GR 170815; (February, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 170815 ; February 2, 2007
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, vs. PRISCILLA LAZARO-BALDAZO, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Priscilla Lazaro-Baldazo, the Municipal Civil Registrar of Bustos, Bulacan, was administratively charged with Dishonesty before the Office of the Ombudsman by her uncle, Ricardo Gonzaga. The complaint alleged she falsified two public documents: a Deed of Donation dated September 18, 1995, in her favor from her aunt Teofista Lazaro-Gonzaga (Ricardo’s wife), by making it appear Teofista executed it when she was allegedly incapable; and Teofista’s Death Certificate, by falsely stating she died in Bustos, Bulacan, instead of at the Philippine General Hospital in Manila. Baldazo denied the accusations, asserting the notarized deed was signed earlier and taken by Ricardo, and that the death certificate was prepared by Ricardo and his sister with her staff’s assistance.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the Ombudsman’s decision finding respondent administratively liable for Dishonesty based on alleged falsification of public documents.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The petition raised factual issues concerning the sufficiency of evidence to prove falsification, which are not reviewable in a Rule 45 petition, as the Court is not a trier of facts. The Court upheld the CA’s finding that the complainant failed to discharge the burden of proof in administrative cases, which requires substantial evidence.
The legal logic centers on the presumption of regularity accorded to public documents. The Deed of Donation was a notarized public document, admissible without preliminary proof of authenticity and enjoying the presumption of regularity. To overcome this presumption, evidence must be clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant. The records lacked such evidence to contradict the deed’s due execution. Similarly, the Death Certificate, as a public document, carries the presumption of having been regularly issued. With both alleged falsifications not duly established by sufficient evidence, there was no factual basis for the Ombudsman’s finding of Dishonesty or the penalty of dismissal. Consequently, the complaint was correctly dismissed.