G.R. No. L-65006 October 31, 1990
REOLANDI DIAZ, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Reolandi Diaz, a senior clerk, sought appointment as School Administrative Assistant I in 1972. A requirement was the submission of a sworn Personal Data Sheet (CS Form 212). In this document, Diaz stated his highest educational attainment was “Fourth Year A.B. (Liberal Arts)” at Cosmopolitan and Harvardian Colleges from 1950 to 1954. Based on this representation, his appointment was approved by the Civil Service Commission. The prosecution established, through certifications from the registrars of the involved schools, that Diaz was never enrolled as a collegiate student at Cosmopolitan Colleges (later Ortanez University) during 1950-1954, nor at Harvardian Colleges in Tondo or San Fernando, Pampanga, during the relevant period. A transcript of records he presented was found to be spurious.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Reolandi Diaz is guilty of the crime of Falsification of Official Document under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court modified the conviction from Falsification of Official Document under Article 171 to the crime of Perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code. The legal logic hinges on the nature of the document falsified. For Falsification of Public/Official Document under Article 171, paragraph 4, the law requires that the falsification be committed by a public officer, employee, or notary who takes advantage of his official position to make untruthful statements in a narration of facts. Here, Diaz was a senior clerk, a public employee, but the Personal Data Sheet (CS Form 212) was not an document he prepared in the course of his official duties. He filled it out in his private capacity as an applicant for a new position. The Court cited People v. Po Giok To, which held that a public officer commits falsification of a public document under Article 171 only when the document is falsified by him in connection with the duties of his office. Since Diaz prepared the form not as part of his functions as a senior clerk but as a personal requirement for promotion, the element of taking advantage of his official position was absent. However, his act of knowingly making a false statement under oath in a document required for a legal purpose (his appointment) constitutes Perjury under Article 183. All elements of perjury were present: a sworn statement before a competent officer, upon a material matter (his educational attainment, a key requirement for the position), containing a willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood. The penalty was accordingly reduced.