No. 2706887, admitted that the form of the said
license was genuine although he could not tell whether its
contents were26 likewise genuine because it was "opened"
and "spliced." He asserted, however,

_______________

20 An examination of Dava's two licenses reveals that there is also a

discrepancy on the data regarding his height, In license No. 2706887, it
is indicated that Dava is 6 feet 2 inches tall while in license No. 1474427,
he is 5 feet 8 inches tall. (TSN, November 29, 1983).
21 TSN, December 8, 1983.
22 Ibid., pp. 9 & 13.
23 Ibid., p. 10.
24 Exh. G.
25 Exh.G-1.
26 TSN, December 8, 1983, p. 29.

68

68 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dava vs. People

that since the said form "did not emanate" from his office
and "a facsimile was 27
not printed" over his name, said
license was "not OK".
Martin said that he was informed by the property
section of the BUT regional office that the number in the
license was one of "the 28
numbers requisitioned by (the)
Angeles City agency." He affirmed that driver's 29
license
No. 2706887 "was not issued by (their) agency" although
when recalled to the stand, he admitted that the "2L" filled
in the space for "Agency Code No." on the face 30of license No.
2706887 referred to the San Fernando agency. Martin also
confirmed the genuineness of official receipt No. 060587031
although it was his assistant who signed it for him and

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016efd64bfc6b701b4c3003600fb002c009e/p/APS671/?username=Guest Page 6 of 15
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 202 12/13/19, 12:01 PM

affirmed that the amount of P10.00 indicated

32
therein had
been collected and received by his office.
Lawyer Jose Francisco testified that he went to the
Angeles City office of the BLT to see its chief and inquire
about the number of driver's license issued to Dava and
whether said office had indeed issued them. According to
him, the head of the office, Carolino Vinluan, advised him
to verify from the index card in the possession of the
License Division head whether the 33
Angeles City agency
had indeed issued Dava's license. Thereafter, the officer-
in-charge of the License Division of the BLT in East
Avenue, Quezon City, Leonardo R. Medina, issued a
certification dated December 24, 1979 to the effect that
non-professional driver's license No. 2706887 in the34
name
of Dava was "not registered in (their) Index Card."
Francisco also informed the court that Carolino Vinluan,
the former head of 35
the Angeles City BLT agency, had died
on May 12, 1980. He offered in evidence Vinluan's death
certificate as Exh. J.

_______________

27 Ibid., p. 22.
28 Ibid., p. 25.
29 Ibid., p. 28.
30 TSN, January 10,1984, p. 2.
31 Exh. B-1.
32 TSN, December 8, 1983, p. 31.
33 TSN, December 20, 1983, p. 7.
34 Exh. I.
35 TSN, December 20, 1983, p. 12.

69

VOL. 202, SEPTEMBER 30, 1991 69

Dava vs. People

Another evidence presented by the prosecution was the

transcript of stenographic notes of the testimony of
Carolino Vinluan which was taken on January 8, 1980 at
the trial of Criminal Case No. Q-10759 before the then
Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch V at Quezon City.
It was marked as Exh. K. The said exhibit was part of the
record of Criminal Case No. Q-10759 which 36 was
transmitted to the Regional Trial Court of Pampanga.
The defense presented only one witness: Felizardo
Manalili. A friend of Dava and his former co-trainee at the
Sandoz Philippines, a pharmaceutical firm, Manalili
testified that Dava requested him to secure a driver's
license for him because he had none. Manalili went to the
San Fernando office of the Land Transportation
Commission (LTC) where he used to secure his own license.
At the LTC branch office, he was "approached
37
by the fixers
who roamed around the compound." When he asked them
how much it would cost to secure a driver's license, he was

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016efd64bfc6b701b4c3003600fb002c009e/p/APS671/?username=Guest Page 7 of 15
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 202 12/13/19, 12:01 PM

38
told that it would amount to P70.00. He agreed to pay 39
the
amount and gave the fixers the personal data of Dava.
After an hour, the fixers gave Manalili the license which
was inside a plastic jacket. (Manalili identified the license
as Exh. B.) He examined it and found out that it looked
"like a genuine and authentic driver's license" to him. The
license, which was opened and unsealed, bore a signature
in the portion which showed the name Romeo Edu and
contained all the personal data of Dava. Because it did not
bear the signature of Dava, Manalili immediately gave the
license to Dava and told him40 to sign it immediately. Dava
did so in Manalili's presence. 41
On March 22,1984, the lower court rendered a decision
finding that the license in question was "fake or spurious",
that it was not duly issued by any proper government
licensing agency and that the accused directly participated
in the commission of

_______________

36 TSN, November 8, 1983, p. 7.

37 TSN, January 17, 1984, p. 20.
38 Ibid., p. 21.
39 Ibid., p. 23.
40 Ibid., pp. 23-30.
41 Penned by Judge Florencio Florendo.

70

70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dava vs. People

the falsification or caused said falsification. The court took

into account the facts that Dava was "in dire need" of a
license because of his work as a detailman; that he received
his genuine license from the court only on December 15,
1982, and that Dava himself personally requested his
friend, Manalili, to secure the license for him. It arrived at
the conclusion that since Dava was the possessor or user of
the fake license, he himself was the forger or the one who
caused its forgery or falsification. The dispositive portion of
the decision reads:

"IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, this Court finds the accused

Michael T. Dava guilty beyond reasonable doubt, as principal of the
crime of Falsification of a Public Document, as defined and
penalized under the provisions of Article 172 of the Revised Penal
Code, and considering the absence of any mitigating or aggravating
circumstance, hereby sentences him under the Indeterminate
Sentence Law to suffer an indeterminate imprisonment of one (1)
year and eight (8) months of prision correccional as minimum, to
four (4) years, nine (9) months and ten (10) days of prision
correccional as maximum; and to pay a fine of Two Thousand Five
Hundred (P2,500.00) Pesos, Philippine Currency, plus the costs of
this suit.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016efd64bfc6b701b4c3003600fb002c009e/p/APS671/?username=Guest Page 8 of 15
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 202 12/13/19, 12:01 PM

"IT IS SO ORDERED."
42
Dava appealed to the then Intermediate Appellate Court,
which on September 30, 1985 affirmed in in toto the
decision of the trial court. On February 27, 1986, the
appellate court denied Dava's motion for the
reconsideration of said decision finding that no new
grounds had been raised therein. Hence, the instant
petition for review on certiorari.
Petitioner assails herein the reliance of the courts below
on the testimony of Carolino Vinluan on the ground that
being a part of the annulled proceedings in Criminal Case
No. Q-10759, it may not be considered as admissible in
evidence as it cannot qualify as a "testimony at a former
trial" under the provisions of Section 41, Rule 130 of the
Rules of Court.
We find petitioner's contention to be meritorious. The
resolution of the then Intermediate Appellate Court in CA-
G.R. No.

_______________

42 Justice Juan A. Sison, ponente, with Justices Federico B. Alfonso,

Jr. and Lorna S. Lombos-de la Fuente, concurring.

71

VOL. 202, SEPTEMBER 30, 1991 71

Dava vs. People

24312-CR, expressly annulled the proceedings had in

Criminal Case No. Q-10759 for lack of jurisdiction of the
Quezon City court over the case. That ruling is founded on
solid jurisprudence. We had time and again held that in the
absence of proof that the party raising
43
the issue of lack of
jurisdiction is barred by estoppel, a decision rendered
44
by a
court without jurisdiction is a total nullity. Being
worthless in itself,45all the proceedings founded upon it are
equally worthless. Hence, the testimony of Vinluan is not
only inadmissible in evidence but may as well be
considered as totally nonexistent.
With the testimony of the late Carolino Vinluan out of
the way, is there sufficient evidence to warrant the
conviction of the petitioner for the crime charged?
The information specifically charges the petitioner with
having made it appear in his driver's license No. 2706887
that "officials of the Pampanga LTC agency participated" in
its preparation and with having used the said driver's
license knowing that it was falsified. The charges therefore
are founded on the provisions of Article 172 (1) of the
Revised Penal Code which punishes any private individual
who shall commit any of the falsification enumerated in
Article 171 specifically paragraph 2 thereof which penalizes
the act of causing it to appear that persons (public officials)
have participated in any act or proceeding when they did

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016efd64bfc6b701b4c3003600fb002c009e/p/APS671/?username=Guest Page 9 of 15
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 202 12/13/19, 12:01 PM

not in fact so participate. The information also charges

Dava with having knowingly used a false document under
the last paragraph of Article 172.
The evidence at hand proves that petitioner,
misrepresenting

_______________

43 Technically, petitioner was barred from raising the issue of lack of

jurisdiction for the first time on appeal (PNB vs. IAC, G.R. No. 62831-32,
July 31, 1986, 143 SCRA 299). But, inasmuch as the prosecution did not
question the appellate court's resolution annulling the proceedings in
Criminal Case No. Q-10759 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the
lower court, and went along with the refiling and trial of the case in
Pampanga, the said resolution of the appellate court should be respected.
44 Solid Homes, Inc. v. Payawal, G.R. No. 84811, August 29,1989, 177
SCRA 72.
45 Estoesta, Sr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 74817, November 8, 1989,
179 SCRA 203.

72

72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dava vs. People

that he had no driver's license, asked his friend, Manalili,

to secure one for him. Sometime in November, 1976,
Manalili, who used to get his own driver's license in San
Fernando, Pampanga, was able to secure petitioner's
driver's license No. 2706887 through fixers at the Land 46
Transportation Commission (LTC) agency in said locality.
On January 24, 1978 petitioner renewed his license at the
said office by paying the amount of47P10.00 for which he was
issued official receipt No. 0605870.
In the renewal of drivers' license, the practice then was
simply to present an official receipt showing that the
previous year the licensee had paid for his driver's license
to any agency of the LTC, and to pay the renewal fee. As
long as the transaction did not involve the issuance of
"another form," a driver did not have to fill up an
application form for the renewal of a license. The said
agency would then issue an official receipt evidencing the
renewal of the 48license but the driver's license itself would
not be changed.
Thus, on January 24, 1978, when driver's license 49
No.
2706887 together with official receipt No. 864321 were
presented to the San Fernando LTC agency, the personnel
therein issued official receipt No. 0605870 in the name of
petitioner. Although the receipt was not personally signed
by office
50
registrar Victor Martin but by his assistant, the
receipt was genuine and the amount indicated therein
was actually
51
paid to and collected by the San Fernando
agency. The driver's52 license itself may not have been
issued by said agency but its form was likewise genuine.
However, according to Martin, it was "not OK" because it

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016efd64bfc6b701b4c3003600fb002c009e/p/APS671/?username=Guest Page 10 of 15
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 202 12/13/19, 12:01 PM

"did not emanate" from his office

53
and "a facsimile was not
printed over" his name therein. Moreover, according to the
officer-in-charge of the License Division of the Bureau of
Land

_______________

46 TSN, January 17, 1984, p. 16.

47 Exhs. B-1 and H.
48 TSN, December 8, 1983, pp. 22-23, 32-33.
49 See: Exh. B-1.
50 Exh. B-1.
51 TSN, December 8, 1983, pp. 21,24 and 31.
52 Ibid., p. 28; TSN, January 10,1984; Exh. H.
53 TSN, December 8, 1983, p. 22.

73

VOL. 202, SEPTEMBER 30, 1991 73

Dava vs. People

Transportation in East Avenue, Quezon City, non-

professional driver's license No. 2706887 in the name of
Michael
54
Dava y Tolosa "is not registered" in their index
card.
Hence, while there is no doubt that driver's license No.
2706887 was a spurious one, the evidence do not pinpoint
the petitioner as the actual falsifier. Unfortunately,
however, there are pieces of evidence which prove beyond
reasonable doubt that he caused the falsification and made
use of the falsified driver's license knowing it to be so.
The elements of the crime of using a falsified document
in any transaction (other than as evidence in a judicial
proceeding) penalized under the last paragraph of Article
172 are the following: (a) the offender knew that a
document was falsified by another person; (b) the false
document is embraced in Article 171 or in any of
subdivisions Nos. 1 and 2 of Article 172; (c) he used such
document (not in judicial proceedings), and (d) the use of
the false document caused damage to another 55or at least it
was used with intent to cause such damage. Except for
the last, all of these elements have been proven beyond
reasonable doubt in this case.
It is not disputed that it was petitioner himself who
requested Manalili to get him a license. He misrepresented
to Manalili that56 he has not at any time been issued a
driver's license, Through this misrepresentation and
capitalizing on Manalili's awareness of the dire necessity of
obtaining a driver's license in the shortest time possible to
enable petitioner to perform his duties as detailman,
petitioner was able, in a very subtle and clever manner, to
induce Manalili to deal with "fixers" in securing the subject
driver's license. For indeed, there was no way Manalili
could obtain a driver's license in so short a time without
having to deal with "fixers." Thus, as petitioner had

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016efd64bfc6b701b4c3003600fb002c009e/p/APS671/?username=Guest Page 11 of 15
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 202 12/13/19, 12:01 PM

calculated, Manalili, who appeared to have been motivated

by a sincere desire to help a friend, did not hesitate to deal
with three fixers whom he knew were not employees of the
LTC and to whom he paid P70.00 for the license even if the
legal fee then

_______________

54 Exh. I.
55 Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Book II, 1975, ed., p. 219.
56 TSN, January 17, 1984; pp. 16-17.

74

74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dava vs. People

57
was only P15.00. As it was in truth petitioner who
induced and left Manalili with no choice but to seek the aid
of fixers, the fact that it was Manalili and not petitioner
who dealt directly with said fixers cannot exculpate
petitioner from the charge of falsification. He is, beyond
reasonable doubt, a principal by inducement in the
commission of said crime.
Petitioner cannot feign ignorance of the spurious
character of his second driver's license No. 2706887.
Having already obtained a driver's license, he knew that it
was not legally possible for him to secure another one.
Otherwise, there would have been no need for him to
misrepresent to his friend Manalili that he was not then a
holder of a driver's license. But even with this
misrepresentation, petitioner cannot even begin to believe
that Manalili would be able to secure a driver's 58
license
through legal means in about an hour's time. The patent
irregularity in obtaining driver's license No. 2706887 was
more than sufficient to arouse the suspicion of an ordinary
cautious and prudent man as to its genuineness and
authenticity. In fact, Manalili testified that he himself was
surprised when the fixer handed to him the plastic jacket of
the driver's license of Michael Dava on November 4, 1976,59
a
few hours after he had sought the fixer's assistance. In
those days, all plastic jackets emanated from the LTC
Central Office, which accounted for the delay in the release
of the license applied for. Under these circumstances, no
"reasonable and fairminded man" would 60say that petitioner
did not know that his license was a fake.
A driver's license is a public document within the
purview of Articles 171 and 172. The blank form of the
driver's license becomes
61
a public document the moment it
is accomplished. Thus, when driver's license No. 2706887
was filled up with petitioner's personal data and the
signature of the registrar of the San Fernando LTC agency
was affixed therein, even if the same was simulated, the
driver's license became a public document.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016efd64bfc6b701b4c3003600fb002c009e/p/APS671/?username=Guest Page 12 of 15
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 202 12/13/19, 12:01 PM

_______________

57 Ibid., pp. 62; 64-65.

58 Ibid., pp. 24-25.
59 Ibid., pp. 68-69.
60 See: Alarcon vs. Court of Appeals, 125 Phil. 1110, 1112 (1967).
61 U.S. vs. Asensi, 34 Phil. 750 (1916).

75

VOL. 202, SEPTEMBER 30, 1991 75

Dava vs. People

The third element of use of the falsified document is proven

by the fact that when petitioner was apprehended by Lising
on April 12, 1978 it was in his possession and it was what
he presented Lising to show that he had a license. Because
he was a detailman who did his job with the use of a car, it
is probable that from November 4, 1976 (its date of
issuance) until April 12, 1978, petitioner used driver's
license No. 2706887.
The driver's license being a public document, proof of the
fourth element of damage caused to another person or at
least an intent to cause such damage has become
immaterial. In falsification of public or official documents,
the principal thing being punished is the violation of the
public faith
62
and the destruction of the truth proclaimed
therein.
In his attempt at exculpation, petitioner asserts
63
that the
following ruling in People vs. Sendaydiego, should be
applied in his favor:

'The rule is that if a person had in his possession a falsified

document and he made use of it (uttered it), taking advantage of it
and profiting thereby, the presumption is that he is the material
author of the falsification. This is especially true if the use or
uttering of the forged documents was so closely connected in time
with the forgery that the user or possessor may be proven to have
the capacity of committing the forgery, or to have close connection
with the forgers, and therefore, had complicity in the forgery (U.S.
vs. Castillo, 6 Phil. 453; People vs. De Lara, 45 Phil. 754; People vs.
Domingo, 49 Phil. 28; People vs. Astudillo, 60 Phil. 338; People vs.
Manansala, 105 Phil. 1253). In the absence of a satisfactory
explanation, one who is found in possession of a forged document
and who used or uttered it is presumed to be the forger (Alarcon vs.
Court of Appeals, L-21846, March 31, 1967, 19 SCRA 688; People
vs. Caragao, L-28258, December 27 1969, 30 SCRA 993)." (Italics
supplied.)

We agree with the petitioner that the presumption

enunciated in the Sendaydiego case is not absolute as it is
subject to

_______________

62 Sarep v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 68203, September 13, 1989, 177

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016efd64bfc6b701b4c3003600fb002c009e/p/APS671/?username=Guest Page 13 of 15
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 202 12/13/19, 12:01 PM

SCRA 440, 449; Syquian v. People, G.R. No. 82197, March 13, 1989, 171
SCRA 223 citing People v. Po Giok To, 96 Phil. 913.
63 L-33252, L-33253 & L-33254, January 20, 1978, 81 SCRA 120, 141.

76

76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dava vs. People

the exception that the accused should have a satisfactory 64

explanation why he is in possession of a false document.
His explanation, however, is unsatisfactory as it consists
mainly in passing the buck to his friend, Manalili. As
stated above, Manalili himself could not have acted on his
own accord without the prodding of petitioner.
We cannot help but comment on petitioner's allegations
on the role of fixers in government agencies. To him, a fixer
is a "necessary evil" who could do things fast for the right
amount. He is "not necessarily involved in the commission
of forgery or falsification of 65official documents" and he
shares his fees with "insiders."
Fixers indeed appear as undetachable fixtures in
government licensing agencies. Why they proliferate is a
sad commentary not-only on our bureaucracy but also on
our own people. While not all fixers are engaged in illegal
activities for some simply serve as "facilitators," they
nonetheless provide sources for exploitation of the
unknowing common people who transact business with the
government and for corruption of the gullible government
employees. Their -unwanted presence must be dealt with
accordingly and the soonest this is undertaken by our
government agencies the better for all of us.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the respondent appellate
court is hereby affirmed. Let a copy of this decision be
served on the Department of Transportation and
Communication. Costs against the petitioner.
SO ORDERED.

Gutierrez, Jr., Feliciano, Bidin and Davide, Jr., JJ.,

concur.

Decision affirmed.

Note.·The existence of a wrongful intent to injure a

third person is not necessary when the falsified document
is a public document. (Siquian vs. People, 171 SCRA 223.)

··o0o··

_______________

64 Petition, p. 19.
65 Petition, p. 18.

77

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016efd64bfc6b701b4c3003600fb002c009e/p/APS671/?username=Guest Page 14 of 15
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 202 12/13/19, 12:01 PM

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016efd64bfc6b701b4c3003600fb002c009e/p/APS671/?username=Guest Page 15 of 15